The Gift
—by Paul Wilson
Christmas for me is a time of reflection, and whether you celebrate Christmas or not, I feel it is always an important time to remember the real purpose and meaning of life. For me the purpose of life and the meaning of life are two very different things. Different both in application and in belief.
My understanding of the purpose of life and the meaning of life have come little by little—and in a large sense the truths are still unraveling for me. Yet, as I discovered more and more how differently both these beliefs interact with my life, I also began to see how both of these principles are dependent upon each other.
So, for this Christmas I offer, as a belated gift, my insights and philosophies on this subject in hopes that I can give something that has come to mean so much to me. I hope this gift does not come off presumptuous or arrogant. I do not pretend to be an intellectual, in fact, what might seem profound to me may be quite trifle to you. If this is the case, this will neither surprise nor offend me. So, with this being said, I move on to share with you my Christmas gift.
My religious upbringing has ingrained into me that life is a training ground. We exist to be tested, and depending on how we do in this life will ultimately decide what level of progression we will obtain in the next life. As with all things, there is definitely more to this belief, but this is pretty much the core of it.
However, life for me is not just about trying to fill out the right multiple choice answers. Rather, it is also about trying to understanding why I even bother filling out the multiple choices in the first place. Why put your efforts into doing something if you do not understand why you are doing it. Surprisingly, this concept of mind has increased my faith in God instead of diminishing it?
That for me has been the ultimate question in my life—what is my purpose? This question has plagued me for years. I cannot exactly remember when I finally came to find an answer which satisfied me, but it hasn’t been too long.
The purpose of life, for me, is to find truth and to live it as best as you can. I do not subscribe to subjective truth, but I do believe in subjective people. We are intricate beings who are woven with cords of emotional and intellectual complexities. We all interpret differently what we think to be right.
That is why I feel it is important to constantly redefine what truth is to us. Often I see many devout followers of religion (particularly those of my own faith) not seeking to continually discover and re-discover truth. The truth they found at the beginning of their sacred religious pilgrimage never grew from a tiny seed of hope to a mighty oak of faith. Instead, the seed morphed from a seed of truth to a seed of complacency.
Truth is fluid in the sense that as individuals we are unceasingly changing. As Heraclitus stated, “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Like water, truth continuously flows and what was true in your life 10 years ago, is not pertinent today.
That may sound as an absolute, but think of it in another sense. As a child, If you only learned your ABC’s what real benefit would they be to you now if you never formed them into words. Yes, the ABC’s are still considered a true principle, but it is a principle that is not pertinent because you never really developed that particular truth.
For me this understanding has helped me be much more open-minded. I have learned that what I consider as truth is definitely not the end, but rather the beginning, of my understanding. Appreciating people’s ideas who oppose my beliefs has helped me further understand myself and what I believe in.
I learned as a missionary for my church, though, that living truth doesn’t necessarily determine that my life has meaning. I served as a missionary in Southern California from 1996 to 1998. The first six months of my mission I lived a life as close to what I thought was right as possible. I sincerely tried to understand truth. However, I remember after six months of this life I was miserable. I wasn’t miserable because I was living a life of truth, but rather I was miserable because I was living only a life of truth.
Yes, “truth will set you free.” Free from the chains of ignorance. Free from the absurdities of temporal knowledge. Yet, being free rarely equates to happiness. Why? Happiness is not an idea or belief like truth, but an action.
The reason I was miserable as a missionary was that I was not focusing on the meaning of life, and for me, this meaning, which illuminates truth, is love. It wasn’t until several years after my mission that I discovered love to be the fountain of joy, peace, and above all significance in one’s life.
Unfortunately, in the English language we have only one word for love but a thousand different definitions. When I speak of love, I speak of healthy relationships we develop with the people we engage with on a day by day basis.
As I think of all the happy times in my life, I recognize that these memories are surrounded by the love of others. Holding my soon-to-be wife’s hand on our wedding day; my family cheering me as I received my college diploma; and even feeling my unborn daughter move around in my very pregnant wife’s belly; are all memories that have enriched and developed my life.
Death, pain, and suffering are also all teachers in unearthing meaning to one’s soul. For me, I firmly believe that there is love and even truth in personal suffering. Yet, as I contrast my alone times of pain, and the suffering I spent with others, I can starkly see a difference. Though, I believe there are times that detaching oneself from others for self reflection is a must, I have found that suffering alone is a recipe for dark misery, and greater pain; whereas, healing and hope have come about only as I have reached out to others for strength. The pop motivational speaker Tony Robbins encapsulated it well when he stated, “The quality of your life is the quality of your relationships.”
It has been this desired quality that has proven to be guidance in my own life. In my early twenties I was the ultimate networker. I would learn your name, your passions, and your job, within the first minute of talking with you. I was the entrepreneur who continually probed to learn if there was anything you could do for me. Yet, throughout the years as I morphed from self-absorbed to self-aware, I became acutely mindful that I needed to be more on the giving side than the taking with those who I valued. Being a locus which devours a friend of all usefulness was not a friend at all.
Interestingly, it wasn’t until years after making this change in my behavior that I saw the difference. One day I was pondering on what made me the most happiest, and I recognized it was the time spent building memories with my family and friends. I know for many of you this is not a new discovery, but for an ambitious 20-something year old, it was a profound revelation. It helped me recognize that there is nothing so valuable in this world that is worth losing the love of another.
As our nation embarks on some difficult economical times I hope my Christmas gift will linger in your thoughts. No matter how financially destitute you may feel, there is no destitution as great as being void of truth and love. If you pursue for truth continually and strive to love throughout your life, you will always have a divine purpose and a lasting meaning to your existence!
May you have a meaningful Christmas and a purposeful New Year!
MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM UTAHVOICES
Merry Christmas from all of the voices here at UtahVoices.com. May we earnestly seek to find peace for all, and bring joy to all that we may meet! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
Understanding the weakness of the old New Deal before starting a new New Deal
Unlike my good friend Big “P”, I am not an eloquent man. If I really have something to say it takes a while to translate it into the written word and clearly get my point across. BUT I am a voracious reader. And in the great Work and writer George Will those two issues converge. Often times I form an opinion and before you know it, Mr. Will articulates it for me. Very considerate and kind of creepy.
His article in Sundays Desert News is excellent in pointing out some of the key points we may not have been aware of regarding the New Deal. So many people feel that it was the New Deal that saved us from the Great Depression when in fact it was WWII that helped us turn the corner. Quite a price to pay. Now the New Deal has had some lasting positive effects but it has also tied us up in one boondoggle after another.
I just hope that those now pulling the levers of power not only have a grasp on History but have an unbiased interpretation as well.
Tax Cuts – A Simple Lesson In Economics
The progressive tax code is a fairly complicated affair. When it comes down to it most of us can agree on a couple of points. 1) Those who have more can, and to some degree should, pay more. To whom much is given much is required and all that. 2) Everyone should pay something. We all need some skin in the game.
Now when it comes to politics and politicians most use the currency of favors, though some like to call theirs “fairness”, “help”, etc. Often times those favors take the form of tax breaks, whether for the rich, poor, or middle class in effect the candidate is offering a payment for the vote. Quid pro quo if you will. The question is, is it a refund, ie are they returning something you gave them in the first place or is it a gift, giving them something that was not theirs in the first place.
Here is a nice little story from Dr. Kamerschen, lets call it a parable since it is a story with a moral.
Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So, now dinner for the ten only cost! $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being ‘PAID’ to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
”
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia
What are we getting into, or not into as the case may be
First off, based on its first iteration, I didn’t like that it was being labeled a “bail out of Wall Street”. Honestly, if we did nothing then it was everyone was going to take it in the shorts; Wall Street, Main Street, Blue Collar, White Collar, Capitalist, Socialist. The frame work was good, free up the capital markets. Were the details all worked out no, and the devil is in the details. Then what do you know, the politicians get involved. They want to help the families who are going through foreclosure. Then they want to help the perpetually failing Auto industry. What is next? Poorly run businesses go out of business.
In this case a major part of the problem is legacy costs. All the pension benefits being paid to two generations. Did they earn it, well yes, it was part of the contract. The worker fulfilled thier end of the bargain but guess what. The Auto Company of the 60s and 70s wrote a check that the auto company of the new meliium cant cover. And to be honest they never will. To be competitive they need to do something about legacy costs.
Another major issue is the Unions. Why is it that “foriegn” car companies are doing better buiding cars in the American south than the “domestic” car companies are doing in the American north? Besides legacy costs, Unions. They are jacking up wages. Get out of the way. Let wages settle to a market rate for the area. Let the auto companies get back on thier feet, assuming they can transition to a stable of autos for the new melinium, and deal with the fact that the good ole days of Detroit are over.
There are other options than bailing out the big three
Biofuels not to blame for high food prices, report
19th November 2008
Biofuels were not to blame for high crop and food prices during 2008, according to the president and CEO of Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO), Jim Greenwood.
Greenwood said, ‘American consumers should not be fooled by ongoing attempts to misplace blame for this year’s rise in food prices on biofuels. The evidence before consumers is clear: crop prices have fallen dramatically in the past few months as oil and gas prices have declined. A barrel of oil cost $140 in July but is currently less than $65. Similarly, a bushel of corn that was more than $7.50 back in July is now less than $4, even while production of biofuels and other food, feed and fibre demands have all remained consistent.’
Greenwood went onto add that agricultural technology was continually working towards increasing crop yields, resulting in greater biofuels feedstock growth on less land and labeled advanced biofuels as an opportunity for tremendous growth.
‘The nation’s current goal of producing and using 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022 is a tremendous opportunity for jobs and growth. A 2007 U.S. Department of Commerce report projects that this amount of cellulosic ethanol would replace 4.1 per cent of U.S. oil imports, keeping $8.4bn in the US. economy rather than sending it overseas. It also shows that producing this amount of cellulosic ethanol could add $12.6bn dollars to US consumers’ pockets. Production of advanced biofuels could increase US gross domestic product by $4.7bn and, importantly, would add more than 20,000 jobs to rural economies,’ Greenwood added.
BIO represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the US and in more than 30 other nations.
Copyright © 2008 newnet
Jon Huntsman – For President?
by Phil
Wednesday evening, I spotted a very interesting posting by Jonathon Martin in his blog on Politico. The headline read: Add to the 2012 prospect list: Jon Huntsman.
This peaked immediate interest (for obvious reasons) and Martin makes a strong case for Jon Huntsman – something I have been bantering about for weeks.
Huntsman, 48, cuts an impressive figure and has a fascinating personal and political story to tell, including the sort of foreign policy background most governors lack. The scion of a prominent Mormon family, he served as U.S. ambassador to Singapore for Bush 41 when he was in his early 30s, did trade stints in the Commerce Department and was a deputy U.S. trade representative under the current Bush, overseeing trade with Africa and Asia.
The two-term Governor is an impressive figure. But Martin points out that his pedigree isn’t the only thing that puts him in the Presidential mix for 2012.
As any Utah governor would be, Huntsman is in line with the GOP base on social issues. But he takes a more centrist tack on the environment, and had some blunt words for his party on an issue he believes is hurting them with younger voters.
“We as Republicans can’t shy away from speaking the word ‘environment,’ and we shouldn’t shy away from speaking the words ‘climate change,’” Huntsman told reporters at a press conference this afternoon. “When you’ve got a body of science that already is rendering certain judgements about what is happening in our world, for us to shy away, say it doesn’t matter as an issue, I think is foolhardy, it’s short-sighted and it’s bound to do us damage in the longer-term.”
Huntsman also talked fluently about education, energy and health care, making the case, as many of his fellow governors have, that the GOP needs to come up with practical solutions on such day-to-day concerns.
Huntsman represents the sensible faction of the new GOP. The side that George F. Will so fondly deemed the “ABP Republicans” (Anyone But Palin). He’s pretty impressive, especially by Republican standards. There is no denying that Huntsman has done a superb job as Governor. I like Jon Huntsman, and I voted for him twice. I like him because he’s a true moderate and he takes business seriously without giving too much.
He’s worked for more modern liquor laws in Utah, but he’s stayed out of the messier moral issues. He’s not a moral police man – he’s more of a statesman. I like his international ties and his stance on the environment, and although he found himself on the wrong side of the school vouchers issue, that was not a huge deal for me.
The key with him is his ability to manage. He reduced the state budget BEFORE the shortfalls started rolling in. He knew we were having an economic downturn, so he reduced spending prior to the bottom dropping out on the State. That’s pretty gutsy, and quite intelligent. He understands the role of government, and he also understands the role of ACTUAL budgeting. He’s not like the rest of the GOP morons who spend like drunken sailors…he’s smart and he runs the budget like a family does. No money? No buy!
However, I don’t think the GOP will be ready for a serious run for the Whitehouse in four years. The walk through the wilderness is going to take at least eight. In two years, the Mormon issue will still be a caustic one, especially with the Prop 8 blowback. He will get killed by the newly empowered environmentalists because he used to run a chemicals company, and there’s no denying that his resume was padded by a father who was a generous donor to the Reagan campaign. The son of a billionaire Mormon chemical magnate that has had life pretty much handed to him on a silver platter will have a hard time relating to every “Joe the Plumber” that Republicans seem to be so hot and bothered over.
None of this is fair, but that’s politics.
He’s already stated that he won’t return for a third term as Utah’s Governor. Could it be a run at the Presidency? Could be. My hope is that he has designs on taking over for Orrin Hatch when he retires in four years.
Until then, at least we have a Governor who won’t have to borrow money from the RNC for shopping sprees.
The Death of an Ideology
by Phil
Ronald Reagan is dead.
That may be a shocking revelation to many, but the Gipper has left the building. And for the first time since his death in 2004, we can finally send his molested political ideology with him. I admire President Reagan, but it’s time for us to move on.
As I joyfully watch the current Republican party begin their long journey through the wilderness, I am struck by my thoughts of Ronald Reagan. He was MY President…the man who was in charge through the greater years of my youth. I trusted him, I admired him, I felt safer with him and I will always feel a bit angry when those bastards went after him during the Iran-Contra hearings. He was the perfect leader for the perfect days of my youth. Maybe I’m just sentimental, but he deserves his face on a coin or a bill.
But, the Gipper has passed, and he can now take his politics – or the current, perverted version – with him.
This past election has created more than its fair share of historical significance. Undeniable. But one thing many of us are witnessing is the death of an ideology. We watched a political party fall from the tree of America this November, and it was well overdue. What was once was bright and colorful, is now brittle, frail and ready to be added to the compost heap. It’s time to rake the leaves, prune the tree, and move forward into the coming spring. They had it coming, and Ronnie must be rolling over in his grave.
But, before we look forward, we must look back. What happened? Where did it all go wrong?
Ronald Reagan was the perfect leader for America and the world in the 1980′s. He was gilded by the age of McCarthyism and the very real threat of communism. He was elected at a time when an untested, brilliant-minded Democratic President (!) just couldn’t get anything done. He came in and restored a country to economic stability and a new place as the shining city on the hill. He fought the evil empire, and he won.
The amazing ideological victory for Ronald Reagan was his ability to turn the fight against the Soviet Union and communism into a moral battle. He was a very conservative, God-fearing President, and he brought his faith with him to the White House. He used it to rally his country behind a common enemy. This enemy was real, it was foreign and it had nuclear weapons. We believed and we trusted him…and honestly, we didn’t have any reasons not to. And you know what? We won.
The way politics work; the party of record will always take what has been successful recently, and try and apply it to new problems. It has been this way for generations. The Republican Party took the ideology of Reagan and applied it to everything they stood for. This worked for a while, but with a change in times come a change in the challenges. Eric Hoffer once said, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” This is what has happened to the Reagan ideology under the modern the Republican Party. Under George H.W. Bush, it became a business, then under the Gingrich-led congress, and, eventually, under George W. Bush, it became the corrupt racket that it is (was).
The mistakes came not exclusively in the Reagan philosophy itself, but in the way it was applied to different problems in a different time. In the 80′s we all had a common enemy, and a common goal. ANYONE could get behind the fight against communism. But after 1988, the world changed…literally! Cold war philosophies work during the cold war, but when the world changes, so must the way we govern.
Over the next two decades, the Republican Party used this moral battle to fight on a number of fronts. They fought big government (while still growing the government), the environment, abortion, liberalism and Bill Clinton. The problem was, in turning all of these issues into moral battles, they alienated people. It’s one thing to use morals against communism – a lifeless, Godless political ideology of evil – but it’s something entirely different to use the same tactics against your own citizens and their beliefs.
Out of this culture came the Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s of the world, a group of ghouls hell-bent on propagating hate and destroying all that was unclean and unholy – in their own minds. The witch hunting and culture wars that we have seen over the past eight years have shred the very fabric that Reagan wove. This is where the Republicans and their hit-men greatly underestimated America. It worked for a while, and it was given new life when 9/11 hit. But you can only create fear and loathing for only so long. Even when you find a new common enemy – terrorism – the Republicans botched it. The GOP had gotten so used to creating fear to win battles, we turned our fear-mongering towards the world, and one of its largest religions. The new war is not a cold war, it’s a holy war. And now the world views America much differently. So much for being the city on the hill.
Demonization is no way to win elections or trust in your own people, at least not in the long term. That was not what Reagan had intended when he brought his moral fabric to the office. In his speech at the 1992 GOP Convention, he said, “And whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts.” That sounds a lot like the newly elected President, not the party of Reagan!
What the GOP has done over the past 20 years is destroy the very thing that inspired them. They turned it into a racket, and they are now being punished for it. Reagan inspired people, built a trust and a renewed sense of pride in America. This ideology created an entire generation of political thought, but now it’s played out its course. A new direction was charted on November 4th, and it will usher in a new generation of political thought. The irony is it was formed on much the same foundation set forth by Reagan – youth, hope, change and a better tomorrow.
Rest in peace Mr. President. We’ll take it from here.
BOYCOTT THE MORMONS!
- By Chad
So the “BOYCOTT UTAH” cries have begun. The protests against the LDS church are raging. This is laughably ineffective, and it’s such a waste of time – unless you’re trying to make fools of yourselves and counter-productivity is your goal. Here is what I take issue with:
1. I don’t like protesters, in general. I mean, there’s decent protests and then there are silly, time wasting, angry, counter-productive protests like the one I’m seeing in the news. There’s a right way to go about making changes, and there are wrong ways – this shows their true rainbow of colors and it’s not that pretty. So, you didn’t like the outcome of a democratic vote in favor for the opposite of what you wanted, all this vote means is that you have a ways to go to gain mainstream acceptance to the point, when the time comes, you can raise enough counter money to push your own ballot measure to have the amendment changed or removed through another democratic vote.
Here’s a free tip to the protesters: When the day comes that you would like to use democracy (instead of throwing fits) to get what you want, you REALLY want the indifference of those who opposed you to increase – and these protests… not so helpful.
2. So why the LDS church? They weren’t the only donors. There aren’t the only people who voted (there are not 5 million Mormons in California), 70% of African Americans also opposed you – so why the Mormons specifically? First off, we’re an easy target. Not too many other religions will jump to support the LDS Church, and I don’t think gays will take their protests to the inner-cities (just a hunch). Correct me if I err, but I never realized the LDS church had that much influence on the African American community. Since that last sentence was sarcasm, I honestly don’t believe the LDS church does have the influence on the African American communities to cause 70% of them to vote in favor of Prop 8. You may want to consider that two separate groups, and if you think you’re being effective protesting at the Mormon temples, you’ll probably be just as effective in the inner-cities and should plan some protests there. Unless black people scare you more than Mormons, which, then, you are racists. See what I did there?
A major reason the LDS Church is targeted is that the Mormons were the biggest donors to the pro-prop8 cause – not the Church itself, but by-golly, you get some Mormons behind a cause and they run with it.
So the Mormons donated a ton of money, and because of that, Proposition 8 passed, right? Here’s some problems then:
A) I guess that means that the Mormons care more about you not getting married than you do about getting married, if the gays didn’t raise as much money. You may just need to care more about it.
B) If the gays did raise that much money, then it was a fair battle and the amount of donations really should cancel each other out as far as a level playing field. Then you only have to fault your own marketing strategy which would require you to protest at the anti-prop8 headquarters for doing a lousy job.
To sum up: Either You don’t care as much about marriage as the Mormons, or, you just weren’t as effective in arguing your case. Either way, you only have yourselves to blame for dropping that ball and not making it significant enough.
Nobody likes a sore loser.
It’s kind of sad, really. The worst part about it?: The bulk of the anger and protests are directed at the Mormons. Not because it somehow hurts the Mormons, but it’s a very ineffective people to protest to. Have you seen that commercial where the referee was being screamed at by a coach on the sideline, yet the ref had a deadpan face and all that screaming didn’t phase him? The Mormon church is pretty much like that ref. The LDS Church is used to the protests, the bashing, the mud slings, the smears – have you ever been to an LDS General Conference? Protesters are nothing new to them – you’re not going to make a dent.
Which brings up another good point: Fighting fire with fire is probably not effective in this case. I have yet to hear a homosexual behind a microphone saying, “I have a dream that, one day, Mormons and homosexuals will sit down at a table together…” – That’s not the kind of protests I’m seeing. It makes me sick, and should make African Americans everywhere sick, to compare their plight to that of the blacks. I think it would be wise to drop that comparison if you want the indifference of the 70% of African American supporters to increase, too.
The other comparison that is pretty stupid? The comparison to the anti-polygamy movement the Mormons had to face.
A) “Non-Traditional” Marriage: To compare your battle with that of the Mormon’s battle with the government over polygamy as both being “Non-Traditional marriages”, is a loose and bogus comparison. Do you think, in some countries, that muslims who are legally allowed to marry 12 year old girls is wrong, or is it nothing more than a “Non-tradional marriage”? What about Hillbillies that marry their first cousins? That sounds like “Non-Traditional marriage” – “Non-Traditional marriage” is a loose term and carries no weight, let alone any vague comparison to other forms of “Non-Traditional” marriages. I don’t think you want to compare yourselves to some of those “non-traditional” marriages. In fact, there probably is nothing MORE traditional than polygamy. Have you read the bible? Have you studied the histories of ancient, even some modern, societies? Polygamy wasn’t unusual.
B) There was never a vote to strip polygamy or not. The Mormons had no choice. The government intervened and told them, “Stop polygamy or else…”. No democratic vote was ever introduced to allow Mormons the opportunity to democratically oppose it. It was a case where the government, not the people, chose to interfere with religious freedom, which is also what the homosexuals are trying to do – without the success of a democratic election to back them up, they are trying to remove religion’s right to declare that homosexuality is sin and not allowed in their definition of marriage. If you don’t like it, do it the democratic way this country set up, don’t just try to FORCE the issue. You lost. Pick yourselves up, wipe of the dust, and try again.
C) Religiously speaking, Incest was once necessary, right? Otherwise, how did Adam and Eve’s kids multiply? At one point in time the Lord said that it was no longer necessary and a sin if you did it. So that was over. Over the centuries after, polygamy was introduced and sometimes commanded. This continued to move the purposes of God forward – the first big commandment of “Multiply and replenish the earth”. Not to get into too much detail, you are free to look it up in a sex education book, but this commandment required a man and a woman, or a man and many woman would work, and work much faster. When polygamy was introduced by Joseph Smith, it was unpopular and unwanted. Sure, to those who think marriage is all about sex, it may sound fun – but I assure you, there are other reasons for getting married and easier ways to just have sex with multiple women. There was responsibility and care given to those families, widowed women who needed land, and to “multiply and replenish” as well. Often times, natural and external circumstances will be methods God uses as revelation. When polygamy was done, it was made known. It is now a sin because it is no longer necessary. To compare homosexuality to polygamy is absurd.
There are many people who love each other and don’t get married. MANY people. So what’s the problem? Why do you want it so bad? Marriage used to be primarily a responsibility – love only made it easier, but it wasn’t “first comes love, then comes marriage”, usually it was “First comes marriage, then comes love, if you’re lucky”. That got lost in the clouds over time. So, don’t tell me you have the right to marry just because you “love” each other. Love is not the root of “traditional” marriage, either. If it’s simply to further your cause for mainstream acceptance, you need to go about it in a better way than throwing fits. That’s counter-productive. You can’t FORCE acceptance. There are better forms of persuasion, but it’s not going to happen by somehow forcing religions to change their core morals. You can’t do that because they believe their morals are dictated by God, not by homosexuals. You have to find a civil compromise, or you have to keep trying the right way, not by balking at and stomping on the democratic voice of 5 million people. The first time this issue came up in 2000, it was voted in favor of marriage between a man and a woman by 61%. This time it was 52%. At this rate, you may succeed – But don’t expect those who believe opposite not to fight you on it. And remember: You only solidify, even increase, the feelings against it by you behavior when you lose.
The Politics of FEAR – somehow, I’m not scared.
- By Chad
“Fear is the opposite of faith”
I believe political neutrality is vital to objective reasoning when it comes to political decisions we make. Too many Latter-Day Saints don’t really side with the church on political neutrality (not that the church has asked for that) and most of their loyalties lie within the Republican party. Sometimes saying anything contrary to the Republican or Democratic party automatically puts you in the “if you’re not with us, then you’re against us” category. I think getting sucked into the extremely divisive precepts of each party is dangerous, but especially right now, I want to tackle the Republican party, since most LDS, in Utah and other places, are affiliated with them.
Obama got a few more votes than past Democrats in this state, but the margin was still quite large. It’s not surprising, but I think some of the thought behind the decision to vote for McCain instead of Obama is wrong.
An NBC News exit poll showed 20% of Americans are concerned, and 24% are scared. On the flip side 24% were optimistic and 30% were excited. Where do you lie? And what drew you to that conclusion?
Certainly many conservative moral principles that are held by myself and other Latter-Day Saints are within the Republican party, but not all of them. The Church said that good can be found in both parties, and I believe that.
So, if you voted for McCain, was it out of hope and faith for what he could accomplish, or was it out of fear and concern over what Obama might do to this country? Fear and Faith will often lead us to action, but faith leads us to the right action where fear will often take us the wrong route.
I think in the last general conference there was a lot discussed on faith, and hope, and looking forward to the future without despair or discouragement. I think, in contrast, this political contest was filled with a lot of the same “politics of fear” that we are used to, but it’s been worse than I have ever seen it, and it’s almost been one sided.
Here’s how “Politics of Fear” works:
Political races draw a lot on emotion, and they play heavily on the fact that politics have virtually the same effect as cocaine on the brain. But the details are “boring” to the general public. Few people want to watch a documentary, but people love to see dramatic recreations. I don’t want to hear your boring details on recovering the economy, I want to hear the dramatic effect the economy is having. There is little logic and a ton of emotion that goes into politics because logic doesn’t excite passions. Hope in change was really on Obama’s side because of the fear all of us are already experiencing. Most people want change and will cling to that. McCain didn’t have that luxury. He had to battle that, and the greatest thing to oppose hope is fear. Obama had a great potential story – the first black man to be elected president. That is some pathos that’s hard for Repubs to overcome. But fear could take it away. Fear draws the opposing emotion. Fear of the unknown is perfect in Obama’s case. Take it. Run with it.
I, along with many other people I know, were grateful that it wasn’t Hillary Clinton in the White House – but it wasn’t because Hillary was getting smeared over and over by Obama that she lost, it’s because we knew what she was like and Democrats didn’t like it. Yet, she used “fear” against Obama, and this is where the “fear” tactics began and it shifted into the Republican party full speed. I would watch the two campaigns closely. I would watch the speeches and the debates. I would listen to the analysis of both parties on MSNBC and FOX News for a little balance. I saw the same things. This is what I saw:
There seemed to be an 80/20 rule with the campaigns. With Obama’s it was 80% hope and 20% fear: Mostly fear of having another 4 years like the last 8, and a little Keating 5, and Palin becoming president fear. With McCain it was 80% fear and 20% hope (at best). I’m not going to fault McCain on all of it. There were some things that were off limits and he stuck to it, for the most part. Obama’s lack of military experience and Jeremiah Wright were two things off limits. But the other things he brought up such as this fear of his past associations and fears of socialism ended up creating a monster that quickly got out of control. All of a sudden people took hold of that fear and ran with it. The Republican base that he was appealing to with those tactics was embarrassing and sickening, yet it worked for the most part. Emails about Obama’s “terrorist ties” and his “Marxism/Communism” and him being “Muslim”, as if that was a dirty word, were rampant. They’ve drug Obama’s name and character through the mud, calling him a “Terrorist” and “Baby Killer”. I heard that over and over from several different Republicans. When you looked at the rallies the two parties held, one the atmosphere was positive and hopeful, the other was angry and doubtful. Shouts of “Kill him!” were heard, people talking about how mad they were and how scared they were from the McCain rallies. McCain, to his credit, did try to stop some of this near the end, but it was already out of control.
McCain lost. I think he lost graciously. I thought his speech was well written and positive. He looked visibly embarrassed and upset when hearing the boos and jeers when mentioning Obama and unifying behind him. I think he knows that it got out of hand. It’s hard to create so much doubt and fear in the minds of people and then turn around afterword and say, “Well, I lost, oh well, let’s get behind this guy and support him during his presidency”, when people are already afraid of the man because of the political race you ran. If you actually believed any of those things, wouldn’t you say, “America, we should be concerned”, after losing?
I don’t know if the Republicans really stepped back and saw this. Some I have talked to saw it clearly. You know what the Republicans reminded me of? The Anti-Mormons from past to present. They would accuse Joseph Smith of being a terrorist, they would point out his “charisma” as a characteristic of satan. Charisma can be both a positive and a negative attribute that should never be used as an identifier of a person’s goodness or darkness. The fear tactics and smears that the Republicans were shouting from the rooftops reminded me of the fear tactics and smears – the twists of truth into lies – that Anti-Mormons are known for doing. I’m sure many of these extreme right-wing evangelical “Christians” took a page out of that same book for this campaign and it showed. Yet, as Latter-Day Saints, who have been subject to this kind of rhetoric since the Church was formed, how many of us bought into it? How many got sucked into the same fear that has been used against us for so long?
Phil, who writes for Utah voices, did bring up a good point that stuck with me. Mitt Romney was rejected by the Republican party for very similar reasons. He was a victim of this himself and it just carried over. Most people honestly believe he would have won because the economy was such a hot topic. I think if it was Romney or Ron Paul, this campaign would have had a different tone and Republicans may have retained the white house. But the psychos of the Republican party got loose. Romney wasn’t rejected because of his politics or his lack of qualifications vs McCain, he got rejected because he wasn’t “Christian” enough for the party’s base. We can analyze more later, but Huckabee really set that fire and stayed in the race long enough to make sure Romney got out. How should you feel about your undying loyalty to the party that rejects you for not being “Christian” enough? How should you feel about those same people who use the same tactics and methods against Obama, who usually took the high road during the campaign?
Now we can introduce the debate of Democrat vs Republican here, but as far as I’m concerned, neither party has the capacity or capability to really make positive change in this country. I have faith in my Church, I have little to none in our politics. Obama doesn’t concern me any more than McCain did – Obama actually concerns me less. For all the whacked out, psycho, extreme, obnoxious nut jobs that the far-left has – Obama didn’t seem to attract those people to his rallies. If he did, they were tame. On the other hand, it seems like the whacked out, psycho, extreme, obnoxious nut jobs the far-right has, which I never really thought were as many until now, sure were at the McCain rallies in droves. Their ignorance and fear-mongering spread like wildfire and created an even wider gulf between the two parties in this nation. This division is the opposite of unity, that fear is the opposite of faith, and that behavior is opposite of a Latter-Day Saint.
Weather you agree with the Democratic positions on anything, or not, is beside the point in this. After all, there were three states that had pro-family initiatives on the ballot this election, all three states voted in favor of marriage between a man and a woman. The two largest of those three states, Florida and California, also voted for Obama. Maybe this country isn’t set to go to “Hell in a hand-basket” quite yet, after all.
I don’t think Obama is as bad as you may believe. I think he is a good person with a sincere heart. Maybe I’ve been duped. Time will tell, of course, but maybe we should try to have a little faith instead of fear. Maybe change, in this case, is a good thing. What’s the worse that could happen? The economy tanks, we spend our means warring in foreign lands, we lose our homes and our jobs? Too late, people. Let’s give this a shot for 4 years and if it continues the downward spiral, maybe the extreme right-wing will wake up, get practical and put Mitt Romney or Ron Paul on the ticket.