A Black Columnist's Take On Obama

I get tired of all the race, gender, political-correct garbage we are forced to deal with nowadays. I personally believe that if our society were truly enlightened then we would treat people as we want to be treated ourselves, and we would give opportunities and jobs and scholarships to those with the most qualified skills/accomplishments. Rather than call our situation 'informed' based on the number of ethnicities and genders represented, I think a situation will only be truly 'informed' when it includes the merits and ideas that are representative of the best available.

I think it is time to look at Obama by himself out from the shadow of Jeremiah Wright, Harvard, the color of his skin...Lets look at Obama, the politician.

This article was written by a journalist who happens to be black. I believe that his approach is the way we all should be in reviewing politicians: erase all the stereotype descriptors and focus on the essentials of what the politician is and stands for. Then you will know what you will end up with. The other stuff is just fluff and doesn't amount to anything.

If you'd like to read the article on the New York Sun site, click here. Or you can read it below.

Beyond Obama's Beauty
By KENNETH BLACKWELL
February 14, 2008
"[C]ivilizational war is real, even if political leaders and polite punditry must call it by another name."
— Robert D. Kaplan in the December 2001 issue of the Atlantic Monthly

"It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong Il, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich."

How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban — ban — on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and — yes — they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war. "

Mr. Blackwell, a fellow at the American Civil Rights Union and the Family Research Council, is a columnist for The New York Sun, and a contributing editor for Townhall.com.


48 comments:

Stephanie said...

In my opinion, Obama is running an extremely effective campaign by, for the most part, ignoring the policies and politics and focusing on the "Change" message and pep rallies. (Change to what? Who cares? We hate Bush.) Until the Wright issue came up, he did very few interviews in comparison with Hillary and McCain. As long as he can remain a political rock star, he'll do well.

Anonymous said...

Conservative dislikes liberal! News at 11!

Amy, can you give us an example of how nowadays (as opposed to formerly) "we are forced to deal with" "race, gender, politically correct garbage"? I mean, how have you been FORCED to deal with this stuff? Who's holding the gun to your head?

Well, OK--maybe your expression was just a bit of rhetorical overkill, the ritualistic repetition of a tiresome conservative cliche. Maybe all you meant is that you're tired of people arguing that race and gender still matter. (But of course, they DO matter, even to you: I don't believe for a minute that Blackwell's race was completely irrelevant to your decision to post his column!)

Just so you'll know, I found myself laughing out loud when I read your post's opening paragraph. I mean, c'mon, Amy--you're a member of a Church that until recently had an affirmative-action race-and-gender quota policy that reserved 100 percent of its priesthood opportunities for non-black males. And your church STILL has an affirmative-action race-and-gender quota policy that reserves 100 percent of its priesthood opportunities for males.

Why is it that conservatives don't see their own sexism and racism as forms of affirmative action?

Anyway, Amy, if you agree with your church's current gender discrimination, then you do NOT believe that positions should be awarded based solely on merit.

You do NOT "personally believe that if our society were truly enlightened then...we would give opportunities and jobs and scholarships to those with the most qualified skills/accomplishments."

Sure, you believe this meritocratic ideal should be observed by public institutions, and also by private institutions like private colleges and universities,* but you do NOT believe in it as a general principle. You believe in "meritocracy for thee, but not for me."

In case you're wondering, I oppose affirmative action, just as I oppose racial and gender discrimination in ALL its forms, and just as I believe in meritocracy as a general principle. Personally, I don't believe these principles should be tossed on the garbage heap just because some guy (oddly enough, a white male!) once said God told him to.

Just sayin'.

--David

*I wonder if you oppose (or even know about) the practice of "legacy admissions," which award college-admission slots to underqualified applicants who are children of alumni. (I believe this is how George Bush got into Yale.) These applicants overwhelmingly tend to be white.

Amy said...

David, I was actually hoping that the irony of wanting to be non-partial to gender/race/etc and mentioning that the author of the article was black himself would occur to someone. I wrote it like that on purpose. Afterall, if people are reading it and thinking "oh wow, even a black columnist says we shouldn't take gender or race into consideration..." it shows how much people still take a person's culture or ethnicity into consideration when evaluating the authenticity of the source. To be COMPLETELY where I think true enlightenment would be, the title would have been "A Journalist's Take On Obama". However, I already said I wrote it like that on purpose hoping someone would catch onto the irony.


And David, you continually misunderstand our religion. Personally I feel like I have just as much priesthood opportunity as my husband, but that comes from understanding what the priesthood actually is and accomplishes rather than focusing on labels for auxilary within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But, I wouldn't expect someone like you who has only experienced our religion from a seculary scholarly angle to understand that.

Amy said...

And yes David, I do know about the practice which you refer to as legacy admissions. I believe it is pretty common at universities around the world, not just the ivy league in America. But rather than get into it here, maybe someone else can write an actual post about it to truly dig into all the political ramifications it provides.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for missing the irony, Amy.

As for having only "experienced [y]our religion from a secular scholarly angle," that's true enough. I concede that I cannot understand this issue from your perspective. Then again, I cannot understand, say, Sufism from the Sufi perspective--yet I think I'd be justified in saying that Sufism is not, say, Kantianism. It's based on different principles, and you don't have to be Sufi to understand that. Ditto for my claim that your own beliefs are not, at root, meritocratic. No one has to be a Mormon to know that the priesthood policy is not in any meaningful sense meritocratic.

There are all kinds of plausible arguments that can be made in support of the priesthood policy. Plausible arguments, but not meritocratic arguments--not arguments based on the principle of individual merit rather than group membership.

If you're an orthodox member of the Church, it seems to me your beliefs can only be meritocratic in those areas where the Church does not subordinate meritocracy to other principles (such as revelation). This is rather like affirmative action supporters who also believe in meritocracy--except when they believe it must be subordinated to some other principle (such as their notion of social justice).

It's all well and good that on some experiential level you feel as you do about the priesthood, but then again there are plenty of LDS women (and some excommunicants as well!) who see things rather more like I do.

--David

Amy said...

From an internal perspective, the power of the priesthood is seen and known as the power to serve other people. This power or "callings" of the priesthood is not seen as something that is sought after and is certainly not merit-based.

The churches of the world define the rights of the priesthood as being able to lead a congregation in prayer and speak/preach to the congregation. In other churches priesthood allows women to teach, pray for, and do everything that women are allowed to do in the LDS church. In addition to the privileges that other churches give women, the LDS church allows women to lead, organize, and participate in the largest and oldest women's organization in the world, the Relief Society. The LDS church does not limit a woman's power or capability, but gives them more authority than other churches in the world give. Women are revered as mothers with the ability to carry and give life. Other churches have not fought for families and the role of WOMAN as much as the LDS church.



Well, back to the issue at hand in the post: namely, gender/race/minority representation.

There is no one holding a gun to my hand, however, this issue has impacted me in a very significant way. I am currently attending nursing school in San Francisco. A school that is going to leave me 100k in debt when I finish. People often ask me why on earth I commute an hour each way to go to this school. My answer? Because I am forced to.

Ok, so maybe I am not in a life or death situation which is forcing my hand. But, I feel forced in the fact that all the community colleges in my direct area are afraid of getting sued so they have gotten rid of "traditional" entrance routines (ie. letting people in based on GPA and applicable extra-curricular experience) and admit people in such a way that they are guaranteed to have a full spectrum of diversity. How do I know this? Because back circa 1991 one of the community colleges got taken to court by 2 girls who claimed ethnic minority discrimination. The girls lost the case, because there were other girls of the same ethnicity with better grades who had gotten admitted to the nursing program the same semester. However, because of the cost and the fear surrounding the situation all the community colleges changed their procedures for admission so that any blame for not getting in can't be laid at their door.

So what does this mean? That people with a straight C average have the same chance of getting into nursing school as a person with an A average. You can work your tail off on the prerequisites to only sit around for the next 4 years waiting for your name to be drawn. I've had this happen to friends of mine.

Because I don't feel like I have 3+ years to sit around and cross my fingers that I get picked for the program, I decided my time was worth more than my money and I applied to a private university who still takes applicants on a performance-merit basis. I am on a timeline, and don't have half a decade to waste siting around waiting to go to nursing school. If I was able to go to the community college right away based on performance (because I would have gotten in with my GPA) I would have been paying $16/credit unit instead of $1000/credit unit like I am currently paying.

So I'm caucasian--sue me. (don't take that literally).

However, I will point out that as a caucasian I am a minority in my private, merit-based university. The majority of people in my university are the same ethnicity as those girls who sued my local junior college because they felt they were being discriminated against.

I really do believe that if we were in a society that really did reward based on mad skills, there would be a fair representation of ethnicities. To assume that it wouldn't be so is pretty condescending. The reason why it isn't so now, is because we don't live in that kind of society.


Just another reason to look at Obama and every other politician as politicians, instead of black, white, yellow, purple, or any other descriptive ______. Afterall, what we'll be dealing with a politician doing political things.

The Wizzle said...

Well, that article did have a good premise (one that, incidentally, had occurred to me all on my own - to evaluate a candidate based on their policies and their ability to lead the country as opposed to their race, gender, religion, hairstyle, or astrological sign).

But other than that, it is not news to me that Obama is a "liberal" candidate. I am an American who leans, as repeatedly documented, to the left. Significantly to the left. So I'm really sorry that it doesn't bother me that I might possibly elect a candidate who represents more of my personal beliefs than not, but there it is. Everyone votes for the candidate they want to win (I think, anyway - that's the simplest explanation) and I'm not a "middle of the road" American so it's really, really fine with me if my "chosen" candidate holds views that are not middle of the road. Ideally, that candidate would be someone who could implement some of those policies without making everyone in the country who doesn't hold the same views feel disenfranchised.

*Oversimplification alert!*

You feel that conservative values are better for the country - would you be insulted if I posted an article insinuating that because the conservative candidate should be discarded for holding views that are not straight down the middle? I mean, I know it's a democracy and everything, but I'm guessing that some (or even many) people are not going to agree with all (or even many) of the policies of One Person who is in a leadership position (ie the President). There's only one of him or her, there's 301 million of us.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was meant for our readership at large (right? It is a very large readership, surely!) and not take it personally. I appreciate the thought, but it is possible for a person to have thought something through and still disagree with you!

Yes, Obama is somewhat of an unknown. He is young. He is relatively new to national politics. But I'll give it a chance. At least there's a chance that it will be better than the current administration, which I don't see with McCain. That is a known quantity, and I don't want it, thanks anyway. And frankly, I think the Clintons and Bushes have been in power long enough. I'd take Clinton over McCain, but I am ready for a change and I'm glad I still have the option.

Anonymous said...

Amy, your educational nightmare is a great example of the value of meritocracy.

Not to change the subject or anything, but I thought this story, about the kind of corruption taking place right under our noses, is worth a read. It makes me despair of our ever defeating terrorism as long as the fight against it is seen by so many as merely an opportunity for profiteering. Three cheers for the New York Times for uncovering it.

--David

Stephanie said...

That is a disgusting story. I am glad the NYT uncovered it (did I really just say something positive about the NYT?)

Stephanie said...

I mean, c'mon, Amy--you're a member of a Church that until recently had an affirmative-action race-and-gender quota policy that reserved 100 percent of its priesthood opportunities for non-black males. And your church STILL has an affirmative-action race-and-gender quota policy that reserves 100 percent of its priesthood opportunities for males. Why is it that conservatives don't see their own sexism and racism as forms of affirmative action? Anyway, Amy, if you agree with your church's current gender discrimination, then you do NOT believe that positions should be awarded based solely on merit.

Anon David – to believing Mormons, this statement of yours would be incorrect. We believe that Christ is at the helm of this church. When changes are made, it is because Christ directs those changes through revelation.

The priesthood is the power and authority to act in God’s name. It is given by God through very specific lines, and is given according to the work to be done. Considering that the priesthood itself is the power and authority to act in God’s name, I suspect that the amount we have on the earth is a very small portion of the entire priesthood power that God has.

We also know very little about our Heavenly Mother and what kind of power and authority she has. I do know that I have the ability to create life within me, and creation is a power of God, so I suspect I share that power with Heavenly Mother, but I don’t know much more beyond that. Just because I don’t currently have knowledge about it doesn’t mean it’s not there or that I won’t someday inherit some or all of it.

With this as the background, who says the “church” has quotas and discrimination? Christ is at the helm, and the priesthood is God’s power to give or not to give. It is not the prophet or leaders who decide this. It is not the “church” who decides this. It is God. So, what you are really saying is that God is sexist and racist. That’s fine if that’s your opinion. I don’t agree. I think it is the people of the earth (the "natural man") who are/were sexist and racist. God's plan for us is to help us overcome that natural man and become more like Him. In the meantime, He works with us (and the cultures surrounding us) on His timetable, not ours.

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, you write that "It is not the 'church' who decides this. It is God. So, what you are really saying is that God is sexist and racist. That’s fine if that’s your opinion. I don’t agree. I think it is the people of the earth (the 'natural man') who are/were sexist and racist."

I honestly don't get this. I think you're being misled here by the way that feminism has succeeded in making "sexism" a bad word.

If God says "Men can have X authority but women cannot," I don't see how one can avoid saying God is sexist. If he isn't then what exactly does "sexism" mean?

I suspect the reason you're reluctant to affirm that God is sexist (that God makes important distinctions based on sex) is that you've come to believe that sexism is bad, and that God cannot be bad, so that ergo God cannot be sexist.

Also, it's not me who is saying "that God is sexist and racist." I don't even believe in God. I believe humans create their gods. I believe that racist and sexist humans create racist and sexist gods to legitimize their own racism and sexism.

If you believe that the sexism in your church is demanded by God, then it is YOU who is saying God is sexist. (Of course, that does not preclude your belief that other, non-ordained forms of racism and sexism are human rather than divine.)

Sounds harsh, I know--just trying to be honest.

--David

Stephanie said...

No, David, the reason I am reluctant to affirm that God is sexist is because I honestly know that God is not. No part of my being thinks God esteems my husband above me because he is a man. I don't believe that God choosing to give the priesthood power that is now on the earth to men esteems men above women. The priesthood is the "power and authority" of God, but it does not give men authority over women. Priesthood power is given to serve, so if men use it properly, they are serving others.

You are assuming that God giving the priesthood to men somehow relegates me to a lower position. It doesn't. This is why I wrote the whole paragraph on Heavenly Mother and her power and authority. I just don't know what it is, so I am not going to assume that because I don't know that it doesn't exist or that I someday won't have it.

David, I don't believe sexism is demanded in my church. That is my whole point. Sexism is created by man. Perhaps unrighteously justified by so-called "authority" assumed by holding the priesthood on the part of some unrighteous men, but definitely not demanded by God or the church.

I believe that racist and sexist humans create racist and sexist gods to legitimize their own racism and sexism. I believe this is true - some religions do this.

Stephanie said...

In fact, probably most. And I know that a lot of people in our church do this because they misunderstand God and the priesthood.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess at this point our differences hinge on the definition of sexism. To me, sexism is the belief in or existence of sex-based distinctions that allocate authority on the basis of sex, whether or not it "esteems men above women." You apparently think that such distinctions are not sexist if they do not denigrate women. Sounds to me kinda like "separate but equal," but anyway, there we are.

We've been discussing the sexism question in the narrow context of priesthood policy. But there are also all the blatantly sexist aspects of the Bible, plus the dearth of meaningful women characters in the Book of Mormon, in comparison to which the Bible looks like a chick flick.... All these, not just the priesthood policy, shape my perception of the Church's sexism.

I doubt we'll ever agree on this one, but at least you've gotten a glimpse of how things look from the outside, as I've gotten a glimpse of how they look from the inside.

--David

Amy said...

yep Wizzle, I posted the article expecting the liberals to say something like "this is what I want" and the conservatives to say either "this is news to me" or probably "this is why I'd rather have McCain."

Mostly I liked the article simply because it was saying 'if you get Obama, this is what you'll get politically' rather than all the 'we need to have a black president' and 'if a black man doesn't get elected it will show how narrow America still is and how far we still have to go for civil rights!' which maybe you don't hear so much, but I hear pretty regularly. I'd rather have a liberal president that people elected because they wanted a liberal president....not because of what he looks like and what politically-correct ramifications they think it will have for minorities.

Stephanie said...

David, I agree – we’ll have to agree to disagree. :) I think our main difference is our perception of priesthood. Although priesthood is “authority” to act in God’s name over a specific responsibility, I don’t think that is synonymous with “authority” to rule or reign. And, when it is misused or misrepresented (as in, “I have the authority to [some misuse of power] because I have the priesthood”, well, that’s not the priesthood that is bad or the fact that men have it that is bad, that is the fact that the person holding it is misusing it. I think it is misused a lot.

I don’t know if “separate but equal” is quite how I would describe it because my husband and I aren’t separate as we do our work and fulfill our goals. We truly are one for all intents and purposes. “Harmony” is a way a wise person put it.

There are a lot of really horrible stories about the way women are treated in the Bible. Here are a few reasons I think this is so:
1. The wickedness of the people themselves
2. The culture at the time
3. Misinterpretation or deliberate omissions down the line – one good example is the story of Lot’s daughters where it appears that he offers them to be raped to men who want to rape a visitor. However, the Joseph Smith Translation shows that it is missing the words that make the meaning “DON’T take my daughters and do this evil”. I suspect that if Joseph Smith had had the time to do more translations that we would see more corrections like this. We know that plain and precious things have been removed from the Bible.
4. The Bible has a lot of history that tells stories that happened, but not necessarily God’s opinion of them. Just because the story is told in the Bible, doesn’t necessarily mean that God condones the behavior. In the Book of Mormon, it is clear to see when God is pleased and when He is not, but it is not so clear in the OT.

Yes, I agree that we don’t have many named women in the Book of Mormon. All I know is that Nephi on down say that they only write the essential parts of what we need to know in our day. That doesn’t mean that the women and what they did wasn’t essential, but if what we do have is what was the most essential to include, then we just don’t have everything else. In fact, looking at this from the perspective that God is no respecter of persons, does it really matter if the stories we do have are of women or men?

I know there are women in the church who don’t agree with me, but I am speaking for myself and my own understanding.

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, I don't want this to come across the wrong way, but your post reminds me of why, on the one hand, the LDS Church has been and will continue to be successful but, on the other hand and IMHO, does not have and maybe never will have a serious theology.

Why not? Because it has built-in mechanisms for easily explaining away things that other religions have to grapple with. Those mechanisms are: continuing revelation, the early death of a prophet in the midst of an extensive biblical revision, and the general idea of the Bible's errancy and incompleteness as handed down to us.

So, plural marriage used to be essential to exaltation, and now it's not even permitted? In other religions such a shift from necessity to anathema might require some adroit theological footwork, but in the LDS Church it's no problem at all. Continuing revelation!

So, the Book of Genesis plainly says that Lot offered up his daughters to be raped in the place of the visiting strangers? In other religions that might suggest, say, the necessity for a certain kind of sophisticated approach to reading. It might call for the development and justification of a hermeneutic that see Lot's offer as symbolic of his high regard for the ancient ethic of hospitality. But in the LDS approach that kind of tough intellectual work is optional. One can continue to read the text at the most naive level because its most challenging features can simply dismissed as wrong. Just revise it to make the problem go away--problem solved!

You get the picture. On the one hand such E-Z responses oil the gears of LDS theology and smooth the way for the reader. On the other hand, I don't envision a Mormon theologian ever writing something like Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling."

Personally, speaking now as a Jew who despite his agnosticism still feels a bit of pride about his people's contributions to the masterpieces of world literature, I tremble to think of how badly Joseph Smith might have bowdlerized Job or Ecclesiastes had he lived long enough....

--David

Stephanie said...

Because it has built-in mechanisms for easily explaining away things that other religions have to grapple with.

Or, perhaps it truly does explain things that other religions can't. :)

Anonymous said...

Explanations are easy. Every religion offers up plenty of 'em.

It's truth that's such a bear.

How does the LDS Church explain the power and influence of the Pope? Like all timeless truths, it depends on when you ask. (Sarcasm alert!) At one time, the explanation was that the Devil was at work trying to impede the LDS program by building up false religions that would lead us astray, and the Catholic Church was the Devil's most successful effort. Today, as I understand it, the explanation is that, well, I've never seen an explanation of this particular U-turn. I'm sure that explanation has nothing at all to do with the way 19th-century-style anti-Catholicism has become un-PC. More likely it has something to do with the human fallibility of the Church leadership.

Of course, the Heaven's Gate belief in that spaceship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet also had something to do with the human fallibility of that religion's leadership.

For me, the essential problem is that no religion has ever offered me the slightest reason for believing its explanations over some other church's (much less those of science). God resides in the region of Kolob? Uh, sure. Brahma blazed into being 1,000,000,000,000,000 years ago? Okey dokey. Allah dictated the Koran to Mohammed? Whatever.

So many explanations, so little truth....

One last thing. I don't want you all thinking that I'm a skeptic while you're believers. That's only one way to look at it. Another way is to think of the skepticism we share. Like me, you don't believe in Thor, Jupiter, Satan, Vishnu, Dagon, Ashtoreth, or any of a thousand other gods that have been sincerely and devoutly worshiped over the millennia.

What skeptics you are! Don't you know that if you truly looked in your hearts you'd obtain a testimony to the truth of Hindu scriptures? The only reason you're not a Molochian is because you have not given the Molochian Spirit a chance to enter your heart. And what if Mohammed was right--do you truly think it's worth risking the loss of the eternal bliss of Paradise through your stubborn unbelief?

Of course I'm parodying the "arguments" I hear from believers. But it's true that every believer is also a skeptic. Like me, you disbelieve in thousands of gods. The difference is that I disbelieve in one more.

--David

Stephanie said...

David, would you like to know why my testimony is so strong? I was raised in a Mormon family (my dad left our family and the church when I was a teenager). Growing up, I didn't know exactly why we did the things we did, I just felt that I would be happy if I lived the teachings of the gospel. I went to BYU, got married in the temple (struggled there for a few years but had faith that I would understand certain things at some point). After my second son was born, I realized that something was really missing from my life. I decided that I needed to start a regular program of scripture study. I have read the Book of Mormon multiple times since then (I've also read the New Testament and am slowly getting through the OT). Each time I read the BofM, I learn more and more truths - some from what I read, some from inspiration I receive, some from connections I make. I know that the Book of Mormon is true scripture because I read it and feel its truth. Considering that this church is the only church that embraces the Book of Mormon (besides the offshoots), it is the true church to me. It may not be perfect, and all the people in it, even in leadership, may not be perfect. But, this is the most truth I see in the world. I am a seeker of truth. I believe there are absolute truths, and I believe that although most all churches have some pieces of truth, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has the most.

I don't mind you encouraging me to be skeptical. I am naturally skeptical of most everything. But, when I find truth, I know it.

P.S. I think you are right with the Catholic thing. It is unPC to say. But, when I read the BofM, I think it is pretty clear exactly what it is saying.
P.P.S. You could continue your argument that if I read the Koran, I would have a testimony of it, but I don't think so (although the Koran does share some parts with the OT). I think I am pretty good at discerning truth.

Amy said...

I have an idea!

How about if we stick to politics and political discussion on here and keep the religious discussions out of it? As best as possible at any rate? After all, the country is supposedly set up to keep church and state separate, so somewhere someone thought it must be possible to discuss politics without continually harping on about which church people attend and why. This site, according to my understanding, is for political discussion, propelled by LDS bloggers, not for religious discussion. Perhaps I am mistaken?

Maybe we could get some more really great political discussion if that is what we stuck to in these threads.

Stephanie said...

Okay, sorry for the threadjack, Amy.

Jackson Howa said...

I'm waaaaaaay too tired to write out all the things that were wrong with that article (eg: Canada has universal healthcare and many Canadians pay lower taxes than us).

I do have one question though: Why can't we talk about religion on PoliticaLDS.com? Seems like religious political conversation is what was intended...

Stephanie said...

And yet a lot of Canadians come to the U.S. for healthcare because they don't want to wait months or years to see a doctor. Or, once they come here for medical/chiropractic school, they don't want to go back to Canada because they can't earn enough there with socialized medicine (I have two friends like this).

Anonymous said...

I don't mind talking about religion on here.

It is interesting though that David always seems to respond to posts by suggesting that we as Mormons aren't fit to defend our beliefs because of some other belief that contradicts the post. I rarely hear a solution from David regarding the post, it's usually just "well you obviously can't believe that because your religion believes this" or What he says to Amy, "Anyway, Amy, if you agree with your church's current gender discrimination, then you do NOT believe that positions should be awarded based solely on merit.

You do NOT "personally believe that if our society were truly enlightened then...we would give opportunities and jobs and scholarships to those with the most qualified skills/accomplishments."

David, using that same logic I will assume that you are bisexual. If you were heterosexual or homosexual you would also be sexist (and unfit to judge Obama purely on principals) as you would prefer one gender over another (and all of your arguments would become invalid).

I am in no way offended by any of Davids comments, just amused that he has yet to address Obama outside of telling Mormons their own beliefs.

I honestly would like to hear Davids take on the actual theology of Wright's church, all Mormon issues aside.

Anonymous said...

Matt, first my take on Wright's controversial theological claims: they're stupid. Not, however, any stupider than some other theological claims I could mention....

Second, my habit of saying "if you agree with X, then you cannot believe Y." This is actually a courtesy on my part.

How so?

If you argue X and I argue Y, and the source of our disagreement is a disagreement over first principles we are each unwilling to relinquish, then all argument stops. (Some rancorous substitute for true argument might continue, of course, but the argument itself becomes impossible at that point.)

So what I try to do is to pitch my argument to my audience by STARTING with a principle they presumably believe. If I were constructing an argument (say, against the Federal Marriage Amendment) I might start this way:

Look, my dear opponent. You say you're a conservative. As a conservative, you presumably believe in maximal personal freedom and minimal, limited government. As a conservative, you also presumably believe in federalism and state's rights, because, as many conservatives have argued, state governments are closest to the people, and also because it's important that the 50 states have the latitude to make their own laws as much as possible. The result is a sort of ongoing natural experiment in which various new policies can be tested to see which ones work.

And yet here we have a case where you, supposedly a conservative, are saying that the federal government should dictate to the individuals how they should conduct one of the most personal aspects of their lives, even though there's no clear danger to others in their doing so. Worse, you're saying that to achieve your decidedly un-conservative ends, the federal government should override a state government! Here we have a perfect example of using different state policies to test the worth of a new social innovation, and you want to throw your conservative principles in the toilet and end the experiment before we even know the results.

My dear opponent, if you are truly a conservative, you would not support the FMA, you would OPPOSE it. If you persist in supporting it, you should be honest and admit that you're not a conservative. A Christian authoritarian, perhaps, or maybe just a Limbaugh-style blowhard, but certainly not a conservative.


I don't know if any conservatives would find that argument persuasive or not. (No, wait, I DO know--Andrew Sullivan, at least, finds it persuasive. I believe Dick Armey does as well.) The point is I have at least done my conservative interlocutor the honor of taking his values seriously enough to use them as the starting point of my argument.

Why people find that upsetting, I don't know. Perhaps because of what it reveals to people about themselves--people who consider themselves to be conservative or Christian or whatever, but really aren't?

Stephanie said...

Nope - I don't buy your hypothetical argument. Here is why: even though there's no clear danger to others in their doing so. This argument would only hold true in a country where everyone truly is interested in letting other people live their lives without interference. The problem is that there are agendas right and left. I could care less what other consenting adults do behind closed doors. If I could be safely assured that my children wouldn't receive some type of indoctrination in the name of "diversity training" at school, I might be more interested in opposing a FMA.

In general, the problem I see in our nation is that in granting everyone else their "rights", the rights of my family and my children are getting stomped on. Sex offenders have the "right" to assimilate into society. That leaves me with the "right" to watch my children 24/7 since I can't let them ride their bikes around the neighborhood alone. This is where I turn from libertarian to conservative: when I know that other people are not respecting my rights and the rights of my family.

Anonymous said...

David, I appreciate your example, but I'm going to have to agree with Stephanie on this one.

For me, this comes down to natural laws (This is what the founding fathers based the constituton on. No, everybody does not have to believe in this idea, but I do. I believe in the God they believe in, and will continue to uphold my beliefs as long as I live in the "promise Land". I will not let the minority become the majority.

Like Stephanie, I too have to worry about what will be taught to my kids as they will attend public schools one day. (I hope Arizona does not outlaw home schooling as California has, as it may be my only good option).

Anonymous said...

Stephanie says she's worried that her children are getting indoctrinated in school, and therefore we need to amend the United States Constitution to prevent gay couples from marrying.

Makes sense to me!

There are agendas right and left, ergo, Stephanie's agenda is sound and mine is not.

Makes sense to me!

Stephanie and her family have rights, while the people she dislikes (and their families) only have "rights." This despite the fact that the gay couples who won their historic court case in Massachusetts were actually able to name a genuine constitutional right (I believe it was the right to equal protection of the laws) and convince a court it was being violated, while Stephanie does not manage to name any endangered right of her own. What right is she talking about?

Apparently it's the right to raise her children without having to worry about them being abused by a sex offender. But guess what: There is no such constitutional right. Guess what else: "Married gay couple" does not equal "sex offender." And guess what else: Even if one member of a married gay couple is a sex offender, that sex offender is no more likely to move in next door to Stephanie simply by virtue of being married.

I'm guessing that there is at least potentially some logic here, at least potentially some argument, though Stephanie has scarcely begun to retrieve it out of the murky waters of anti-gay bigotry and paranoia in which
she's currently fishing. That argument seems to be something like this: "Gay marriage will help normalize homosexuality, and I, the fierce protectress of my children, in the name of whose protection all is fair, don't want those children living in a world where homosexuality is considered OK. And therefore I will fight any proposal that tends to make homosexuality more accepted."

I suppose one could try to flesh out that argument and make it persuasive to people who think, but it would be an uphill battle.

Pardon my snippy tone. But please cut me a little slack and remember that at least I did not do anything as odious as Stephanie has just done. At least I did not cavalierly equate millions of law-abiding gay people to sex offenders. Looking back over my own post I'm a bit chagrined at my own snippiness. But imagine if I had written this: The problem I see in our nation is that in granting everyone else their 'rights', the rights of my family and my children are getting stomped on. Mormons have the 'right' to assimilate into society. That leaves me with the 'right' to watch my children 24/7 since I can't let them ride their bikes around the neighborhood alone for fear they'll be indoctrinated by the missionaries.

I would never dream of making such a statement. I would never dream of suggesting Mormons do not have rights, or that Mormons pose a danger to my kids, or that I have some sort of right to live in a Mormon-free neighborhood.

The fact that Stephanie can suggest such bigoted things about gay people and not get called out for it (what's up with the rest of you guys?) suggests the depth and breadth of contemporary homophobia.

--David

Stephanie said...

David, I never equated sex offenders to gay people. That is a stretch. I was merely giving another example of my rights as a parent being trampled on. You are using your own agenda to twist my words.

Stephanie said...

And this is why we as a society probably won't be able to have a civil discussion on the matter, which is very disappointing.

Anonymous said...

Imagine a time when people would get together to discuss a question like, oh, "Should black people have the same rights as whites, or not?"

There's a certain incivility built into the question itself. The mere fact that the discussion must take place at all speaks to a lack of civility.

Anyway, you wrote this earlier: "This is where I turn from libertarian to conservative: when I know that other people are not respecting my rights." Given the context, those "other people" would seem to be people working to legalize gay marriage. If not, who are they? If any case, what rights are you being denied? How are they being denied you? You still haven't told us.

Stephanie said...

Is this Anon David again? You (intentionally?) left off the last part of my quote “ . . . and the rights of my family”. Specifically, the right of my children to attend high school without receiving instruction on homosexuality and my right as a parent to opt out of stories about two mommy families being read to my kindergartener. These are two examples of my concerns.

You yourself told us that you pitch my argument to my audience by STARTING with a principle they presumably believe. So, you start with the assumption of “You sexist, racist, bigot Mormon” and then require me to defend myself against that instead of discussing the issue at hand.

If you actually cared about having a civil discussion, you would have initially asked for examples of how I feel my family’s rights would potentially be violated. Instead, you went straight to accusing me of “anti-gay bigotry”. You make all sorts of accusatory remarks: saying that I “dislike” gay people, saying that I did something “odious”, saying that I have a “depth and breadth of homophobia”. I said and did NOTHING OF THE SORT in ANY case.

It seems to me that your agenda is to prove that we [conservative] Mormons are bigots. So, this game of you calling me a bigot, racist, sexist and then requiring an explanation to defend myself - it’s not fun anymore. You’ll need to find someone else to play with.

Anonymous said...

As you wish, Stephanie. For the record, though, I'll just say that when you speak of "the right of my children to attend high school without receiving instruction on homosexuality and my right as a parent to opt out of stories about two mommy families being read to my kindergartener," you're speaking of things that are not rights. What you do have is the right, the same right as your pro-gay counterparts, to help shape the school curriculum by participating in your school district's democratic processes.

--David

Anonymous said...

David I assume you also think we Mormons are "racist, bigot, sexists" if we believe illegal immigration should be enforced. That is fine, call us whatever makes you feel good. I like to believe I stand my ground with my beliefs and don't let name calling by others scare me away from my positions just because my views aren't P.C.

I think being P.C. is what this is all about. I will not change my views on gay marriage as it will lead to one more exception. What will be next, legal under age sex? It will never stop. I have no problem with gay people. I have known and worked with them but as they have views not shared by me or the God I choose to worship and the God this country was founded by, I will not change my views just because it's become popular to accept gay marriage.

To me, as cruel as it may sound, gay relations are not condoned by my God. Sure, call my God a bigot as we already know he is sexist. I would rather believe in this God than to believe that I (something) came from nothing. Like it or not, you (something) also were created from (something). I like to call this something God. With this belief, I will one day answer to my God, and I choose to uphold my beliefs despite the fact they aren't P.C. In fact, most things that are P.C. aren't views my God holds, and therefore, not views I share either.

Anonymous said...

Matt, I understand perfectly well your God's views on homosexuality and gender roles. That's one of the reasons I repudiate him. It's nice to see you acknowledging them (and yourself) as sexist and homophobic. The difference between us is that I think those are bad things and you think they're good things, or at least necessary things, to the extent they're commanded by your God. In your case, God said it, you believe it, and that settles it. No problem.

It is indeed, as you say, about PC--in this case, about sexists and homophobes who are too cowed by PC to openly acknowledge who they are. These days it almost seems as if it's easier for gay people to be out about their homosexuality than it is for homophobes to be out about their homophobia. That's a good development, IMHO, though you might find it uncomfortable at times. In any event, I applaud you for the non-PC honesty of your post.

I also got a chuckle out of your classic "slippery slope" fallacy.

--David

Stephanie said...

No, David, you're wrong. I have parental rights that recently have come under fire because they are implied and not explicitly stated in the constitution (do you really think our founding fathers anticipated a day when liberals would try to take these rights away?). The David Parker case in Massachussetts is a good example. The court allowing same-sex marriage in Mass. paved way for the school to disregard David Parker's right as a parent to opt his son out of curriculum related to homosexuality.

Stephanie said...

Actually, the humor I see in this is that liberals keep trying to say people have a "right" to health care. I don't see that in the constitution. Such hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

David, I know I gave a pretty weak slippery slope example but honestly when does it stop. 50 years ago gay marriage was "unthinkable". What if in 50 years from now Under age sex is made legal because it eventually becomes P.C. Does that make it OK?
I completely understand that some of these issues have no beef if one does not hold a belief in diety, as there is no fear of punishment, but as most Americans do believe in God, don't they have a right to uphold their beliefs as the majority, homophobes or not?

Anonymous said...

The slipping stops wherever it stops. Two hundred years ago the marriage of people from different social classes might have been unthinkable. People might then have said, "Where will it stop? Pretty soon we'll have blacks marrying whites. Hmph." And they were right! For quite some time now we've had interracial marriages, and oddly enough (despite what Brigham Young had to say on the matter) the world has not fallen apart. And it might well be that after a hundred years of gay marriage the world will not have fallen apart either. I've yet to see a single piece of evidence suggesting otherwise.

I've been around awhile, and I'd say that while liberal-reformist energies are never exhausted, they only work for so long in any given channel. FWIW, we should remember that pedophilia WAS considered OK in ancient Greece. Arranged marriages, including marriages of girls to older men, are still OK in many places. Polygamy is still common worldwide (and of course was considered a good thing in 19th-century Mormon Utah). I'm not saying any of these things are morally right. I'm just saying these things were and are practiced in fully functional, often quite admirable, civilizations, and did not lead to further descent down any slippery slope. Mormon polygamy did not lead to bestiality. Ancient Greek pedophilia did not lead to the the molestation of four-year-olds. Traditional Muslim societies are often polygamous, yet quite prudish in other ways. Today's liberal gay-rights supporters are themselves quite prudish in certain ways (e.g., their obsession with sexual harassment, with some guy telling a racy joke to a co-worker). I'll bet any movement to normalize human-animal sex would get shot down by animal-rights activists....

As for your suggestion that the majority has a "right to uphold their beliefs as the majority," consider two things:

1. As I'm sure you know, under our constitutional system of government, there are some rights that cannot be abrogated by a majority. Yes, the majority rules, but only so long as it doesn't violate the fundamental rights of everyone else. If the Supreme Court were to hold that the Equal Protection clause applies to gay people seeking marriage, then the majority cannot legitimately ban gay marriage, no more than the majority could ban marriage between blacks and whites.

2. Despite the above, gay marriage could still be banned via a constitutional amendment such as the proposed DMA, but now we're talking about 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress, plus majority votes for approval in 3/4 of the states. The 3/4 requirement means that any 13 states can block an amendment. IIRC, the Equal Rights Amendment enjoyed majority support nationwide but failed because there were at least 13 states that would not ratify it. It's quite possible that the FMA might make it out of Congress but then eventually fail at the state level because the following liberal-leaning or libertarian-leaning states do not ratify it:

Massachusetts
California
Hawaii
Oregon
Washington
Alaska
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Connecticut
New York
Rhode Island
New Jersey
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota

Could happen. The point is simply that if the Supreme Court were to rule that legislative gay-marriage bans violate gay people's rights to the equal protection of the laws, then no--the majority would NOT "have a right to uphold their beliefs as the majority." (Ditto for the more likely scenario of the court ruling that other states must recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts.)

Remember, the Founding Fathers did not like the idea of "majority rule." (Remember also that the Massachusetts State Legislature has had ample opportunity to begin an amendment process that would outlaw gay marriage there, but they've declined to do so.)

You asked, "As most Americans do believe in God, don't they have a right to uphold their beliefs as the majority?"

Depends on what you mean. I would answer that "they," the religious majority, have exactly the same rights as nonbelievers to use all constitutionally permissible means of achieving their own vision of a good society. If believers can band with their fellows to pass constitutionally permissible legislation, then more power to them. But they certainly have no right whatsoever to "uphold their beliefs" in ways at variance with the Constitution.

And if the nonbelievers can persuade enough of the more liberal or libertarian of the believers to join them in a coalition to achieve their ends, then tough nuts to the conservatives.

Even if the result is (if only in hindsight) blatantly unfair, like, say, the "separate but unequal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, there's not much to be done about it except to double down and get back to work finding some constitutionally permissible means of eventually getting your way.

Religiosity is irrelevant. Constitutionality is everything. We're not a Christian nation; we're a constitutional republic. By that I mean very specifically that the arbiter here is the Constitution, not God. If Utah were to pass a law requiring senatorial candidates to have a Temple Recommend, the Supreme Court would throw it out on constitutional grounds, regardless of whether God thought it a good law. Even if God "rules" in some ultimate or spiritual sense, in the legal sense, the Constitution rules. It's a good thing, too, since we all have different gods (or no god at all) while we all have exactly the same Constitution.

--David

Stephanie said...

The point is simply that if the Supreme Court were to rule that legislative gay-marriage bans violate gay people's rights to the equal protection of the laws, then no--the majority would NOT "have a right to uphold their beliefs as the majority."

This is why liberals are using the court system to change laws regardless of popular vote.

It's a good thing, too, since we all have different gods (or no god at all) while we all have exactly the same Constitution.

I agree with you, David, that the constitution is what should rule and protect our freedoms - to worship or not to worship. This is why conservatives want to elect a President who will appoint strict constitutionalists, not the kind of judges who will impose their own agenda.

Stephanie said...

I have never really bought the argument that because pedophilia was common in ancient Greece, it is normal or should be allowed. "Ancient" Greece isn't a good example. It is "ancient" for a reason.

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, ancient Israel, in contrast to ancient Greece, was decidedly strict about sexual mores, yet it's every bit as "ancient" as ancient Greece.

What you seem to be arguing is that ancient Greece's normalization of pedophilia caused Greece's downfall. Maybe that's true and maybe it isn't, but you're merely asserting it, albeit a bit slyly.

We do know for a fact that ancient Greece, despite its pedophilia, had tremendous value for civilization and was in many ways quite admirable. Ditto for ancient Israel, despite its genocidal tendencies. We do not whether either culture's decline was actually caused by its sexual mores.

I mentioned ancient Greece not as an argument in favor of pedophilia--merely as an example of a society whose loose sexual mores did not lead to a "slippery slope" descent into total, anything-goes chaos. It was part of a refutation of Matt's fallacious claim, not a positive argument in its own right.

By "strict constitutionalists" do you mean "strict constructionists"? If so, you should be aware that Antonin Scalia, who is certainly conservative, has said he is "not a strict constructionist and no one ought to be.... A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Strict constructionism, like any systematic theory of constitutional interpretation, has its strengths and weaknesses.

One problem with strict construction is obvious in the recent gun control case: what do you do when the Constitution's grammatical construction and semantics are themselves ambiguous? Obviously, you argue that one meaning should be preferred over the other, but you can't base those arguments on the text itself, for the obvious reason that it's the text itself whose meaning is at issue. So you appeal to things outside of the text--which means your "construction" of the text's meaning is no longer "strict" (i.e., based strictly on the text).

(In one way it's kinda like the Holy-Spirit-testimony thing. Sure, the Book of Mormon says it's true, but how can a text testify to its own truth? I could write The Holy Book of Davidism and preface the book with a statement attesting that the entire book is inerrant truth, but that attestation by itself would not prove very convincing. To do that takes some evidence from outside the text, hence the B of M's instruction to ask the Holy Spirit whether the book is true. Just as no writing can ever by itself guarantee its own truth, no writing can ever by itself resolve its own ambiguities. Big problem for strict constructionism.)

Ironically enough, the liberal, gay plaintiffs in the Goodridge case (which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts) tried to use a strict constructionist argument themselves. The majority decision includes the following: "The plaintiffs argue that because nothing in that licensing law specifically prohibits marriages between persons of the same sex, we may interpret the statute to permit 'qualified same sex couples' to obtain marriage licenses, thereby avoiding the question whether the law is constitutional."

That is, nothing in the text of the law specifically prohibited same-sex marriage. A truly strict construction would hold that the government may not sanction anyone without specifically being given that authority by the laws. If the law says marriage licenses may not be given to siblings and cousins, but the law does not mention gay people at all, then the true strict constructionist, especially of the conservative variety, can only conclude that the state lacks the authority to deny that marriage license to any gay couple who are not cousins or siblings. The law clearly specifies who can be denied and why, and the state may not go beyond what the law actually specifies.

Obviously, you could argue that when the marriage-license statute was passed no one ever dreamed that gay couples would try to get married, and that's why the law does not mention them in its list of who may not get a marriage license--but at that point you're no longer being a strict constructionist.

At that point you're arguing that, because of substantial changes in the culture, changes in the public understanding of morality that could not reasonably have been foreseen by the makers of the original law, the wording of the law must be interpreted not strictly but more broadly. The wording must be understood to mean something that strictly speaking it never actually says.

A true strict constructionist would have to say something like this: Sorry, folks. The law as written, and as strictly interpreted, simply does not give the state the authority to deny marriage licenses to gay couples. If you don't want gay people getting married, then the legislature will have to pass a new law or amend the old one so that gay couples are included, along with the siblings and cousins and whatnot, among the specifically prohibited categories. Until that happens, the state must either 1.) allow otherwise qualified gay couples to obtain marriage licenses, or 2.) petition for an injunction to keep that from happening until the legislature has had a chance to act. You might not like that--but the law says what it says, and you can't go claiming it also says things that it simply does not say. Any court that says the law says more than in fact it does say is not interpreting the law--it's making law!

Kinda ironic that in Goodridge, it was the gay couple that used strict construction to argue they should be allowed to marry. It didn't work--the gay couple won the case, but that particular argument was rejected. The court decided not to apply the strict construction standard proposed by the plaintiff, but instead what looks to me like an original-intent standard.

If you're interested in these sorts of things you might want to check in at Balkinization, where Jack Balkin has been laying out the case for his own version of living constitutionalism.

Stephanie said...

What you seem to be arguing is that ancient Greece's normalization of pedophilia caused Greece's downfall.

Yes, I do feel it was a major contributing factor. I admit I am looking at this through my "LDS" eyes. The Book of Mormon shows good examples of 2 civilizations who were destroyed when they turned from God and morality. I do think the same thing happened to ancient Greece (yes, I definitely put pedophilia in the class of "wickedness" - adults should not prey on children to satisfy their own sexual desires).

You are correct - I did mean constructionist. Sorry - I was distracted by my kids begging to use the computer.

Stephanie said...

I don't agree with the idea of a "living" constitution. Yes, the constitution does need ammendments from time to time (Mike made a good case for that, I believe), but I am afraid that if we accept a "fluid" document, it will quickly become something we don't recognize anymore. And I am afraid it would be hijacked by the left, like the left is attempting to hijack the courts. Personal opinion, of course.

Anonymous said...

OK, Stephanie. Peace out, everyone.

--David

The Wizzle said...

Good thing we don't have to worry about the right hijacking the courts or the constitution.

Stephanie said...

I found a post on another blog about racism in the church that relates to this discussion we had here. It is excellent. Here is part of it:

Bruce R. McConkie speculated more than any other apostle about the racial issues of his day. After the revelation lifting the priesthood ban in 1978, he said:

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more."