SLC Liberals

Here's a fine representation of foaming-at-the-mouth liberalism, alive and well in Salt Lake City. The argument is ostensibly over "domestic partners", though it ultimately reads "gay rights campaign". It runs downhill from the start.

Inevitable references to Hitler and charges of totalitarianism against Church members and everything related to Utah government.

Leading the charge, another typically scintillating commentary from columnist Rebecca Walsh...

Rebecca Walsh: Anti-gay patriarchy takes SLC to woodshed

The Eaglets were getting restless. While the matrons of the Eagle Forum looked on, state senators debated the doomsday consequences of Salt Lake City's domestic partnership registry - the stuff of conservative creed and eternal salvation, no less.

But these two fledglings seemed to miss the outraged breathlessness of Monday's debate; they were bored. So while practicing sign language flashcards, they pretended to pick their noses.

And on the Trib's comment blog, some choice words from the elite cadre of SLTrib readers, who claim to deplore Utah Senator Chris Buttars because of his "hateful" demeanor:

These folks aren't like parents; they are like Nazis, who also persecuted gay people.

And Mormons wonder why us liberals remain silent when Mitt Romney runs into a buzzsaw of evangelical Jesus Freak bigotry?

Oh, the irony, the irony!

I suspect that "Mormons" seldom wonder why liberals remain silent in any circumstances -- since there is no evidence that they ever do.

Inevitable reference to Nazis -- one of the standard themes of liberals characterizing those who don't share their bias.

A certain local organization headquartered at 50 E. N. Temple presumes to direct every little detail of its members' lives, down to choice of beverages and underwear. Its silence on this hatemongering by some of its members is deafening. Apparently its leaders, both the recently-departed and the living, have abdicated their role as prophet, seer and revelator to certain reactionary elements within their society.

That group should be called The Church of Chris Buttars and Gayle Ruzicka, at least until those two individuals are hauled before a bishop's court for mean-spiritedness and making the church look silly!

This comment starts off with the standard complaint that Church leaders dictate everything to members. But then rolls into a contradictory assertion that leaders have now "abdicated".

Most ironic in all such spiteful and antagonistic tirades are charges of "hatemongering". You can always invalidate logical argument by calling it "hate speech" or something equally ambiguous.

And then there's the perfect illustration of why we avoid using terms like "compassion", which are an exclusive liberal trademark. Another editorial gem in today's SLTrib, from Rebecca Walsh, liberal warrior for gay rights and whatever else violates the laws of reason and legality. In her lexicon, liberals have shifted toward the middle to become "moderates", while everyone who has read the Bible becomes a right-wing fascist.

Ten years ago, LDS General Authority Marlin Jensen gave Mormon faithful permission to be Democrats.

We all know how well that went.

Now, Jensen has been dispatched to speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency on immigration.

"I believe a more thoughtful and factual, not to mention humane, approach is warranted and urge those responsible for enactment of Utah's immigration policy to measure twice before they cut," he said last week.

In house editorials, the church-owned Deseret Morning News has called on lawmakers to pause in their rush to demonize and purge Utah's undocumented immigrants. LDS Apostle Elder Russell M. Ballard signed an Alliance for Unity statement against a bill that would repeal in-state tuition for undocumented students. And Jensen, the urbane and moderate face of the church, called out legislators in direct and pointed language, saying immigration is a moral and ethical
issue - code for legislative intervention from South Temple.

Walsh now has me convinced that Elder Jensen is an ally in her pro-lesbian camp, and Elder Ballard has joined the Gay Alliance to ensure that Church members get their measure of compassion. Remember, the term "compassion" equates to a morality that withholds judgement of sin and evil, and lovingly embraces whatever "alternative lifestyle" form of depravity happens to be in vogue. And "moderate" means anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton.

I'm trying to understand why the SLTrib would mount a smear campaign like this.

They're the ones who are always harping on "the great divide" -- the gulf that separates Church members from "normal" Utahns.

This has all the looks of a nuclear bomb set between us. I'm thinking of burning down the SLTrib editorial offices myself.

Political Musings III: Illegal Immigration

Deseret News article revisits this issue -- Debate resumes over illegal immigrants' status in LDS Church.

Comments made by an LDS Church leader this week again stirred debate in Mormon circles about whether the church should baptize illegal immigrants or allow them to enter its temples.

"The church's view of someone in undocumented status is akin, in a way, to a civil trespass," said Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventy, relating it to coming onto someone's property uninvited. "There is nothing inherent or wrong about that status."

Elder Jensen's comment came Wednesday during an interfaith forum on immigration at Westminster College in response to an audience question.

While I admire Elder Jensen's charity, he apparently misspoke in asserting that there is "nothing inherent or wrong" about illegal trespass. It is clearly a violation of the law.

Elder Jensen's analogy goes too far in attempting to paint illegal immigration as benign and harmless. The attendent issues are fraught with difficulty, starting from the assumption of legal and financial liabilty, including welfare and taxation, and continuing on to more esoteric considerations such as cultural integration and nationalism.

If matters were as simple as someone merrily tripping across my front yard to ring the doorbell, the subject would not be attracting the kind of attention it currently draws.

The basic issue turns on our responsibilty to honor and sustain the law. Even when we believe the laws are wrong, or when we think application of the law results in some kind of injustice, we are obligated to continue to act within legal constraints. Elder Dallin H. Oaks has addressed this issue in public comments -- Some Responsibilities of Citizenship Dallin H. Oaks, America’s Freedom Festival at Provo, Marriott Center,July 3, 1994.

Even when victimized by what they must surely have seen as very severe government oppressions and abridgments of freedom, the Mormon people and their leaders have remained loyal to their government and its laws....As long as a government provides aggrieved persons an opportunity to work to enlarge their freedoms and relieve their oppressions by legal and peaceful means, a Latter-day Saint citizen's duty is to forego revolution and disobedience of law. Our doctrine commits us to work from within. Even an oppressive government is preferable to a state of lawlessness and anarchy in which the only ruling principle is force and every individual has a thousand oppressors.

In this campaigning season, some suggest that interest in this issue is all about pandering for votes.

While that is obviously a factor in bringing this issue to the forefront, apparently Church leaders see it as a greater priority -- not just the election scheming that dominates the news just now.

I looked at this issue a while back on my blog --

Political Musings II.

In the early openings of this legislative session in Utah, the Utah legislature met with LDS Church leaders in a sort of advisory session. One of the messages from the Church was a suggestion that illegal aliens deserve a lighter treatment than the current harsh rhetoric in legislative consideration seems to indicate.

The context here is that Utah lawmakers are now sponsoring a number of new laws to deal more harshly with the problems of illegal immigration in this state. Perhaps the suggestions from the Church were intended to be a word to the wise. He that hath ears...

We'll see.

I am thinking too that it cannot be a small consideration for the Church to look forward to a large pool of potential converts in this tide of illegal immigrants.

Several years ago, I heard this idea suggested by an area representative who was addressing our stake conference.

More recently, a general conference address from President Hinckley, deploring racial discrimination.

When a man grows old he develops a softer touch, a kindlier manner. I have thought of this much of late.

I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. We are involved in terrible wars with lives lost and many crippling wounds. Coming closer to home, there is so much of jealousy, pride, arrogance, and carping criticism; fathers who rise in anger over small, inconsequential things and make wives weep and children fear.

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.  (Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Need for Greater Kindness," Ensign, May 2006, 58-61)

President Hinckley's words cut me deeply at the time he spoke them. I still feel myself condemned, as one who has often been guilty of enjoying "racial slurs and denigrating remarks".

I'm still trying to be better.

When I get to considering the human issues involved in the illegal immigration picture, I am reminded of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables.   Jean Valjean, condemned to a lifetime of servitude, because he tried to steal bread to help feed his starving family. The underlying message of the story is that the society he lived in created the environment of privation and repression that led to his criminal act. The evil part of his society and culture imposed every effort to create an evil man. And still, through many twists and turns, the story eventually celebrates the triumph of freedom and good will.

Human need and suffering has to be a significant consideration in weighing the law and circumstances that result in someone breaking the law. I don't know how to measure or judge these things -- I'm just a foolish old man. But I know that they must be in our thoughts, if we ever wish to understand the truth of such matters.

Legalizing -- bad idea

Supporters of a certain candidate in the current political campaigning have been talking up the issue of legalization of illegal drugs. Some of these self-identified "libertarians" scoff about comparing the potential harmful effects of marijuana against the known evil consequences of alcohol abuse.

We are compelled to make that comparison, obviously, because it is useful.

How could we reasonably expect that legalized marijuana would have a more benign social impact than legalized alcohol?

At one time, the people of this society supported a ban on alcohol. But it proved to be unpopular for reasons other than the fact that the consumption of alcohol has serious negative consequences. I suggest that the biggest reason prohibition failed is because it foiled Satan's purpose to ensnare us in evil habits.

In any case, it seems rather specious to argue for legalization on the basis that marijuana might prove somewhat less harmful than legalized alcohol.

Let's also not pretend that legalizing this stuff is a new idea. I was listening to the same arguments before I was in high school, and they were not new then.

There is always a running debate about whether civil law should attempt to "legislate morality". The root of this argument is itself suspect, since laws must be based in moral values, or they aren't worth much.

Creating laws that proscribe socially costly or damaging behavior has no effect on free agency. Free agents always have the ability to make their own choices. In the case of behavior that is illegal, those making a choice have added incentive toward legal alternatives. But they can still choose for themselves.

A free society does not exist in a moral or legal vacuum. In a perfectly ordered society, perfectly preserving personal freedom, everyone would voluntarily obey the laws, because we would all have the knowledge and understanding that these laws are based on correct principles.

I find the argument that legalized marijuana might be somewhat less damaging than alcohol to be less than compelling. I could argue with just as much enthusiasm that legalized machine guns would inflict less damage than legalized tactical nukes. Not a convincing rationale, either way.

I think the facts are unmistakably clear. Substances containing drugs with side-effects that alter perception or impair judgement are not suitable for legalized unrestricted consumption. We're all fully aware that the most damaging social impact from alcohol consumption has nothing to do with livers or stomachs.

As I see it, there are two obstacles which must be overcome in order to legitimize marijuana use. First, to prove that the net benefit is greater than any possible negative impact and social cost. And second, to insure that control and marketing of marijuana products don't follow the same track as, say, historical tobacco products.

A bit of additional appropriate sermonizing...

Quoting from Glenn L. Pace,"They're Not Really Happy," Ensign, Nov 1987, 39

Activities always forbidden by the Lord and for many years frowned upon by society are now accepted and promoted by that same society. The media serves up these activities in such a fashion as to make them look very desirable. Add to acceptability and desirability the power of peer pressure, and you have an extremely explosive situation.

Lehi’s vision of the tree of life is appropriate for our day. In that vision, he saw a great and spacious building, which represents the pride and temptations of the world:

“And I … beheld … a great and spacious building; …

“And it was filled with people, both old and young, … and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who … were partaking of the fruit” (1 Ne. 8:26–27).

Even though you have a testimony and want to do what is right, it is difficult not to be drawn to the great and spacious building. From all appearances, the people in the building seem to be having a great time. The music and laughter are deafening...

They look happy and free, but don’t mistake telestial pleasure for celestial happiness and joy. Don’t mistake lack of self-control for freedom. Complete freedom without appropriate restraint makes us slaves to our appetites. Don’t envy a lesser and lower life.

An interesting side note -- In today's news it was announced that the Church officially supports a measure proposing to remove certain alcoholic beverages from the list of those approved for sale at grocery and convenience stores, "that the sale of distilled spirits....should be restricted to state liquor stores." Commentary in the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune.