Early on November 8th, 2000, I quickly checked the news in my college dorm before heading to an early morning institute class. I had gone to sleep thinking that George W. Bush had defeated Al Gore in the election, but learned that no clear winner could be established in Florida, thus leaving the presidential race still undecided. I had supported Al Gore during this election (although I was about 3 weeks shy of 18 on election day and unable to vote), primarily for a combination of his plans for education, the environment, and the economy.
As my institute class finished, I was anxious to leave so I could catch up on the details of the election. My teacher asked me why I was in such a rush. I told him I was “eager to find out if there was a chance that Al Gore might become our next president.” As I said these words, I saw a look of horror and disbelief cross his face. “How could you support a man who says it is okay to kill a baby?” he asked incredulously.
The topic of abortion is one of the most divisive in politics, and we are all aware that religion plays a huge role how people judge this issue. My institute teacher provided a perfect example of one who saw this issue in black-and-white terms. Either you are pro-life or you want to kill babies.
Another example: In this election, my wife has decided to support Barack Obama. Discovering this, an extended relative of hers began to write her probing e-mails asking her the same types of questions. “Barack Obama is ‘pro-abortion,’ how can you support him as president?” Despite her efforts to explain her views, both that she sees abortion as a much more complex issue than just a two-sided viewpoint, as well as the fact that she is supporting for him many issues outside of abortion, she has thus far been unable to reach common ground.
My wife and I share similar viewpoints on abortion. Like many politicians, Republican and Democrat (incidentally including Al Gore and Barack Obama), we don’t like abortions, and think there should be fewer of them. However, to us abortion is the negative side effect of a larger problem – unwanted pregnancies. Problems aren’t solved by treating the symptoms, and this is a deeply-rooted social situation that can’t be solved by a mere law or court decision. It requires a holistic effort, one that most ideological viewpoints would agree on in principle if they would stop arguing about the situation and work together to make a change.
In a recent article in the Ensign (monthly journal released by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Apostle Russell M. Nelson touched on this same topic to express the Mormon view on abortion from a religious perspective. He expressed plainly how Church policy is opposed to abortion, and how it is not in harmony with our religious doctrine. However, he did note that there are rare cases when an abortion may be an appropriate decision (including rape, incest, significant threat to the life of the mother, or when it has been determined by a doctor that the baby would not survive childbirth). He also spoke of the importance of alternatives, especially adoption.
Abortion is certainly part of an important social issue. However, I feel many approach this issue in the wrong way, or even worse, use it as a political tool with ulterior motives. No matter what our views on abortion may be, I think most people can see that simply expressing our opinion on the issue or scrutinizing others' viewpoints on the issue accomplishes very little. Let’s all try and find ways that we can solve the greater social needs collectively, rather than squabbling over the right way to apply a band-aid.
DISCLAIMER:
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
“Stick to the Weather:” The Memo I Never Got
I have heard that in order to avoid discord, there are two topics that should not be discussed among friends. The first is religion (we have long since broken that rule with this blog). The second topic is politics. Even worse than these two topics individually is that scary world where the two seem to collide. Since I am feeling particularly daring, for the next couple of weeks, I want to test these dangerous waters.
Most of you by now are familiar with my religious persuasion. I feel it might be useful to briefly address my political beliefs as well as I begin this post. I am a moderate (I’m a real one, I swear, not one of those people who says it to try and sound smart). I have never been registered as favoring any political party, and believe that the middle-ground viewpoint on any given issue tends to reflect the most effective solution to any given social problem. I believe that democracy is the best form of government we currently have at our disposal, but that there is no “one-size-fits-all” form of democratic government that can be applied universally. Ultimately, I believe that the real power behind any government is the level of civic participation in the democratic process.
Now to add religion: Essential to democracy is the freedom for people to worship as they see fit. If that means no religious worship whatsoever, then people have that right as well. Government policies can reflect the moral viewpoints of their constituents, but should not be justified solely on the religious beliefs of politicians or others. To preserve true religious freedom, a secular government is a necessity. Any government based on a singular religious viewpoint is setting themselves up for hypocrisy.
In the United States, the most contested social issues are often influenced by religious beliefs. Politicians are expected to state their viewpoints on these issues when running for office. Unfortunately, these issues have become very polarized for many, and are most easily digested in a simple, black-and-white format. This further obscures these issues and leads to political and religious discord. Many contest that on certain issues, there are only two opposing viewpoints. These viewpoints are often interpreted as the “religious” viewpoint and the “non-religious” viewpoint.
In Mormonism, religion seems to have an enormous impact on politics. Mormons tend to be very cohesive, and over the past few decades, this cohesion has somehow fixated for many on the Republican Party in the United States. Utah is consistently the most “Republican” state in terms of national voting, and it seems as if this may be a growing trend. This has occurred despite the fact that church leaders have consistently stated a neutral viewpoint concerning parties and candidates. Though many tend to associate Mormonism closely with the Republican Party, there are many Mormon politicians who hold prominent positions within the Democratic Party. This includes current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid from Nevada, who holds the highest political rank that any Mormon has ever held in the legislative branch.
Notwithstanding their stated neutrality concerning party politics, church leaders do encourage their members to actively engage in the civic process. They also “reserve their right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church” (LDS Newsroom). These cases often becomes the high-points of political controversy, both when church leaders do speak out on certain issues, or when they do not speak out on others. The instances of when the Church has taken an official stance on an issue are very few, but when they do happen, they stir up quite a bit of discussion. Over the new few weeks, I hope to look at a few of these cases. This week, please begin discussing these issues that you find most interesting. To prepare you, I will tell you that for sure we will address abortion and the Proposition 8 (definition of marriage) amendment in California.
Most of you by now are familiar with my religious persuasion. I feel it might be useful to briefly address my political beliefs as well as I begin this post. I am a moderate (I’m a real one, I swear, not one of those people who says it to try and sound smart). I have never been registered as favoring any political party, and believe that the middle-ground viewpoint on any given issue tends to reflect the most effective solution to any given social problem. I believe that democracy is the best form of government we currently have at our disposal, but that there is no “one-size-fits-all” form of democratic government that can be applied universally. Ultimately, I believe that the real power behind any government is the level of civic participation in the democratic process.
Now to add religion: Essential to democracy is the freedom for people to worship as they see fit. If that means no religious worship whatsoever, then people have that right as well. Government policies can reflect the moral viewpoints of their constituents, but should not be justified solely on the religious beliefs of politicians or others. To preserve true religious freedom, a secular government is a necessity. Any government based on a singular religious viewpoint is setting themselves up for hypocrisy.
In the United States, the most contested social issues are often influenced by religious beliefs. Politicians are expected to state their viewpoints on these issues when running for office. Unfortunately, these issues have become very polarized for many, and are most easily digested in a simple, black-and-white format. This further obscures these issues and leads to political and religious discord. Many contest that on certain issues, there are only two opposing viewpoints. These viewpoints are often interpreted as the “religious” viewpoint and the “non-religious” viewpoint.
In Mormonism, religion seems to have an enormous impact on politics. Mormons tend to be very cohesive, and over the past few decades, this cohesion has somehow fixated for many on the Republican Party in the United States. Utah is consistently the most “Republican” state in terms of national voting, and it seems as if this may be a growing trend. This has occurred despite the fact that church leaders have consistently stated a neutral viewpoint concerning parties and candidates. Though many tend to associate Mormonism closely with the Republican Party, there are many Mormon politicians who hold prominent positions within the Democratic Party. This includes current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid from Nevada, who holds the highest political rank that any Mormon has ever held in the legislative branch.
Notwithstanding their stated neutrality concerning party politics, church leaders do encourage their members to actively engage in the civic process. They also “reserve their right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church” (LDS Newsroom). These cases often becomes the high-points of political controversy, both when church leaders do speak out on certain issues, or when they do not speak out on others. The instances of when the Church has taken an official stance on an issue are very few, but when they do happen, they stir up quite a bit of discussion. Over the new few weeks, I hope to look at a few of these cases. This week, please begin discussing these issues that you find most interesting. To prepare you, I will tell you that for sure we will address abortion and the Proposition 8 (definition of marriage) amendment in California.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
A Word to the Wise
You may have noticed Mormons steering clear of illegal drugs. Not too strange, right? Others may have observed Mormons refraining from smoking and alcohol. This also is generally acceptable in most cultures. The most astute of you might also be aware that Mormons do not drink coffee or tea. Now we are stepping into peculiarville. All of these consumption-related Mormon habits are part of what is commonly known as the “Word of Wisdom.”
To many Mormons, the Word of Wisdom is simply a footnote within their belief system. However, if a survey were taken among non-Mormons to discover the most recognizable Mormon characteristic, you would likely find many have checked the “no beer” box.
This law of health was received by Joseph Smith in 1833. In it, the Lord counsels abstention from tobacco, strong drinks, and hot drinks. He also encourages Church members to eat meat sparingly, and to eat mostly fruits, vegetables, and grains. He then promises both physical and spiritual blessings to those following this counsel.
The Word of Wisdom as a commandment provides some “bare-minimum” parameters concerning one’s health. These “bare-minimums” include not smoking, not chewing tobacco (do people really still do that?), not drinking any alcoholic beverages (including beer), not drinking coffee, and not drinking either black or green tea. In recent decades, the use of any illicit drugs has also been added.
Naturally, many see this list and start asking questions. “What’s so bad about coffee? I have a cup every morning to help me wake up. And what’s wrong with it? Is it the caffeine? Would that mean you can’t drink Coke or Pepsi either?” (Dr. Pepper is of course encouraged for consumption because if it is of heavenly taste) “And what about having a beer with my friends or a glass of wine with dinner? It’s not like I am a booze-hound or a wino!”
Unfortunately, the Word of Wisdom does not include a detailed “reasons” section. It doesn’t define what the specific reasons are for avoiding these substances. So why keep the Word of Wisdom? And in keeping it, what should we look for?
Amidst all the spiritual and scientific debate, I believe an important rule of thumb to consider when looking at the Word of Wisdom is “harmful habits.” It’s up to us to do the research and determine our own personal limits. Some addictive substances are stronger than others, and therefore are included on the black list of permanent off-limit items. However, everything else is then given to us to use at our own discretion.
I have been told that I have a “genetic predisposition” towards alcoholism. I can’t say for certain whether this is the case, but many of my relatives have struggled with it in the past. Some of my behaviors lead me to believe that it may be true. If somebody puts any drink in front of me I always drink it all very quickly and am left wanting more. If desert is being served, the only limits I have ever discovered are vomiting and running out of whatever I am eating. Something tells me that taking up drinking wouldn’t go well.
And so, the Word of Wisdom is alright by me. No, I don’t believe that beer is the sweat of Satan or that coffee is liquid fire and brimstone. The substances themselves are not “evil.” Furthermore, the people who use the substances are not evil. There are many people I know who use these substances in moderation and are fine. The only “evil” associated with the Word of Wisdom is gross misuse of any substance which ultimately has the potential of impairing our judgment or harming others. And since I can’t really trust myself as it is, I would rather not make myself a liability. Sprite and chocolate pretzels are dangerous enough for me. I’ll stick with the Word of Wisdom.
To many Mormons, the Word of Wisdom is simply a footnote within their belief system. However, if a survey were taken among non-Mormons to discover the most recognizable Mormon characteristic, you would likely find many have checked the “no beer” box.
This law of health was received by Joseph Smith in 1833. In it, the Lord counsels abstention from tobacco, strong drinks, and hot drinks. He also encourages Church members to eat meat sparingly, and to eat mostly fruits, vegetables, and grains. He then promises both physical and spiritual blessings to those following this counsel.
The Word of Wisdom as a commandment provides some “bare-minimum” parameters concerning one’s health. These “bare-minimums” include not smoking, not chewing tobacco (do people really still do that?), not drinking any alcoholic beverages (including beer), not drinking coffee, and not drinking either black or green tea. In recent decades, the use of any illicit drugs has also been added.
Naturally, many see this list and start asking questions. “What’s so bad about coffee? I have a cup every morning to help me wake up. And what’s wrong with it? Is it the caffeine? Would that mean you can’t drink Coke or Pepsi either?” (Dr. Pepper is of course encouraged for consumption because if it is of heavenly taste) “And what about having a beer with my friends or a glass of wine with dinner? It’s not like I am a booze-hound or a wino!”
Unfortunately, the Word of Wisdom does not include a detailed “reasons” section. It doesn’t define what the specific reasons are for avoiding these substances. So why keep the Word of Wisdom? And in keeping it, what should we look for?
Amidst all the spiritual and scientific debate, I believe an important rule of thumb to consider when looking at the Word of Wisdom is “harmful habits.” It’s up to us to do the research and determine our own personal limits. Some addictive substances are stronger than others, and therefore are included on the black list of permanent off-limit items. However, everything else is then given to us to use at our own discretion.
I have been told that I have a “genetic predisposition” towards alcoholism. I can’t say for certain whether this is the case, but many of my relatives have struggled with it in the past. Some of my behaviors lead me to believe that it may be true. If somebody puts any drink in front of me I always drink it all very quickly and am left wanting more. If desert is being served, the only limits I have ever discovered are vomiting and running out of whatever I am eating. Something tells me that taking up drinking wouldn’t go well.
And so, the Word of Wisdom is alright by me. No, I don’t believe that beer is the sweat of Satan or that coffee is liquid fire and brimstone. The substances themselves are not “evil.” Furthermore, the people who use the substances are not evil. There are many people I know who use these substances in moderation and are fine. The only “evil” associated with the Word of Wisdom is gross misuse of any substance which ultimately has the potential of impairing our judgment or harming others. And since I can’t really trust myself as it is, I would rather not make myself a liability. Sprite and chocolate pretzels are dangerous enough for me. I’ll stick with the Word of Wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
