Monday, June 29, 2015

A Warning

With the recent decision of the Supreme Court to expand the definition of "marriage" in the United States to include same-sex relationships, the Mormon Church's history with polygamy and the Manifesto has been on my mind. The argument that the government will never interfere with a religious institution's right to follow the dictates of its own conscience forgets the fact that Congress established the precedence of doing just that with the Edmunds-Tucker Act and the near dissolution of the LDS Church in the late 1800's. The issue revolved entirely around a church's choice to practice a style of marriage based on principles that were inharmonious with majority opinion. The Church had made claims for decades that polygamy was a central practice and doctrine of the religion. The appeal to religious belief didn't stop Congress from passing the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which (among other things) disincorporated the LDS Church, putting control of Church assets in the hands of the government. In 1890, the Supreme Court upheld the government's right to do so. The only thing that saved the Church was the Manifesto and the abandonment of the practice of polygamy entirely.

This story highlights something that every American should be aware of. This goes further than the freedom of religion or discrimination, and it strikes at the very heart of what liberty really is.

The question of the government trying to regulate the affairs of American churches isn't a matter of "if", but of "when". Appeals to First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and religion matter little. When the spirit of liberty dies among the people, those protections become nothing more than empty words on a dead document, and their meanings become malleable and disposable. The spirit of liberty is almost entirely dead in America. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was drafted in a philisophical milieu that accepted, as a rule, that Nature's God existed, and that governments ought to have limited powers to avoid tyranny of the state. Now, the cultural milieu denies or ignores the existence of God, and believes that governments ought to have ever-expanding power so as to be able to forcibly prevent the tyranny of the majority. Instead of governing ourselves, Americans now want others to govern them, tell them what is right and wrong, and make them be good. This shift has been dramatic, and the essential rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have been almost entirely lost in the transition. It won't take much more time or cultural drift for the loss to be complete.

Political and social liberty is predicated upon the freedom of thought and the expression of that thought. Strict conformism is arguably the fastest way to destroy the liberty of a free nation before the citizens realize that it's happening. And the easiest way to create an atmosphere of strict conformity is to turn the leading social issues of the day into moral issues, make those moral issues black and white, and then label everyone on the undesirable side of the debate as immoral bigots. This exact pattern has happened with the same-sex marriage debate. This is how you manually move the Overton Window in a predetermined direction.

The meteoric rise of the popularity of same-sex marriage attests to the fact that, through various means of social control and influence, a cabal of socially and financially elite members of society can forcibly change public opinion. Our society is both more connected to each other and more disconnected from reality than ever before. The rise of social media has made it easy to constantly exchange opinions and rhetoric, but the materialistic ease in which we now live (thanks to America's wealth and technological advancement) has served to disconnect us from Nature's God and our own human nature. In the vacuum created by the lack of a healthy relationship with the Creator of the universe and ourselves, false and vain ideologies have sprung up and become massively popular. These ideologies seek to establish a worldview devoid of any need for a relationship to the Deity, substitutes agnostic pseudo-inquiry for knowledge, and denies critical portions of the truth. Instead of seeking for the truth, they seek to establish an agenda.

Our society is no longer a paper tiger; it is a china tiger above which hangs a monstrous steel sword of judgment. At this point, America has so many black marks on its record (the oppression of the Native Americans and blacks, the economic inequality that continues to worsen, the meddling in foreign affairs with the sole purpose of advancing America's selfish agenda, among other things) that the question isn't "what can we do that's so bad that we tip the scales of justice against us"; the question is, "what will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and brings the fiery wrath of a just God down on our heads". I don't think that gay marriage is it. The ramifications of the decision drawn out over time, however, could be. If the end result is setting a precedent that the all-powerful State can dictate the acceptable boundaries of religious thought and practice, it definitely will be.

There's a reason that freedom of thought is inseparably tied to freedom of religion. When you control religious thought, you control the acceptable bounds of cosmological theory. When you control cosmological theory, you control the practical application of that theory. When you control the practical application of cosmological theory, you control the minds and hearts of the people. When this happens, the people are no longer free, but slaves--slaves to a very real, very powerful elite group who glut themselves on the labor of the peons below them.

The recent Supreme Court ruling is another step down the nigh-inevitable trail from freedom to tyranny. I pray that somehow America reverses its course before we reach that point.

13 comments:

  1. Hey! Here are some of my thoughts on your argument. Deb said you said some

    interesting things so I decided to read it and discuss my feelings on the matter. It

    is a little ramshackle as I kind of organized it chronologically when I saw

    something that I felt was incorrect. If I took anything out of context, please help

    me understand the context.

    " The issue revolved entirely around a church's choice to practice a style of

    marriage based on principles that were inharmonious with majority opinion"

    The church was breaking the law, in a state that does not uphold religious laws over

    legal laws. By actively encouraging criminal activity, they were fostering crime,

    which is within the precincts of congress to legislate.

    "The question of the government trying to regulate the affairs of American churches

    isn't a matter of "if", but of "when". Appeals to First Amendment protections for

    freedom of speech and religion matter little."

    Appeals to those two things matter a great deal. They are often used to cause

    incarcerated individuals to have additional accomodations. Recently, the Supreme

    Court case allowing Hobby Lobby (and a few other organizations) to deny birth

    control coverage on the grounds of religious freedom. Because -birth control

    coverage- is not illegal, and they are a religious corporation and have personhood,

    the Supreme Court allowed that to happen. If Hobby Lobby were actively encouraging

    employees to break the law, they would not have first amendment protection, as that

    is putting undue pressure on employees to do illegal things. Similar to the Edmund-

    Tucker thing above: encorporation requires the organization, either private,

    religious, or charity, to not put pressure on others to break the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Calaway! Thanks for your thoughts. I really appreciate the opportunity to get feedback on these thoughts. If I responded point-for-point, this would take forever, so I'll respond to what I consider to be notable instances. If there's anything you think I missed in your argument that you think is important, let me know and I'll re-read for more clarity.

      My comment about "appeals to the first amendment" referred to the common argument appealing to the First Amendment as a protection against the government meddling in religious affairs, not necessarily to legal appeals to the justice system claiming that their First Amendment rights have been violated. Like I mentioned above, words on paper are malleable and different people interpret them different ways, often according to the zeitgeist of the time. This recent court case is a perfect example: the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to address issues related to the dissolution of slavery and the extension of all natural and civil rights to blacks. 147 years later, it's original purpose has been appropriated to essentially change the definition of "marriage" within the government. Whether you're for or against that change, the fact remains that its latest usage isn't comprehended at all within the original framework of the 14th amendment (it had to be read in the "emanations of the penumbra" of the amendment, if you will). The "letter" of the law was used in a way that was incongruous with the original "spirit" of the law. Sometimes that's problematic; sometimes it's not. In this case, I would say it is.

      Regarding legal appeals to the First Amendment--despite Canada and multiple European countries having similar guarantees to freedom of religion, the legalization of same-sex marriage has resulted in numerous examples of the state ruling against a religion's right to "discriminate" based on belief (this article contains multiple links to these kinds of examples: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-wont-bring-us-peace/). Seeing as how, in popular opinion, equality now seems to be the highest expression of morality, I doubt the First Amendment will hold for more than a decade or two before it no longer serves as any kind of real protection for citizens.

      Delete
  2. " Instead of governing ourselves, Americans now want others to govern them, tell

    them what is right and wrong, and make them be good. " Unlike a religious

    institution? If non-religious people seek moral values from sources other than a

    religion, that is incorrect? I also find that statement ridiculously broad. I do not

    derive my morality from the government, and I am an American. Can you provide a

    source for this? I do not think it is accurate.

    "The Constitution and Bill of Rights was drafted in a philisophical milieu that

    accepted, as a rule, that Nature's God existed, and that governments ought to have

    limited powers to avoid tyranny of the state. Now, the cultural milieu denies or

    ignores the existence of God, and believes that governments ought to have ever-

    expanding power so as to be able to forcibly prevent the tyranny of the majority."

    There is a lot going on in these sentences. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights

    being drafted to specifically work around the existance of God is -not- something I

    believe you can say with accuracy. The milieu of the 50 or so individuals involved

    was complicated, involving both hardcore Deists, pastors, and a few members

    involved in the "Hellfire Club", a social organization in Europe that encouraged

    debauchery. To say that everyone was agreeing on the nature of God, his rules, or

    how they affect people is incorrect.

    Regarding the fear of the rule of the majority: senators were not always directly

    elected. Now they are, which results in the voting power of an individual actually

    increasing. More people can vote now, which again, means that the -people- still

    hold the keys to this thing. We have always been a Republic, which is defined by

    having a smaller number of citizens cast votes. We the citizens who are not in the

    political schema have never had more influence as an aggregate than we do now. More

    people matter now. The fact that, as you state it, "Americans want others to govern

    for them", has sort of been around since the Federalist Papers. We want others to

    govern us, and we also want the ability to dictate what those people do via the

    voting system. If Americans are disenfranchised, that is not because the government

    wants less people voting. Politicians on the State and local levels do everything

    they can to push people to vote, because they want to be voted in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but was what happened Democratic? Was there any voting that went on in this case? Supreme Court Justices are not elected officials. They do not represent the voice of the people.

      Delete
    2. I appreciate your bringing my phraseology to my attention. I sometimes forget to explain things more clearly. (If it makes sense to me, it must make sense to everyone else, right? Haha.) When I talk about "governing ourselves" versus "being governed by someone else", I'm talking about the difference between focusing on learning correct principles of behavior and living according to that, versus dogmatically accepting the rules of society and doing that (similar to the difference between conventional and post-conventional stages of Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning). And I actually am frequently dismayed by the amount of dogmatism that is accepted by religious people. Accepting dogmatism and the rule of authority for authority's sake is a human trait, and it leads someone to be easily manipulated by the people they're entrusting with the power. Hopefully that makes more sense.

      The term "Nature's God" was borrowed specifically from the Deist's "playbook", if you will. The two major philosophical "factions" among the founders (Christians and Deists) agreed that God existed, created laws that governed the universe (including laws governing human behavior), and agreed that through reasoning enlightened by moral sensibility we could find out what those laws were. Moreover, they believed that our natural rights came from God, and that government's primary role was to preserver the natural rights of the people. The Declaration of Independence clearly articulates the issue of belief in God and the source of our natural rights (the Declaration was ratified by all the members of the 1776 Congress, which produced most of the Founding Fathers). So I believe I can, with a great deal of certainty, argue that the Constitution was drafted in a philosophical milieu that included a belief in God and the idea that our natural rights come from Him.

      Delete
  3. There are situations where the government tries to stop specific demographics from

    voting (down here in Texas there was a big push to make voting much more difficult,

    with a strong underlining reason being the poor, who are often Democrats, cannot

    follow the trail, while the elderly, who here tend to be Republicans, are a stronger

    voting block.)

    "This shift has been dramatic, and the essential rights guaranteed in the Bill of

    Rights have been almost entirely lost in the transition."

    The constitution was built to be a living document. One that is altered over time.

    The Bill of Rights has not been 'taken away', there have been amendments which

    generally increase the rights of citizens. Women cannot legally be discriminated

    against purely because they are women. They made that law because women were being

    treated unfairly. The Bill of Rights has been amended through the system set up by

    our founding fathers. I don't understand what you are saying about that. Some of the

    laws that are rights, -are- being lessened. For instance, the Maranda rights are a

    lot less powerful than they were 30 years ago. But that is an instance of it

    happening. It isn't a broad statement saying one way or the other. I feel like you

    are trying to create absolutes in a system that is far more complicated than black

    and white allows.

    "Political and social liberty is predicated upon the freedom of thought and the

    expression of that thought. Strict conformism is arguably the fastest way to destroy

    the liberty of a free nation before the citizens realize that it's happening."
    Absolutely! Well, not the fastest. A law forcing would be faster. Right now people

    get to, in general, do what they believe is correct. Also, follow the law. There are

    very few laws that criminalize thought. Or even terrible, discriminatory speech.

    Like Westboro Baptist church. They are not breaking the law. I do not feel there

    should be laws to stop them. They talk. Talk is cheap. Talk is free here. Also, when

    has conformity been less strong in the US? I mean, in any given city. Where or what

    time period are you idealizing as more free for -everyone-, not just a specific

    demographic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a difference between natural and civil rights. This issue goes back to the dichotomy between the idea of the proper role of government: is the government's role to preserve and protect the natural rights the originate outside of man (such as from God), or do all our rights come from the government to us? If we see the government as the creator of all our rights, then it's legitimate role is to dictate what our rights are based on whatever rules the government sees fit. That inevitably leads to tyranny. If we see the government as the protector of rights given by a higher authority than the government itself, then the proper role of government becomes to preserve those rights.

      America was founded with the founders seeing it as the latter, but we have now transformed into the former. Because of the shift, what is defined as a "right" is now up for debate and constant evolution. Therefore, what will dictate what will be the rights granted to the American people in the future? The majority opinion and zeitgeist will dictate that.

      I will give you the fact that I was speaking hyperbolically and painting with a wide brush. My statement is based jointly on what I've seen happen, and what I project will happen in the future based on what is currently happening. I do believe our essential rights will be lost, and what will be left will be a hollow shell to appease the masses.

      Delete
  4. "And the easiest way to create an atmosphere of strict conformity is to turn the

    leading social issues of the day into moral issues, make those moral issues black

    and white, and then label everyone on the undesirable side of the debate as immoral

    bigots."

    That is an interesting point. When you say social issues being moral issues... what

    does congress do but legislate morality? That is what the law is. They are dictating

    what legal right and wrong are. It is entirely legislating morality. If it was up to

    nobody to legislate right and wrong, laws would not exist. Every law has a moral

    purpose. A moral backing. And we are free to argue about that.

    The same sex marriage debate? This has been happening for over 100 years. This isn't

    a new thing. That argument has been going on for a long time, and the entire time,

    before maybe 10ish years ago, it was strongly discouraged by virtually everyone in

    the country. But now, we are actually a good deal more respectful of the rights of

    individuals to do consensual things with one another. I mean, it took a 2005 Federal

    Ruling to make oral sex legal in Texas. I don't see these things as causing

    Americans to have less freedoms. I don't see what you are saying.

    "The meteoric rise of the popularity of same-sex marriage attests to the fact that,

    through various means of social control and influence, a cabal of socially and

    financially elite members of society can forcibly change public opinion."

    Through argument, discussion, open debate, talking points, information being

    exchanged voluntarily, people can change their mind. If you think that this was a

    sudden, easy thing that just happened, I can't really agree with that. The fact the

    judges see this as an oversight isn't usually based on what people want anyway. It

    is based specifically on the law and the constitution.

    I'm skipping over the god stuff. Religion to me is a very personal matter, and it is

    not what I am arguing about right now.

    Anyway, thank you for writing this document. While I disagree with it for the

    reasons above, I respect the fact that you have put time and thought into your

    beliefs. If anything came off as offensive or unjust, I apologize. We can keep

    talking about it if you want!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do believe that the change in public opinion hasn't been the result of grassroots opinion change, but an astroturf campaign from the top to unduly influence public opinion. One article I came across recently discussing this does a much better, much more detailed job talking about it then I could: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13518#.VZKpBUbLeoY . I also recall reading one article (I wish I could find it now, but I can't) written by someone who was elated over the direction gay marriage was going, but was somewhat confused because the gay marriage fight was "too easy", essentially. There was no real cultural or legal resistance to it, and much of the work was being done by those at the top: judges, political appointees, and prominent media figures who were "jumping on the bandwagon" much more quickly than anyone thought they would have. I'll keep looking for that article and post it if I find it.

      You didn't come across as offensive at all! I think you were very even-handed, and I appreciated the points you brought up. Debi mentioned that you'd like to get into some political commentary; I think you'd be good at it!

      Delete
  5. Consider Doctrine and Covenants 134: 1-5. While the church will always advocate people following God's law, we also let people exercise their agency and make their own decisions. Thus, while gay marriage was still a subject of vote, the church encouraged its members to vote according to their conscience in support of a democratic system where we allow the majority voice to rule. As of right now, this law does not violate the exercise of religion. It is only if the government chooses to force religions to practice gay marriage will it be violated.

    What is most troubling to me, though, is that this process wasn't democratic. The people did not decide, by majority opinion, what they wanted the outcome to be. Justice Scalia has argued for years that the issue of gay marriage needs to be a state issue, because there is nothing in the Constitution that mentions it either way. He has also pointed out that it is entirely possible for people to band together and pass a new Amendment that would allow rulings to be made. That's not what happened. There was no vote. Instead, it was decided by nine people who in no way represent the people of America. The Supreme Court is not an elected office. They do nor answer to the voice of the people. The Supreme Court is not allowed to create laws, nor are they allowed to change the Constitution. There job simply amounts to: does this case go against the rights established in the Constitution?

    I would have been much more at peace if this dramatic change had been made by the passing of a new Amendment. Instead, this change is in no way democratic. Whether you are for or against same-sex marriage, we as Americans should be allowed to determine our own destiny. Not a bunch of old farts on the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see a reason to expect the government will start "forcing" religions to practice gay marriage. Religions are already allowed to refuse to marry people who don't fit into their specific requirements. The government hasn't tried to force the Mormons to marry people in the temple who aren't considered worthy to hold temple recommends, for instance.

      The Supreme Court in its ruling did not change the Constitution. The SC ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment gives same-sex couples the right to marry and get the civil privileges that come with that. They interpreted that Amendment to give those rights to citizens who are sexually and romantically attracted to members of the same gender. The ruling is not about religious rights and it is not about infringing on Americans' rights to democracy--it is saying that according to the rule bases we *already* have in place, it should be considered illegal discrimination to deny the privilege of civil marriage to people based on the combination of genders.

      You say their job amounts to "Does this case go against the rights established in the Constitution?" That is exactly what the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was about. They determined if the rights established in the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that marriage is the privilege of people regardless of gender. The SC in no way did anything it does not have a right to do.

      Delete
    2. For me, the fear I have regarding the government is that they will begin to impose punishments on religions and religious organizations that choose to live according to the dictates of their conscience when it comes to not supporting or condoning gay marriage or homosexuality. That's why I started this blog post with the example of how the government treated the Mormons. That punishment could run the gamut from the removal of tax-exempt status for religious organizations that don't "toe the line", to the forced dissolution of social groups (such as college fraternities) that don't "toe the line", to even the disincorporation of groups that don't "toe the line".

      Indeed, the call for the removal of tax-exempt status from resistant religious organizations has already been made, in Time Magazine (http://time.com/3940703/gay-marriage-plaintiff-equality/). While I agree with some of the author's reasoning, he highlights a good point: the passage of this act will force America to revisit many of its legal and social traditions, leading to the change of said traditions. With America heading towards more state control and more social and political conformity, my prediction is that what will replace those traditions will be something far less fit for a free and autonomous society and more fit for an oppressed one.

      Time to take my "doom and gloom" hat off and go outside. Peace! Love you, Debi. :)

      Delete
  6. Hey there anonymous! If you feel like the Supreme Court should not be allowed to make these sorts of rulings, do you feel like the Supreme Court should be changed or removed? I can see your 'this wasn't voted on' argument, and I understand what you are saying I think. Since no judge or justice on any level is elected by popular vote, would it be preferable to have it switched to that?

    ReplyDelete