Hateful old men

This weekend was General Conference, the quarterly gathering of Mormons to listen to the church elders here in Salt Lake City. What did God say through his starched-collared, flappy-skinned mouthpieces on Earth? We still hate those gays.  Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, informed the gathered faithful that

“There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature,”

Packer, like the Pope, speaks with all the authority of a man who has no true authority.  He and his fellow Mr. Mac clones are doing their best to keep the LDS church an active hate organization and a tax-dodging Political Action Commitee. He's not a scientist, psychologist or a contributor to a better society. Yet he claims to know with certainty that all the people in the world who are attracted to members of their own sex are just faking it.

Some argue that “they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural,” he said. “Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.”

Indeed, Boyd, why would your Heavenly Father do that to anyone? While we're at it, why would he give anyone cancer, cerebral palsy or cleft pallets? Why would he cause earthquakes, hurricanes and Justin Bieber? It's almost as if he's not really paying attention, or is not really there at all, or, to quote a man far wiser than me and certainly wiser than all twelve of you put together, a malign thug.

Packer may be a hateful old man, but his co-apostle Dallin H. Oaks would be hilariously inept if he wasn't at the top of a culture of lock-step authoritarianism. He advised the gathered Saints how to make personal decisions:

“Some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them,” said Elder Dallin H. Oaks, also of the quorum. Instead, when it comes to personal decisions, individuals should be praying for answers themselves.

However, if the response to prayer they’re getting is in opposition to the statements of church leaders, their answer is not coming from God, he said.

Brilliant! Don't do what I tell you, do what God tells you. But if God disagrees with me, he's not God. World class delusional arrogance.

I rode the train downtown this weekend and saw all the white shirts and dresses filing into the Conference Center. I wished I could grab the three young brothers on the seats in front of me by their ties and say "You know they are going to lie to you in there, right?" Of course I said nothing to them. Maybe they are lucky enough not to be gay in the ranks of the psychologically abusive Mormon church. Maybe they aren't.

It's a long way down to the conservative high ground

This letter the editor appeared in today's Tribune

There are two main objections to same-sex marriage. One is the conservative objection: The concept of marriage applies only to man and woman, but that doesn’t mean that same-sex couples shouldn’t have equivalent civil and legal rights as committed couples. Marriage is much more than a mere legal institution, but the legal part of it should be available to gays.

The other is the mean-spirited objection: Same-sex couples should not share the same civil and legal rights as married couples, because only opposite-sex couples should have those rights. Homosexuality is wicked and disgusting. Gays should have no rights at all.

I hold the first view. How many of us hold the second?

Bangs Tapscott

Salt Lake City

 Very sweet of you to show how warm-hearted and open-minded a conservative such as yourself is, Bangs, but there are a couple problems with your reasoning. The concept applies only to a man and a woman? Says who? Are you on the marriage board? Can the public just not conceptualize  two people of the same gender marrying one another, and therefore it cannot happen? Is this an argument from tradition? Traditions are not justice. Traditions are not law. Breaking from tradition is not a legal infraction.
Let me review your ideas on the topic. Marriage is  "much more than a mere legal institution" but "the legal part of it should be available to gays". This would seem to imply that you believe the parts of marriage that you think exist outside of the legal system should remain illegal for homosexuals. This is of course a problem. Every part of marriage, including the word itself, that can be governed by the law is within "the legal part of it" and, by your own reasoning, should be available to gays. Any part that is outside the law is of course not subject to it and cannot be included in a policy debate.
What it comes down to is you think heterosexuals own the semantic part of marriage and should not share it with the lower-class homosexuals. They should have their own institution, seperate but equal to the dominant culture and religious views. How very gracious of you.

Just ignore it and it'll go away

So it seems Pastor Terry Jones has cancelled his plans to burn a big pile of Qurans on Saturday. I'm happy about this, because it was just an example of American Evangelical dumbassity, but I really don't care that much. The best thing that could have been done, in my opinion, would be to ignore him. Let him spend his and all his followers' money on Qurans, stack them up into a big ol' pile, cover it with gas and set it on fire. They can even roast marshmallows. If nobody shows up to watch, it's just a bunch of backward losers in Florida doing something stupid; nothing really new. It only becomes dangerous or meaningful if the press and everyone else falls for this ploy for attention.
Should anyone build an Islamic culture center or mosque in lower Manhattan? No. Should they build it anywhere else? No. Should anyone build temples, cathedrals or megachurches? No, in my opinion, they are a waste of resources better spent on things that benefit everyone.
Should people burn Qurans? No. Should they burn Bibles? No. Should they burn flags? No, no more than they should worship them. But can they? Yes, yes, you bet your ass yes. In this country, everyone is entitled to free expression. That doesn't obligate you to give two craps about it. If someone came to me and and said "I'm going to burn a big pile of Qurans on September 11." I would say "You are pretty stupid. It would be much better to recycle them and print copies of Candide or the telephone directory on them." I would then walk away and and pay no mind to what they did after that.
The  mere fact that I know Terry Jones' name means too much attention has been paid him. Like an annoying sibling or mosquito bite, just ignore it and it'll go away.

A free lesson on religious freedom for those who have a hard time understanding it

As you've no doubt heard, California's Proposition 8 has finally been struck down as the unconstitutional piece of garbage it is.
This makes Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation very upset indeed. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:

The courts need to understand how religious groups think about Prop 8, said Bill Duncan, director of Marriage Law Foundation, based in Lehi. Many religions still view marriage as set out in their doctrinal teachings, that is, between a man and a woman, he said.

Mr. Duncan, the courts already know your religious views, and they don't care. Why? Because they don't matter. Everyone knows this is a religious issue, but the reason no one is talking about that in court is because that would be the easiest way to get it tossed out because of the First Amendment. You see, right before the part of the Constitution that allows you to practice whatever religion you want is a part that says no one can make anyone else follow their religion.
Bill, you can think in your head all day that God thinks gay people are icky and never ever wants them to get married. You can even say it out loud. That's you using your religious freedom. At the very same time, other people are allowed to think or say that God thinks gay people are just fine, or even that there might not be a God at all. That's them using their religious freedom.
The thing about religious freedom is that everybody gets it. If I were to say "My religion says that everyone has to follow my religion, so there must be a law that says so," that would not be me using my religious freedom because it would take away other peoples' religious freedom. It would not be allowed because of the First Amendment, even if I had lots and lots of friends who thought the same thing.
If you think my tone is a little condescending, you are right. I am talking to you like you are a child, and for good reason. This is not a hard concept. Your statements indicate you do not understand it. I feel if I present it on a more elementary level, you might understand it better.
You might be thinking now: "This guy sure doesn't respect my religious freedom." You are wrong about that. I fully respect your religious freedom, I simply do not respect your religion. If you had kept your religion to yourself, there would be no problem. But you decided to make your religious views part of a public policy issue, which means I can say I think your religious views are false, archaic, have no place in the legal system, are counterproductive, unrealistic and stupid. That's me using my freedom of speech.

"Facts" of the matter

Sometimes I wonder why I write this silly little blog. I think it annoys a lot of people and probably changes no minds. But then something like this happens, and I have to mentally throw up somewhere. A friend of mine sent me and a whole group of people he knows a link to a story about how in the era of Taxed Enough Already, Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. I had seen the story already, but I always appreciate being included in anything that demonstrates the inanity of the TEA Party. Then a new message showed up in my Facebook inbox, from a name I did not recognize. It confused me at first, but then I realized it was a reply to the tax story. I'll let you soak it up for yourselves:

[D]o you really know anything about what's going on in government right now, or are you relying on the propaganda press of this administration? Have you ever been to a TEA party rally? Also, have you every actually watched an entire show of Glenn Beck? When was the last time you read the Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants? We are in the midst of the war in Heaven, being replayed her on the earth. Until you have actually hard evidence to "factually" refute the claims of either Glenn Beck, or the TEA parties, please don't think you will persuade me... The times we are currently in, are TERRIFYING!!!!

I don't think the quotes around "factually" are a symptom of the bad grammar and punctuation that pepper this reply. I think she is looking for "facts" and not facts, which, to quote Ronald Reagan, are stupid things. "Facts" are things like "we are in the midst of a war in Heaven", which are really strong assertions of things that are wildly speculative with no evidence to back them up. Facts are boring things like reports from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, derived from empirical measure. Factually refuting Glenn Beck is easy, just let him speak then compare what he says to the actual data. "Factually" refuting him is trickier because it requires an appeal to a supernatural force for which one has no reason to believe exists. The old adage "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts" does not apply to "facts". You can get "facts" from radio hosts, friends, your bishop, or simply make them up yourselves. and they are equally valid.
I know the woman who wrote that reply will not read this and see the gross errors in her thinking. I realize that nodding their head in agreement right now doesn't feel any different now than they did when they started reading this post, but I feel like any little chip in the monumental misguidedness that gives rise to this kind of thinking is worth trying for, so I'll keep chipping away.

Reports of right thinking and progress in Utah are greatly exaggerated

Sex education in Utah is miserable, but the Utah PTA wants to assure you it's not getting any better.
It seems some conservative groups were spreading some misinformation about an education bill, which was killed six weeks ago, and the PTA wants to set the record straight. Utah State PTA Health Commissioner Liz Zentner said this:

It should not have given the PTA a black eye, but through the erroneous information that went out from some groups, it made us look really bad.

What were these awful things the PTA were accused of trying to do? Talking about contraception and the fact that gay people exist! Utah's approach to sex education can be summed up in one word: "don't". Former PTA member Becky English's comment says it all:

I just really disagreed with, especially in Utah, the PTA taking a stand of pro-sex education.

How disgusting. Making an effort to prevent kids from getting pregnant or contracting diseases. No sir, not here in Zion. Here the pants stay sealed until the people are sealed for all eternity. That's the story and they're sticking to it. No matter what the stats say.

Democracy: a good thing, right? Not in Utah County

A group of parents in Utah County are protesting their children's school district for promoting democracy. True, the U.S. is not a true one-person-one-vote democracy. And maybe schools should stay out of political ideology. They almost have a point. But then their leader, a guy by the name of Oak Norton, goes and says this:

"Karl Marx said, 'Democracy is the road to socialism,' " Norton said. A true democracy, he said, relies solely on majority rule and inevitably devolves into anarchy, which then sprouts socialist dictators.

Waaaaaaaaait...what? In what universe does that follow? On what are you basing this? That progression is completely made up, but it has the dreaded S-word in it, so you have to pay attention. I imagine a boardroom table full of capitalists voting on whether or not to acquire another company. The vote is a tie and everyone abruptly resigns their spot on the board and begins running around the room aimlessly until one old man fires a pistol in the air and says "All right! Everyone sit down! We're not going to buy the compnay, we're going to share with them!"
If you thought that was stupid, you are right. The whole thing is very, very stupid.