I have been thinking about Mormonism, participating on message boards, listening to fringe Mormon podcasts, and blogging about Mormonism off and on ever since I stopped believing in Mormon claims about 15 years ago. Much of this activity was therapeutic. It is traumatic to lose faith in something that requires such a huge sacrifice of time and money. It is especially difficult to have those I once called friends think I have lost my way and that I am being led around by Satan, when from my perspective I am the only sane and reasonable one when I am among true believers. I have already paid a high price for my intellectual integrity. My true-believing ex-wife divorced me and succeeded in alienating at least one of my children from me. My true-believing oldest sister mourns the loss of my soul while my return-missionary son, perhaps the only true believer among my five children, holds out hope that I may yet return to the fold.
So now, after all this, I am getting quite bored with Mormonism. This is much to the relief of my current wife, who is also a former Mormon who was traumatized by events surrounding her departure. My interest has waned previously, but I was always sucked back in by prominent events such as the release of the Gospel Topic essays, news conferences about LGBT issues, and the recent rash of excommunications. I was especially interested in watching whether the church would come clean about the deception they have practiced for so long and stop demonizing those who ask honest questions. I suppose that I was looking for some type of vindication. I have felt vindicated by others who share my views, but any admission of wrongdoing on the part of the church will likely never come. Dallin H. Oaks made it very clear in a recent press conference that the church will never apologize.
During the Swedish rescue, then assistant historian, Marlin K. Jensen, and apostle Jeffrey R. Holland told the Swedes who had questions and doubts that the church was launching a new initiative that would take care of them all. It turns out that this was the first hint about the essays the church was about to release on its website addressing problematic areas of history and doctrine. This new transparency was welcomed at first by the fringe Mormon community. It seemed to be a harbinger of new things to come. Many thought the final result would be a broader-tent version of Mormonism where honest doubters would be welcome. However, recent excommunications reveal that this was never their intent. Rather, they only wanted to leave doubters without excuses and deflect criticisms of non-transparency.
Well, guess what? You can no longer count me among the doubters. I am now more certain than ever that many of the Mormon church's core claims are absolutely false. I am also now convinced that the Mormon church does not truly care about its people, but only about their strict conformity to outdated and increasingly irrelevant values, chief among which are blind obedience to authority and bigotry towards those who are different.
So the church has chosen to stay weird. They have chosen to keep themselves out of sync with evolving societal values of greater compassion towards and greater inclusion of those who are different. I admire the heroes who have fought a good fight from within trying to encourage the church to change. The church has chosen to retrench rather than evolve, no doubt a reflection of the ultra-conservative attitudes and over-sized egos of its gerontocracy. If they hold this course, they will continue to decline into ever-increasing irrelevancy, while my unplayed queue of Mormon-themed podcasts grows ever longer until I finally unsubscribe.
This is likely to be my last post about Mormonism, unless something interesting happens. I have heard it said that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. The church is quite adept at dealing with persecution, even seeing it where none is intended. How will they deal with indifference? I just don't care enough to keep watching and wondering. I have too many audiobooks to listen to on topics totally unrelated to Mormonism. So finally I might do the unthinkable, at least for a while: leave the church AND leave it alone.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Religious Liberty
The reaction of some conservative religious people to the recent Supreme Court decision has me a bit perplexed. This article from the Witherspoon Institute by Carl Esbeck claims that the Supreme Court's decision has the effect of redefining marriage, which erodes religious freedom and freedom of speech. The article has links to three briefs filed with the court to argue against striking down state laws forbidding same-sex marriage. This brief was written and filed with the Supreme Court by lawyers, including Esbeck, representing the Mormon church and several conservative Christian churches.
On the point of redefining marriage, since marriage is a legal contract it seems appropriate that it should be legally defined. No particular religion owns the definition of marriage. Since it is a legal matter, it seems appropriate to be decided within the legal sphere, not the religious sphere. Furthermore, broadening the definition of marriage takes nothing away from any religion for whom the marriage of one man with one woman is important. Those who hold this view are still free to practice "traditional" marriage and deem it important, even to do that exclusively if they choose. The only freedom they have lost is the freedom to force their views on the rest of society, which is not a right guaranteed by the constitution and in fact violates the constitutional rights of others.
Esbeck asserts, "Support for marriage is not founded on bigotry, hatred, or irrational prejudice." "Support for marriage" in this sentence is a euphemism for opposition to legally recognized same-sex marriage. In other words, what Esbeck and other religious conservatives really want is to deny a right to others that in no way affects any of their rights. Legalized same-sex marriage takes no rights away from anyone. It only grants new rights to a class of people who did not previously enjoy them. If opposition is not founded on bigotry, hatred, or irrational prejudice, I have no idea what else it could be founded on.
Religious conservatives are disingenuous about the reasons they oppose same-sex marriage. I say this because the reasons keep shifting. For years, opponents of same-sex marriage claimed that it would destroy traditional families. Then the data came in when some states legalized same-sex marriage and were subsequently found to have a lower divorce rate than states where same-sex marriage was still banned. Objective data showed that legalized same-sex marriage did not destroy traditional families. Opponents of same-sex marriage merely switched to using different arguments, because the real reason for opposition probably lay much deeper in the psyche and had more to do with natural disgust and a tribal mentality.
The main arguments in the court brief in the link above include assertions that legalizing same-sex marriage violates religious freedom, and that deciding the issue on a national basis violates state's rights. I believe these arguments were chosen for pragmatic considerations because the Supreme Court is only authorized to determine constitutionality, not because these are necessarily the real reasons for opposition.
At least two arguments in the brief seem motivated by fear of marginalization. The brief's authors urge the court not to determine that traditional marriage laws are founded in animus, and not to determine that sexual orientation is a suspect class. These concerns basically mean that the brief authors do not want ulterior motives assigned to their opposition to same-marriage, and they do not want the LGBTQ community to be granted special rights because of historical discrimination. These arguments seem motivated to make those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds immune from criticism. This concern is at the heart of the claim that legalizing same-sex marriage violates the religious freedom and free-speech rights of its opponents.
The idea that anyone can introduce ideas into the public arena and be guaranteed to be free from criticism is ludicrous, and it conflicts with the free speech rights of those who have valid criticisms of these views. It seems to me that the crux of the matter is that opponents of same-sex marriage want to be bigots, but not to be labeled and criticized as such. The first amendment is intended to limit the power of the government to pass laws abridging our rights, not the power of fellow citizens to express opposition to bad or maliciously-motivated ideas. When opponents of same-sex marriage have failed to provide convincing evidence that their views are based on anything other than bigotry and a mean-spirited desire to control the freedoms of others, they ought to be criticized. Of course, they have a right to their bigoted views, but the rest of us have an equally valid right to criticize them and expose them for what they really are. This is all part of letting "truth and falsehood grapple in the free marketplace of ideas," as John Milton put it.
On the point of redefining marriage, since marriage is a legal contract it seems appropriate that it should be legally defined. No particular religion owns the definition of marriage. Since it is a legal matter, it seems appropriate to be decided within the legal sphere, not the religious sphere. Furthermore, broadening the definition of marriage takes nothing away from any religion for whom the marriage of one man with one woman is important. Those who hold this view are still free to practice "traditional" marriage and deem it important, even to do that exclusively if they choose. The only freedom they have lost is the freedom to force their views on the rest of society, which is not a right guaranteed by the constitution and in fact violates the constitutional rights of others.
Esbeck asserts, "Support for marriage is not founded on bigotry, hatred, or irrational prejudice." "Support for marriage" in this sentence is a euphemism for opposition to legally recognized same-sex marriage. In other words, what Esbeck and other religious conservatives really want is to deny a right to others that in no way affects any of their rights. Legalized same-sex marriage takes no rights away from anyone. It only grants new rights to a class of people who did not previously enjoy them. If opposition is not founded on bigotry, hatred, or irrational prejudice, I have no idea what else it could be founded on.
Religious conservatives are disingenuous about the reasons they oppose same-sex marriage. I say this because the reasons keep shifting. For years, opponents of same-sex marriage claimed that it would destroy traditional families. Then the data came in when some states legalized same-sex marriage and were subsequently found to have a lower divorce rate than states where same-sex marriage was still banned. Objective data showed that legalized same-sex marriage did not destroy traditional families. Opponents of same-sex marriage merely switched to using different arguments, because the real reason for opposition probably lay much deeper in the psyche and had more to do with natural disgust and a tribal mentality.
The main arguments in the court brief in the link above include assertions that legalizing same-sex marriage violates religious freedom, and that deciding the issue on a national basis violates state's rights. I believe these arguments were chosen for pragmatic considerations because the Supreme Court is only authorized to determine constitutionality, not because these are necessarily the real reasons for opposition.
At least two arguments in the brief seem motivated by fear of marginalization. The brief's authors urge the court not to determine that traditional marriage laws are founded in animus, and not to determine that sexual orientation is a suspect class. These concerns basically mean that the brief authors do not want ulterior motives assigned to their opposition to same-marriage, and they do not want the LGBTQ community to be granted special rights because of historical discrimination. These arguments seem motivated to make those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds immune from criticism. This concern is at the heart of the claim that legalizing same-sex marriage violates the religious freedom and free-speech rights of its opponents.
The idea that anyone can introduce ideas into the public arena and be guaranteed to be free from criticism is ludicrous, and it conflicts with the free speech rights of those who have valid criticisms of these views. It seems to me that the crux of the matter is that opponents of same-sex marriage want to be bigots, but not to be labeled and criticized as such. The first amendment is intended to limit the power of the government to pass laws abridging our rights, not the power of fellow citizens to express opposition to bad or maliciously-motivated ideas. When opponents of same-sex marriage have failed to provide convincing evidence that their views are based on anything other than bigotry and a mean-spirited desire to control the freedoms of others, they ought to be criticized. Of course, they have a right to their bigoted views, but the rest of us have an equally valid right to criticize them and expose them for what they really are. This is all part of letting "truth and falsehood grapple in the free marketplace of ideas," as John Milton put it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)