[Warning: Opinions about politics may be present. Those who hate such things (like me), beware.]
Political issues! Gotta love them!
I try to avoid politics. Really, I do. I observe them. I have opinions. But of the 8.63 issues that I have an opinion about, I'll post about maybe 1 of those. Because, let's be honest. Nobody wants a sermon. Political posts on Facebook are, at their core, an originally well-intended attempt at expression that turns into little more than an excuse to argue.
Now, lately, Facebook has been a hotbed for issues. Lots of stuff in the news.
Old news: Snowden reveals to the general populace that our suspicions are correct and Google is in fact, really creepy. Oh, and so is the NSA. But we've known that for years.
New news: Zimmerman isn't guilty of second degree murder.
New-ish-but-not-really-since-it's-been-more-than-2-days news: Supreme Court upholds the overturning of Prop 8, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage in California.
So, in a bout of reckless abandonment, I'm going to post my opinions about ALL of them!!!
1.) The NSA is spying on us.
Yes. We know.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure we've always known. Nobody wanted to actually accuse the NSA of spying on us, because it sounds all conspiracy-theory-esque, so thank you Snowden for forcing it to our attention. But really... if Google can track everything we search and send in an email, and tailor ads to our interests by it, don't you think the government has the same ability?
The real surprise came in finding out they weren't monitoring us ourselves. They're just ripping off Google.
As for whether or not they'd go so far as to use this ability they obviously have, in such a blatantly unethical invasion of privacy... of course they would! They're the government!!! This isn't 1776, and we're not led by idealists. We're led by people who understand acquisition of power, and have no shame lying through their teeth to make us think they're idealists. We all know this. None of us actually believe politicians tell the truth. We trust the system to check them and make sure they hold up their campaign promises (which only sort of works).
Is this right? Is this good?
No. Of course not.
But it is fact, like it or not.
If there was some way to change it, to enforce morality and honesty in the government, I'd be all for that. But realistically speaking, that's not about to happen any time soon. Sorry... that's just the nature of power and government. It gets corrupt over time.
As for what people are doing about the fact that we now have to face it? I'm a bit disappointed, honestly. This was our chance to take a stand on the issue, and there was a bit of a public outcry, but really not much. Most people just sort of shrugged and said, "Yeah. The government is corrupt. We know."
So, essentially - not surprising, but I wish people had done more about it.
Now, moving on...
Zimmerman!!!
Seriously, I'm glad he got acquitted. That was a bout of the most irresponsible journalism I have ever seen, completely villainizing a guy who was defending himself from a violent teenager.
Fact: The news agencies edited his FBI call to make the part where he gave a physical description of the boy into the reason he was going after the boy (ie, making it sound like Zimmerman went after him because he was black).
Fact: The kid drew blood on Zimmerman (on his head, no less) before Zimmerman shot him.
Fact: Killing in self defense is legal in Florida.
Now for the argument that he should have stayed in the car, rather than getting out and following the kid. This all comes back to the question of trusting the authorities to handle the situation.
Quite frankly, they're just not fast enough. In the time it takes a cop to get there, a crime can be committed, people can be killed, and the bad guy can be long gone. Zimmerman was right there, on neighborhood watch, which meant it was his job to take action. Yes, the cops told him to stay in his car and let them handle the situation. Yes, he chose to ignore their advice and went after the kid. But I don't blame him, because the cops just plain can't get there fast enough. It's a simple matter of logistics and lack of teleportation technology that plagues our law enforcement.
Where I do blame law enforcement, is in their attitude of, "No, don't do anything. Let us take care of it," because there are times they just plain can't, and they need to acknowledge that and quit pretending they can arrive on the scene of the crime instantly.
So, in summary - I'm glad Zimmerman got acquitted, since he did nothing illegal and got crucified by irresponsible journalism. Oh, and the journalists that did that can go die in a hole.
Next issue:
Same sex marriage.
Okay, so this one is rife with so many different viewpoints and opinions, that I'm not even going to think about trying to address all of them.
I'm going to address the questions that made me stop and think, and made me decide my stand on the issue.
Question 1: Sticking to the basics - is homosexuality morally wrong?
Well, yes. If you believe in the sanctity of sex, then homosexuality is morally wrong. Incidentally, I'm also a big fan of abstinence before marriage, and fidelity within marriage. I'm not going to get into the justification of this, because it's way off topic, and is a long post in and of itself. Just know, I believe it's wrong, I have good reasons for it (reasons better than, "The Bible says so," which is actually a really weak argument, in my opinion... again, another long and off-topic post I'm not going to write right now), and that's how I'm approaching the premise of this post.
Question 2: In the grand scheme of things, will everyone be judged on this question the same way I will?
I'm going to go with No. Why do I think that? Because so many people grow up being told there is nothing wrong with having sex when you're not married, as long as you love the person. They believe it, honestly and truly. And to hold them to my standard is hypocritical and wrong.
My beliefs on judgment:
1.) It belongs to God.
2.) God takes our upbringing and personal belief system into account. We can't be held responsible for a law we were never given.
3.) "Given," can be defined as something far deeper than, "Those people who have a belief system I don't believe in said so." They have to really know deep down (whether they're willing to admit it or not) that something is wrong before they will be held accountable for it.
Question 3: So, considering that issue, is it okay for me to support a law that forbids something I believe is wrong, even though there are people who truly believe it's just fine?
Essentially, is it okay for me to force my belief system on other people?
I'll give the official "yes or no" on that in a second.
Ultimately, this issue comes down to where I stand. We are told not to judge. We can't read the minds of anyone besides ourselves, so it's impossible to assign severity of sins to them. That's why judgment belongs to God - He understands them, and is the only One who can be completely just and fair.
And, He is also the only one who doesn't have His own slough of sins to deal with.
A good scriptural example of this is from the New Testament, the woman taken in adultery. The big lesson in that one was, "Don't judge." Should we punish her for her sins? Christ responded with, essentially, "Only if you don't have any yourselves."
Homosexualtiy - fine. Not a sin I struggle with. But there are plenty of people who do have that temptation who don't struggle with arrogance. There are plenty who don't struggle with anger.
Don't judge? I get that. I'm not better than them. I'm not worse than them either. We all have our own sins, and things we personally struggle with.
So, going back to the New Testament story, that lesson Christ gave is very clear. Don't think you can pass judgment on people because of their sins. Spend that energy working on your own.
He did not include in that lesson, "And while you're at it, let's make adultery legal."
There's a big difference between not judging people and making the sin legal. If you believe it's a sin, fight it.
One question I saw in the Facebook warring that uses the principle, but flipping it around was, "Should Muslims try to pass legislation that forbids eating of pork?"
My answer to that is if they believe eating pork is a sin, yes.
Now, personally, that question is a little extreme - eating pork is such a minor thing, and I imagine there are plenty of Muslims who don't believe the eating of pork, in and of itself, is actually a sin. In Mormonism we have a similar concept - don't drink coffee.
Is drinking coffee a sin?
No.
Not in and of itself.
If I drank coffee would it be a sin? Well, yes, but putting coffee in my body would not be the sin. The sin would be the defiance of the Word of Wisdom, which specifically forbids drinking coffee.
What's the difference?
The Word of Wisdom was a commandment given to be applicable to this day and age when addictive substances are a HUGE industry, and addictions are a massive problem leading to heartache and destruction of everything from personal lives to whole families to victims who are not remotely related to the consumer of the substance. Alcohol and drugs have never been so readily available as they are today. Consequently, we in the LDS church were instructed to not even touch them. Just don't go there. Certain substances were specifically mentioned, including alcohol, tobacco, and "hot drinks," meaning tea and coffee. This was revealed as a commandment to the LDS church, and is therefore applicable to those who believe its teachings, and [important point] have made a covenant to follow them (which happens at baptism).
So, if someone tried to pass legislation forbidding coffee, I would not support it. I'm not going to drink it, but that doesn't mean I should impose my beliefs about it on someone else.
HA! Same argument!!! See? People are using that very argument to say that even people who believe homosexuality is a sin shouldn't support making same sex marriage illegal.
But see the difference? I don't believe drinking coffee is a sin. I believe defying a commandment from God is a sin which, in my case, can be manifest in drinking coffee.
Going back to Muslims and pork, I imagine a similar scenario and feeling for them. If they believe it is a sin, then yes. They should fight it and try to pass legislation against it. If they believe it is a commandment applicable to their religion, then no.
So, this is where I stand. I believe sexual relations outside of marriage are, in and of themselves, wrong. I believe that sexual relations between the same sex are, in and of themselves, wrong. It's not a commandment just applicable to me. It's as inherently wrong as judging someone for it. It's as inherently wrong as stealing. It's just plain, black and white, inherently wrong.
And so, I stand in a place where I will fight it. I stand for defining marriage as something between a man and a woman. I don't believe in passing judgment on people; I'm not going to name-call, or tell someone they're going to hell, or otherwise "stone" them. But I also do not believe in allowing sin - a sin which is already not legally sanctioned in most states - to become something sanctioned by law. And that is how I stand on this side with a clear conscience, even when people scream that my side is wrong and intolerant, and that I'm forcing my belief system on them. I'm not forcing them to refrain from sexual relations with the same sex. I'm just not making it legally sanctioned.
And I believe in that whole-heartedly.
And thus concludes my expression of opinion about political issues. I promise, I won't do it too often. I just have a lot I haven't said out loud, and the whole point of a blog is express yourself in a form that nobody actually reads, but you secretly hope will make it out there and change the world... right?
