Article VI Blog

"Religion, Politics, the Presidency: Commentary by a Mormon, an Evangelical, and an Orthodox Christian"

United States Constitution — Article VI:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

  • Very Confused Thinking In Opposition to Traditional Marriage

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:25 am, November 19th 2014     &mdash      1 Comment »

    Religion Dispatches is a web site we have monitored regularly at this web site since its inception.  It has a very liberal agenda and indiscriminately attacks religion in pursuit of that agenda.  It arose after Prop 8 in California.  While it rarely attacked Romney directly, it has been after Mormonism tooth and toenail since its founding.

    A piece appeared there today, that has echoed a bit, that I find stunning.  Using the recent admission by the CJCLDS that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy as a springboard for the discussion, the gang at RD “reveals” that polygamy is still an active part of Mormon theology through the doctrine of celestial marriage.  Therefore, of course, Mormons should be excluded from any serious discussion on marriage – especially the conference that is happening at the Vatican this week, which has featured the likes of Rick Warren and Russell Moore.

    That the Mormon concept of celestial marriage allows for polygamy in the hereafter is not news.  Anybody that takes more than a minute or two to learn about Mormon teaching will know this.  And what, exactly, does what a particular religion believes happens to marriage in the hereafter have to do with a discussion of marriage in the here-and-now?  Many of the  Christian expressions that are participating in the conference do not believe marriage exists at all in the hereafter.  Does that disqualify them from discussing marriage in the here-and-now as well?  The discussion simply is not about eternity, it is about this life and this place and the marriages that are present in it.

    There is one interesting tidbit from the discussion.  It seems clear that they intend to avoid the slippery slope of same-sex marriage leading to polygamy and bestiality and other aberrant forms of marriage by relying on the old tried and true “polygamy hurts women while same-sex marriage produces no harm.”  That is so ignorant of history as to not even be funny.  It must be remembered that historically, marriage was a woman’s means of obtaining property, wealth, standing and security in a society.  Even in our egalitarian age there is no doubt that a successful marriage produces greater economic stability than the alternatives.  Polygamy arose in the Old Testament as a means of providing security to women that otherwise were without prospects.  Polygamy as traditionally practiced in the Old Testament was far from an act of oppression and was instead an act of grace and mercy.

    But then if ones concept of marriage would permit same-sex marriage, this glaring misunderstanding  of historical polygamy is not surprising.  Theirs is a view of marriage based solely on the legitimization of sexual activity, not in the concepts of bonding, covenant, reproduction, or economic activity.

    So let me sum up their argument.  A church that used to, but no longer, practice polygamy (which includes them all by the way) has no standing to discuss same-sex marriage because they still think plural marriage exists in heaven.   That’s not an argument, that’s attempting to play “peek-a-boo” with a ten-year-old.  It’s just not working.  As the aforementioned peek-a-boo game reveals only how little the adult understands of a ten-year-old, this discussion reveals how little these particular proponents of same-sex marriage understand about serious, committed traditional marriage.

    Don’t you think you should fully understand something before you attempt to change it completely?

    Share

    Posted in News Media Bias, Same-sex marriage, Social/Religious Trends | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Same Sex Marriage – There Is Something Different Here

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 06:24 am, October 22nd 2014     &mdash      Comment on this post »

    One tends to think of the progression of same-sex marriage as an accelerated version of how abortion came to be legal in the land.  People started to clamor for it.  Some states started to look into it, some states legalized it and then SCOTUS stepped in and made it so.  Certainly proponents of same-sex marriage are trying to drive such a narrative, but something different is going on.

    For one thing it is more than a little “accelerated” in comparison of abortion.  It is downright forced.  This was illustrated strongly in a talk radio event I attended this past weekend.  The very conservative panel split along interesting lines.  On the one hand  there were the younger people, and one older ally, that pointed out their generation simply was not fired up about it.  The older ally pointed out that the issue of religious freedom was distinct and had political traction even is same sex marriage did not.  On the other hand most of the older people on the panel were making slippery slope arguments that same sex marriage was just the latest attack on not merely religious freedom, but religion generally, and that despite the ambivalence of the younger generation, we had to fight and fight hard.

    The talk radio audience is largely older, so it is not surprising that that latter view resonated with the room.  Certainly things like what is happening in Houston and Coeur d’Alene would add credence to the latter view.  But what we really have here is not an issue problem, but a messaging one.

    The younger argument is, for their generation, well framed.  They are libertarian with regards to same-sex marriage, as my generation was about abortion.  But the over reach that is happening in places like Houston and Coeur d’Alene really are religious freedom questions, not same sex marriage questions.  They can get traction across generational lines.  But it was also clear from the room at the event that such subtle messaging is a bit too subtle for the older generation.

    Aside from the speed and overly judicious means by which same sex marriage is spreading, this is where the abortion analogy begins to break down.  Abortion really was the dirty little secret of history.  While often illegal or illegitimate it has been practiced in various forms pretty much forever.  Most people, rightly, think that the same thing is true about homosexuality.  But same sex marriage is something quite different from simple homosexual activity.  It is without historical precedent.  Many other of what we consider aberrant forms of marriage (polygamy, for example) have historical antecedents, but there are simply none for same-sex marriage.   From the perspective of the older generation which has learned history not merely propaganda, the idea of same-sex marriage is so outside of human practice as to be unworthy of discussion, let alone serious consideration.

    One of the younger members of the panel pointed out that same-sex marriage is advancing because no one is arguing against it.  He was sympathetic that in light of history, we were caught flat-footed, but that we had to respond.  What I heard when I heard that was a young man asking to be parented.  Of course this guy is married with small children of his own, but from the perspective of my age that’s what it sounded like.  Some things are so rudimentary, so fundamental to human functioning that they should not be argued for or against.  To argue is to admit that the opposing view has some merit.  Somethings are dismissed, not argued.  For the younger generation to give credence, not dismissal, to arguments for same sex marriage is a lack of parenting, not rhetoric.

    Of course, at this juncture there is an enormous amount of cultural analysis that could and should take place.  But from a purely political standpoint, can parenting be accomplished in political messaging?  And if so, how?

    I am not smart enough to figure out the complete answer to that question, but there is one component of it that I know is necessary.  Our political leadership has to begin again to lead, not merely cater to the voter.  Much of the urgency that we see on the same sex marriage issue right now is because the lack of political leadership in the nation is so painfully obvious that almost anyone can figure out that the next administration will be better at it, regardless of who is elected.

    But this also sets an agenda for the next Congress.  Should the polling hold and the Republicans gain both houses, they have got to lead, not merely pander for votes.  Because of the administration their leadership may be fruitless, but they have to be seen to lead.  Generals in losing battles are still leaders – winning is not the point right now – leadership is.  Such leadership will embolden the older generation to do the same in small ways throughout the nation and the cultural tides may begin to shift.  If a Republican Congress fails to lead they will be just as to blame for the cultural degradation of our society as those that openly call for so much that is symptomatic of the decline.

    It is high time we older folks acted like it.

    Share

    Posted in Evangelical Shortcomings, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Same-sex marriage | Comment on this post » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    It Is No Longer About Same Sex Marriage

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 08:05 am, June 29th 2013     &mdash      1 Comment »

    On Thursday we noted that the Prop 8 ruling by SCOTUS was a “baby splitter” and that its effectiveness relied on both sides having mutual respect for each other and the law.  As same sex marriage resumed in California yesterday, it is clear such is not the case.  News about the legal problems are hard to find.  From the article just linked:

    John Eastman, a professor of law at Chapman University and the director of the Center of Constitutional Jurisprudence, told KPCC’s Nick Roman that the appeals court jumped the gun Friday. Under Supreme Court rules, a 25-day period is normally required to allow the losing party to petition for a rehearing.

    “I’ve had a number of people asking me about legal recourse and quite frankly I’ve been telling them it’s hard to recommend legal recourse when what’s happening here is just such utter lawlessness,” Eastman said.

    “There’s a reason we have a petition for rehearing. Sometimes courts get decisions wrong, and a petition for rehearing can point out errors in the court’s decision,” Eastman said.

    And from CNN:

    But there is legal uncertainty whether the high court’s ruling could be enforced statewide, or limited to only a few jurisdictions.

    A bit of explanation may be in order.  Firstly, what cleared the way for the marriages to occur yesterday was that the appeals court lifted the order stopping same-sex marriage, that it issued in the wake of the controversial district court ruling.  This is what Eastman is talking about.  The second point is a bit more complex.  A federal district court has limited jurisdiction, over only part of the state – it has no authority to make a ruling over all of California.  This means that when Jerry Brown ordered the resumption of same sex marriage statewide, those portions of the state not under the jurisdiction of the district court that issued the ruling are technically in violation of the California State constitution.

    What’s going on, effectively, is exactly what Eastman said – lawlessness.  No one is respecting the law right now.  It simply does not matter.

    The closest analogy that I can come up with to where we are right now is Prohibition.  But even then government officials who very well may have had a drink in a speakeasy the night before went through the motions of enforcing and respecting the law – they did not openly defy it.  They may have personally and clandestinely disobeyed it, but their public and office actions DID NOT hold the law in disregard.  What is happening in California right now does just that – it holds the law and legal procedure in utter and complete disregard.

    And bear in mind, the law that has been summarily dismissed here is not mere legislative action, something of which one could reasonably assert the actions of an out-of-touch ruling class.  Rather this is foundational, constitutional law passed by a direct vote of the citizenry.  The proposition process has resulted in all sorts of nonsense over the decades – the legalization of marijuana being the latest.  But ask yourself this question – suppose the sheriff in county x in Colorado decided he disagreed with the proposition as passed and continued to bust dopers with much public fanfare and energy.  Would the state police arrest the sheriff?  What if the governor agreed with the sheriff and ordered no action on the part of state officialdom.  Would the dopers go to war with the sobers in the county?

    The question now is what other law shall we decide, without process, may be disposed of?  Given the parties and issues immediately involved, one fears deeply about the laws regarding religious freedom.

    The nation faces a deep and fundamental crisis.

    I have been reflecting of late on how we got here.  We got here in no small part because conservatives deeply respect reason and the law while our opponents are willing to push the boundaries of those things beyond recognition.  To respond in kind is, on our part, to cease to be conservative.  Meeting our opponents on their own terms, tempting though it is, means they win.  We cannot go there.  And yet, as Eastman points out, legal recourse seems to evade us.  Can we allow mob rule?

    Of course not, but we may very well have to let the energy of this particular mob dissipate of its own accord.  Patience is a virtue, and there may yet be method to the Supreme Court’s seeming madness.  It may be that California will serve, as it has so often in the past, as exemplar for the rest of the nation – even if this time it is in the wrong direction.

    In the book “World War Z” (the movie was nothing like the book), it is eventually decided that the only way to save the world is to withdraw to defensible positions, and that they cannot try to take everyone with them.  If people can make it to the safe zones they are welcome, but they get no help in getting there. – all energy must be poured into establishing and maintaining the safe lines.   It is only after years of reorganizing, of re-establishing law in what had become a lawless world, behind the lines that the world can return to the offensive.  One must wonder if SCOTUS has not just drawn such a defensible line at the California border.  (Before everyone abandons California, there were smaller safe zones in the abandoned parts of each nation – outposts that proved invaluable when the world returned to the offensive.)

    This much I do know.  If Justice Roberts is playing a “long game” with the Supreme Court, God’s game is much, much longer.

    Share

    Posted in Culture Wars, News Media Bias, Proposition 8, Same-sex marriage, Social/Religious Trends | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Sometimes You Cannot Split The Baby

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 05:34 am, June 27th 2013     &mdash      1 Comment »

    Yesterday, K-Lo at the Corner, quoted Ross Douthat:

    The future of religious liberty on these issues is going to depend in part on the magnanimity of gay marriage supporters — the extent to which they are content with political, legal and cultural victories that leave the traditional view of marriage as a minority perspective with some modest purchase in civil society, versus the extent to which they decide to use every possible lever to make traditionalism as radioactive in the America of 2025 as white supremacism or anti-Semitism are today.

    The Supreme Court tried to split the baby yesterday.  The problem in this case, as opposed to when Solomon threatened it, is that the tactic relies on the good will of both sides.  Yes, he knew the natural mother would save the life of her child, but she would also have lost that had the “adoptive”mother not also had the child’s best interest at heart.  For the ploy to arrive at truth, both sides had to have other than self-interest at heart.   Lopez and Douthat are worried that such goodwill does not exist on the pro-gay-marriage side.  After reading the news this morning, I agree.  Consider this from an “alternative” lifestyle outlet:

    A Ventura County man was ordered to pull the plug on his flashing neon anti-Mitt Romney sign in his front yard today or go to jail.

    Steven Showers, who first put up the sign last August in front of his home in Newbury Park, said he intends to comply with the order issued by a Ventura County Superior Court judge. According to the Ventura County Star, Showers has until 5 p.m. today to take down the sign or he’ll be facing up to 45 days in jail.

    Last week, a jury convicted Showers of eight misdemeanor code violations. Showers, 60, represented himself at the trial.

    Showers insists he has a First Amendment right to display the sign, which says “Romney’s Racist Heart Dotcom. Save the GOP.” He installed it back when Romney was still running for president, and refused to remove it even though the GOP candidate lost the election.

    His issue with Romney is that he’s a Mormon. As Showers said to the Ventura County Star last year, “I was stunned to find out that the Mormon religion is a white supremacist, anti-black, racist ideology.”

    That sounds like a take no prisoners attitude to me.

    We’re in trouble.

    Share

    Posted in Religious Freedom, Same-sex marriage, Social/Religious Trends | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Will Churches Be Far Behind?

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 05:54 am, May 31st 2013     &mdash      Comment on this post »

    The Washington Times reports:

    California senators introduced a bill on Thursday that would strip the Boy Scouts of America of its tax-exempt status in the state.

    They’re not happy with the group’s recent vote on gay membership, saying it didn’t go far enough.

    [...]

    The bill passed the Senate 27-9.

    Welcome to the chilling new age.

    Coercion has replaced convincing.  Decades upon decades of good acts and making good people is to be punished over a legitimate disagreement on a single issue!?  This is abuse of government at its absolute worst.  How can a government even dream of singling out an organization in this fashion?  One organization!  The power of government is being used not on a policy basis, but on a punitive, highly aimed basis.  Was it not opposition to such government action that our nation was founded upon?

    The threats of this action I have understood.  Such threats are powerful rhetoric and policy changes are wrought in rhetoric.  But to actually pull the trigger and act, and to do so based on a compromise action is frightening.  This is political violence, make no mistake.  We are unleashing forces that we may not be able to control.

    Share

    Posted in Religious Bigotry, Same-sex marriage, Social/Religious Trends | Comment on this post » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Jason Collins Just Made The Supreme Court’s Job A Whole Lot Easier

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 09:33 am, April 30th 2013     &mdash      3 Comments »

    First Fact: Jason Collins “came out” as gay in Sports Illustrated yesterday.

    Fact Two: SCOTUS is currently trying to decide two cases related to same-sex marriage, one on DOMA and one on California’s Prop 8.

    These are essentially discrimination cases.  The claims center on the fact that it is discriminatory to forbid same-sex marriage.  But if you think about it, we discriminate everyday; otherwise, there could be no criminal or non-criminal, no good or bad.  Discrimination is not, of itself, wrong.  It is only wrong to discriminate in certain situations.  Legally, these “certain situations” are defined as a “protected class.”

    Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.[1] The term describes characteristics or factors which cannot be targeted for discrimination and harassment.

    So, what are the protected classes in the United States?  Wikipedia (linked above) provides a list.

    Now, examine that list of characteristics carefully.  It can be divided into two categories.  Let’s call one “Attributes” and the other “Choices.”  Attributes are those characteristics that we have no control over – they are essentially accidents of birth.  So, the protected classes in the category of Attributes would be, race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability and genetic information.

    Choices as a category is a different matter.  These are characteristics over which we as individuals do have control. The characteristics on that list that fall into this category are religion, familial status, and veteran.

    Now the first thing we have to ask ourselves is if they we are to judge same sex marriage as discriminatory, into which category would we fit homosexuality?  This is where Jason Collins comes in.  Jason Collins is an identical twin:

    Something in the media guides did not compute.

    Jason Collins is listed at 7-0 and 260 pounds in the New Jersey Nets media guide, while the Utah Jazz media guide lists twin brother Jarron at 6-11 and 255. Aren’t they identical twins?

    Yes, responds Portia Collins, the mother of the first set of identical twins to play in the NBA since Harvey and Horace Grant.

    So, is Jason taller than Jarron?

    After a bemused pause, the answer we knew was coming finally arrived: “Noooo.”

    “They filled out questionnaires and have a media archive at their respective schools [high school and Stanford University]. Jarron and Jason let it continue. I don’t think they let it bother them.”

    His brother Jarron is married, with kids; by all appearances quite heterosexual:

    Late last summer Jason called and said that he was coming over because he had something to tell me. This was nothing new. We speak multiple times a day, always have. He’s Tio Jason to my three kids. He’s like a brother to my wife. He’s my twin, eight minutes older. We live only a few miles apart on the west side of L.A. But while most of our conversations are quick and light, this one was different.

    So, here we have two men, genetically identical, that grew up together, were afforded all the same opportunities, went to high school and college together.  They seem as close as brothers can be.  Yet one is homosexual and one is heterosexual.  Clearly then, Jason’s homosexuality is a choice, or perhaps a series of small choices over the course of many years, but it is certainly not an Attribute, as we defined it above.

    Many are the claims that homosexuals are “just born that way.”  How many times have I heard, “That’s just the way I am.”  Well, clearly it is not, as so well illustrated by the Collins twins.  Physically identical and walking nearly identical paths until well into adulthood,  one made choices that lead to a traditional lifestyle and the other made choices that lead down the path that was exposed yesterday.

    Jason Collins “coming out” should make it crystal clear to SCOTUS that if they are to award “protected class” to homosexuals it will be in the Choices category, not the Attributes one.  But examine carefully that short list in the Choices category.  Religion is set aside as a protected class within the body of the constitution proper, and it is plain letter in the Bill of Rights.  Veteran only makes sense – this is another means of honoring those that have served the nation at the highest risk.  It seems commonsense enough.

    Familial status is where the rub lies.  But note, this is not an absolute when it comes to the protections.  The protections are limited purely to housing matters and furthermore, there are notable exceptions.  While it could be argued that same-sex marriage is, in some sense, a “familial status,” it falls so far outside the existing protection limits as to make it plain to the court that they will be creating a whole new protected class should they go that direction with these cases.

    Does the court have the power to create a protected class?  Note that each of the classes on the list above were created by legislative action, as cited.  When it comes to Attributes, it could be argued that the court might create, and/or expand a category based on “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…,” in the Declaration of Independence.  But as the case of the Collins twins makes so transparent – this is no Attributes situation.

    The Court has little choice but to leave existing law in place.  These are choices by the individuals involved and how to deal with such people is a choice for the people generally.  That is why there are elections and legislatures.  If the Court decides otherwise, it will be a clear and undeniable usurpation of power.  It would be a tyrannical act.

    Share

    Posted in Culture Wars, Prejudice, Same-sex marriage, Social/Religious Trends | 3 Comments » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    « Previous« Joe Biden’s Odd Form Of Racism  |  Next Page »Can You Believe They Are Still Writing This Stuff??? »