Thanks, Mom.

Half of the American people never read a newspaper.  Half never voted for president.  Let's hope it was the same half.

Thanks again, Mom.

Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame.

Last week I received two emails which have bearing on my current political exploration.

The first is from President Boyd K. Packer:
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/voice/display/0,18255,5004-1-61,00.html

The second is from Governor Mitt Romney:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004647

I probably shouldn't have found this funny, but, um, I did.  Just so unsuspecting readers aren't unknowingly hit with my political views (political explorations would be a better term), this is an anti-Bush, anti-Patriot Act 30 second ad.  The creators graphically illustrate my characterization of the Patriot Act and the irrational behavior associated with “fighting the terrorists.”

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/2802_small.shtml (low bandwidth)
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/2802_large.shtml (high bandwidth)
(requires Flash and QuickTime)

The vile referral spammer is at it again.  Remember our chat last week, Mr. Kerry?  This voter still does not appreciate your disrespect for his property.  He's appalled that a “man for the people” will continue to engage in such marketing techniques.

I've read a fair amount these last few weeks on two issues - performance of same gender marriages in San Fransisco and Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion of Christ.  My intent here isn't to discuss either topic specifically, but rather to discuss some of the debate that is associated with them.

Based on my non lawyerly understanding of the subject, here's what happened in San Fransisco: in 2000, the majority of the citizens of the state of California voted in favor of not allowing same gender marriage.  The mayor of San Fransisco gave permission for same gender marriages to be performed.  Such marriages were performed.

I don't want to discuss whether such marriages should or should not be legal at this time.  What I'm alarmed about is the disrespect the mayor had for the law.  He brushed the law aside (and the votes of the majority of the citizens of the state of California) and consented to the granting of marriage licenses to same gender couples.  Whatever moral high ground he wants to claim for himself in defense of his action, I think he loses by not respecting and obeying the law.

Does our law not provide for people to voice their opinions?  Does it not allow for them to petition the government to address specific issues?  Does it not provide a court system to examine the legality of existing laws?  Does it not provide a means to elect a new government more favorable to one's personal views?  Yes, in every case, it does.

One of the duties of a citizen of this nation, especially of an elected official, is to uphold the law.  In many cases that means to uphold laws with which we, personally, do not agree.  One of the foundational pieces of doctrine of the church in which I am a member is this statement: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.  (12th Article of Faith)  I do not support breaking the law.

I am appalled at the actions in San Fransisco for several reasons.  First, the mayor broke the law by permitting illegal actions to occur.  Second, justices of the peace and other government officials sanctioned the mayor's actions.  Third, citizens took advantage of a situation and themselves participated in breaking the law by being married.  I understand that the specific issue here is a very personal one.  However, I find it very hard to be persuaded to condone actions like this.  To me they are saying that their personal needs are more important than the laws of the state and country in which they live.

In conversations regarding the issue of gay marriage, several people have talked about legislating morality, pushing beliefs on people, and intimating that to not approve of [insert social issue here] implies hatred.

A few weeks ago, I blogged generally about a conversation I had with a close friend of mine.  One of the things we discussed was the set of events in San Fransisco.  He made the comment that it is impossible to not legislate morality and that all those who accuse the conservative right of such actions are themselves performing or advocating such actions.  Said a bit more plainly - if a religious man passes a law that outlaws adultery, he is legislating morality.  If another man passes a law legalizing adultery, he is also legislating morality.  One one side is restriction, on the other is the lack of restriction.  On both sides is a belief system codified into law.  If laws are passed that legalize same sex marriages, those laws legislate morality just as much as the Defense of Marriage Act legislates morality.

In like manner, many, who are in favor of defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, are accused of pushing their beliefs on others.  Quite obviously, those who are in favor of defining marriage as the union of any two people are also pushing their beliefs on others.  There's an old saying “it takes two to tango.”  It applies here.  Both sides are pushing their beliefs on the other.  Both sides are trying to legislate morality.  There is nothing wrong with doing either.  That is what freedom of expression, democracy, and representative democracy are all about.  However, they are also about abiding by the laws that have been passed by that same process whether or not yours was the side that won.

The issue of “disagree with me implies you hate me (or the group I'm defending)” is very often just a bit of rhetorical hyperbole.  My personal stance on homosexuality is that it is wrong.  That said, I have more than one friend in the gay or bi community.  I try to practice the “love the sinner hate the sin” ideal.  I try to accept other people where they are and for who they are.  Accepting them doesn't imply that I sanction everything they do.  It also doesn't imply that I burn down their homes or beat them to a bloody pulp in the streets.

It is important to me to accept people for who they are for many reasons.  One of the main reasons is justice.  I am not a perfect person by any standard.  I quite often do not live up to the ideals in which I believe.  I'd rather not add hypocrisy to my list by pointing fingers at others, while I have many faults of my own.  That said, I do not expect (or even desire) that people accept my faults.  I hope they accept me for who I am and help me become better, but I do not hope they embrace my faults.

I lumped Mel's movie into this post, because of some of the criticism I've heard regarding his movie.  Many have accused him of being anti-semitic.  On that matter I say this - I believe there was a man named Jesus Christ who lived about 2,000 years ago, that many of the Jews of that time hated him and conspired to have him killed, and that the Romans of that time tortured and executed him.  None of those actions justify me in attacking anyone of Jewish or Roman descent.

Indeed, as a Christian, I should follow the instructions of Him in Whom I profess to believe and forgive those men of long ago.  I believe that Jesus sacrificed Himself as a result of His great love for all mankind.  Shouldn't I follow His example and do all I can to love them as well...even if it means loving those who harmed Him?  Yes.  Absolutely.  If I attack some poor Jew on the basis of the actions of his ancestors of 2000 years ago, I'm worse than those who conspired to kill Jesus, for I knew and promised to live the law of Christ, yet I reject it in my actions.  Once again, love the sinner hate the sin.

The Kerry campaign doesn't want the truth to be known.  They've spammed me, and when I bring it to their attention, they give me and give me more spam.  When I drop the spam on their doorstep, by posting on their forum, they delete the threads.  I see the respect they have for other people's opinions.  My account - GrrGrrGrr - is now subject to moderation.  All of my threads have been deleted, and I can only create new threads if they allow it.  The funny part is that, since I linked to my previous entry in the threads I created, I've received several hits.  At least some of the Kerry entries in my referral log will be legit now.

I'm annoyed.  A few days ago, Mr. Kerry sent his first bout of referral spam to me.  Today, he sent a bit more.  If he were reading my blog or linking to me, that'd be fine.  Spamming me, though, is not OK.

I visited his website, found the “Contact Us” link, and expressed my opinion of his tactics.  I stated they were not acceptable and that I'd never consider voting for him if he had no respect for me and my property (e.g. my domain and my weblog).

What was the result of that display of displeasure?  He spammed my email account!  Did I plan to vote for him?  I was considering it.  Will I vote for him, if he continues to push his message and himself on me against my will?  Not in a million years.

Mr. Kerry and anyone else who wants my vote or my business, respect my property, my time, my rights, and myself, or get no satisfaction, political or financial, from me.

Korby paraphrases Dave Winer's visit to Microsoft early this week.

'If there was any doubt that the television media controls who gets elected President [of the US] before this year, there's certainly no doubt any more. It's pretty clear to people across the political spectrum that the television executives killed Howard Dean's chances of winning the Democratic nomination.' 

I very much disagree with this.  Considering how much press Dean had prior to his less than stellar performance in Iowa, one would think the media one the election for Dean.  I can't even count how many in the media essentially pronounced Dean the nominee if not the president months before the primaries and caucuses began.  After all, he had the most money, he was pioneering with technology, he had Gore's and others support.  Dean was a shoe-in.  Oh, but wait, that was just what the media was painting.  Nobody had asked the people what they wanted.  It's the people, who are speaking now, in my opinion, not the media.

Then again, perhaps if I had heard Dave's comments in context, I'd have a different opinion.

While thinking of patriotism, I'm drawn to a somewhat similar concept...nationalism.  I hate nationalism.  I hate it.  In my mind, it is at least as vile as any other stereotype or prejudice.  It's worse than anti-semitism, racism, or religious persecution, simply because it typically excludes more people than any of those.

I define nationalism as “my country is better than yours.”  Even when my country is clearly doing something wrong, my country is still better than yours!  It justifies current bad deeds based on good deeds long past (we helped the French 50 years ago, so they should bow to our will now).  It blinds our minds to the virtues of others and the faults in ourselves.  It is an insidious evil that poisons our reasoning, our political view points, and our ability to be true patriots.

I define patriotism as doing what is right irrespective of circumstance.  A patriot will sacrifice for the greater good (a father for his family, a soldier for his country).  A patriot is an enemy of tyranny and a friend of freedom.  He doesn't lend his good name to support evil causes.  He does lend his hand to help those who accept his help no matter their citizenship.

I think this is just what Gordon B. Hinckley meant when he said, “I think there are many good people everywhere. And our appeal is to those people. We don’t down grade any Church. We don’t speak disparagingly of any Church. We simply say to people of other Churches, bring all the good that you have and come and let us see if they if we can add to it. Now that’s all there is to it.”  (see http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm)  A patriot, religious or otherwise, simply says, let me see if I can help you.  Teach me what you know, and I'll teach you what I know.  A nationalist (I'm from the US, therefore I'm the best.  I'm from Texas, therefore, I'm the best.  I'm white, therefore, I'm the best...) is too proud to admit that he can learn from anyone.

Today, I watched President Bush on Meet the Press.  I have conflicting feelings now.  Last March, I was annoyed with those who openly attacked and demonstrated against the war even while our brothers, sons, fathers, sisters, and daughters were being attacked.  Even if the war was unjust, I reasoned, I should support my family.  The head of my family might be wrong, but I shouldn't abandon the rest of them for his mistakes.

I find it harder and harder to maintain that point of view.  I find it harder and harder to not speak against a president, who I feel has betrayed me.  What I wonder is this - how is the country best served?  By venomous words?  By turning a blind eye and saying nothing?  By quietly going about my business believing in what's right even as my president leads my country to do that which is wrong?

I'm a fan of truth and a fan of honor.  I defend my position vigorously, but I try to always adapt my position, if I discover it is flawed.  I think that criticism for the sake of criticism is not worth much, but criticism for the sake of helping and making better is a good thing.  I could argue that venom spat at a vile leader could be considered constructive if the leader died and were replaced by one better.  I'm not sure that I could swallow my own argument though.  If I couldn't swallow that, which I'd consider to be an extreme case, can I swallow it in a lesser case?

So again, what do the patriots do to right the wrongs of their country?