I Don't Get Sports . . . or Politics

Perhaps it is a product of moving around so much, but I really don't get sports. I just can't conceive of being so emotionally tangled up in what is, in the end, JUST A GAME. Maybe I don't have enough emotional real estate to spend it on that.

If I or one of my loved ones were playing, I could see getting excited about it. But not when I'm supposed to be rooting for a team which has nothing to do with me except it is nominally residing in the same place I am. (Not that ANY of the team members have any loyalty to that same place, it's all about the scholarship or the money, right?)

Same goes for politics. Do people really think a vote makes much of a difference? Even if I were able to slog through all the detritus that makes up political "commentary" (I prefer the word "kvetching") to sift out whatever grains of Truth Gold might be lurking beneath the manure, I believe that our system is deliberately organized to keep any one person from making all that much of a difference, even the President.

Perhaps especially the President.

And I don't believe that there are more than a handful of politicians out there who really want to do good. But I admit I've become a rather vehement cynic.

Does it really matter which color shirt you're wearing? It's all the same game, right? And the players in either game don't switch sides based on loyalties, believe you me.

9/11 and the Mosque: It's Not About Religion

I know there's a great deal of furor about the Mosque overlooking Ground Zero. I don't get it. I don't get it for a few reasons, some less noble than others.

First, I don't get 9/11. I know that is borderline unpatriotic, but I just don't get why it was so monumental. Maybe it is because as I was growing up, bomb drills were as much a part of the school practice as fire drills. Except, I never experienced a fire at school. Two of the "bomb drills" I went through were real. I had to carry an identification card around with me to get to my house. I've waited in line for over an hour just to get home so the bomb dogs and guys with the oversized dentist mirrors could go through every single car queued up to get on base. I lived as a child knowing that my house could be bombed, that my dad could be killed. That I could be killed in a heartbeat. It wasn't frightening, it was just how life was. 9/11 didn't carry the same punch for me that it seems to carry for most people.

Plus, I was in Germany when the attack occurred. Not only did I not live through the national panic, I experienced the anti-American rallies in the aftermath. I even suggested to my companion once or twice that we take off our missionary name tags so we could travel incognito and not start a riot. I worked hard to improve my accent in German rather than worrying about vocabulary so I could pass as British or Dutch in a pinch. I never had to use that, at least, but I was trained by life as a child how to blend in when necessary and knew it didn't hurt to be careful. I don't think all military kids learn these things, but my dad always encouraged us to immerse ourselves in our resident culture.

Which brings me to second: 9/11 wasn't about religion. It was about politics first and culture second. A good part of my life was spent in a first-world country that is not America. I lived a couple of years on a third-world island. I have seen for myself the range of emotions towards Americans ranging from excited interest through disdain to contempt. I have seen what we Americans do that justifies those sentiments.

If the attacks were about religion, there are many better religious sites that could have been destroyed. But there were no attacks on the Vatican, nothing against Notre Dame. The targets were 100% political and 100% American—a country which theoretically professes no religious alignment.

So why not let them build a Mosque near Ground Zero? Even in a worst-case scenario and the alarmists are right, that it is mockery of our culture and the Christian religion, so what? Why indulge ourselves in the self-centeredness which the rest of the world despises instead of celebrating the parts of America which make us great—our tolerance, our open arms to conflicting ideologies and points of view? We can always reclaim that mosque as a badge of honor, reform it into the gesture of mutuality they claim it is. And if the alarmists are wrong, and it really is intended as a gesture of goodwill, it is churlish and hypocritical of us to refuse it.

Religious Bully?

Interestingly, the court in a recent court case in Utah ruled against privately-erected memorials for deceased highway troopers shaped like crosses, saying that they connoted an endorsement of Christianity.

I find it interesting because the predominant religion in Utah, although Christian, does not use the cross to symbolize its religion, and by telling private parties that they can't use certain symbols when erecting memorials, the state is interfering in church. From what I understand of history, the point of "separation of Church and State" was not to keep any person from mentioning religion, but to keep the government from subsidizing a particular religion preferentially. The only ways that would cause a problem is if someone desired to erect a memorial for a state trooper in another religion's symbol for death and was refused, or if the government was somehow paying to have a religion promoted.

To me, this is clearly a case of drawing boundaries around the law which interfere with other core legal principles. By refusing the right to put up memorials with any sort of historically religious connotations, the government is controlling a party's right to religion. But I'm neither a lawyer, nor a historian.

I also find this interesting because I have lately come to realize that fears have become a part of my life which could potentially cause the very things I fear.

By being so afraid of any tint of religion in government, we are giving the government a religion: atheism. Shouldn't the point be to celebrate/tolerate all religions which do not interfere with life, liberty or property, not forbid them? Isn't the point to keep the state from becoming a religious bully?

Odd that the Founding Fathers' attempts to prevent religious bullying are now being used to create it.

I Believe in the Law

Articles of Faith #12
[I] believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

One thing that always mildly interested me as a foreign missionary in Germany was that, although two large religious groups made a habit of knocking on doors and interrupting people on the streets to share their religion, only one had a license from the government to do so. We were instructed to keep this license, a gray passport-like pamphlet, on our persons at all times.

Because we are painstakingly compliant to local laws wherever we go, the LDS church has been granted many freedoms that other religions have not always enjoyed. Countries in the Middle and Far East have welcomed us in as service missionaries when we were not allowed to proselyte. We were one of few religions allowed practice in Cold War East Germany. Doors have opened to us multiple times in multiple places because we show respect to the law.

Historically, the LDS Church was persecuted for practicing polygamy and laws were created to end it. Moving outside of US legal jurisdiction, polygamy was practiced until Utah was swallowed up in Manifest Destiny, and it was clear that there was no legal way to make it permissible. Then, the Church bowed to the law. Many are conflicted by this, feeling that if a doctrine is of God, the Church should never have submitted. But as Wilfred Woodruff asked in the footnotes of Official Declaration 1, "Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people . . . or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law . . . ?" In the case of polygamy, the eternal principle of plural marriage was temporally opposed by the principle of this Article of Faith. Eventually, a time came when the cost to the Church in not obeying the law of plural marriage was overshadowed by the cost of continuing its practice under legal opposition.

Joseph Smith also found himself arrested multiple times, but preached one of the most powerful sermons on worldly law found in religious texts. This entire section of the D&C ought to be read and pondered, particularly in the light of recent political unrest. It has given me many things to think about.

A Rant Against Judicial Fashion Sense

There are few things that have infuriated me as much as what I have heard about the California judicial system's high-handed attempt to justify legalization of gay marriage while blocking the logical follow-through of legal consensual adult polygamous marriage. How can they possibly dupe themselves into believing that such an arbitrary line is just and impartial? Like the old correlation of homosexuality and child molestation, I especially "love" how they lumped it in with incest, as if the two are at all the same kettle of fish. I think it's a big kettle of rosy red herring.

The only explanation I can think for the calumny is that being pro-gay is in vogue, but pro-polygamy is not. I'm not looking to add a wife to my husband's family, but this whole situation is so utterly illogical I'm completely floored and disgusted.

Perhaps the warnings from God through the Church against danger of gay marriage legalization is only partially about gay marriage itself and even more insidiously about the corruption of the government. As the judicial system overthrows majority vote and lose whatever pretense of impartiality they had, I can see some very bad things coming down the sump pipe in the not-so-far future.

So, fire up the rainbow flag and drape it across your sequined dress and pumps because that is Politically Correct, but prepare to be burned at the stake covered in verbal waste if you show the least bit of sympathy towards something less trendy.