My Life

Lessmons

2012-02-09T10:49:00.000-05:00

I was actually very pleased to watch this video (link here) about how people are leaving the LDS church in droves, and not because I take sadistic pleasure in seeing the numbers of LDS church membership decrease. I think that the LDS church does in many ways serve as a positive force in the lives of some of my family and friends, and so I cannot with good conscience take joy in seeing it suffer.

But the reason that I can take pleasure in this news report is that, to me, it says that people are thinking for themselves. They are learning about their church (as I did) and are questioning whether what the church says is really true. I would definitely recommend this to anyone at any stage in life. And it's not something that you just do once and you're done. It's more of an ongoing thing that you should do at every stage of life. Think about what you believe, why you believe it, and whether it's a good thing to believe--or whether it's a true thing to believe.

This is how progress is made in the world. If people never stopped to think "Why do we treat black people like slaves but white people like people?" then we'd still have slaves and segregation. If people never stopped to ask "Why is it that men are allowed to vote but not women" then men would still be the only ones making all of the political decisions. We'd still be back in the primitive nomadic societies we had back in the earliest days of mankind. It would not be a good thing. So, let us question our beliefs. Things that we think are "common sense" or "god-given truths", let us ask whether they really are. Let us learn more about the world around us. Reality is so much more exciting and wonderful than any fiction we can ever come up with.

With liberty and justice for the non-gay

2012-02-07T03:33:00.003-05:00

If you haven't already read this article from the Rolling Stone, you need to. Read all of it. Don't skip anything, and read all the way to the end. As I read it, I first thought "yeah, more anti-gay bullying". Then I kept reading. I was shocked, then disgusted, then horrified, disappointed, and dismayed. I checked the date. Is this really happening now--in the 21st century? Is this recent? Really? This isn't from the 50s or 60s? It's from now?

How can people be so hateful? How can someone profess to believe in a loving god and actually say to another person--whether in jest or in earnest--"You should go blow your brains out."? What kind of disgusting, depraved soul would you have to have in order to say such a horrific and inhumane thing to someone else?

How can an entire school district be so calloused as to completely ignore all of these complaints, and all of these suicides? How can they possibly think it anything other than the grotesque and hateful teachings of those churches who teach that gays are evil and will go to hell? This should not happen in an enlightened society. It should not happen in a land where the rights of every individual are held as sacred as anything else--a land that was established for that very reason.

Words cannot describe the anger I feel--the extreme violation of my sense of justice in this matter. Honestly, how many people need to kill themselves before you finally wake up and decide that what you're teaching is harmful? I'm through with any attempt I've made in the past to try to bridge the gap between homosexuals and religion. I will not defend in any way any teaching that says that homosexuals or homosexual behavior is evil. It is these teachings that are evil. It is preachers who utter such disgusting nonsense that poison the minds of society--especially innocent, young children--and create monsters that go around telling people to blow their brains out. This is horrible.

If there is a god, he certainly does not smile on anyone that makes such disgusting and inhumane comments. He does not approve of administrators and school boards who have the power to do something to stop (or at least curtail) this terror, and yet stand idly by watching it happen in silence. The deaths of these gay children are on the heads of their school teachers, their administrators, the school board, the preachers and pastors in the area that teach such hatred, and (of course) the bullies at the schools who do such horrible things.

How can someone in good conscience grab another guy's balls and in doing so openly ridicule the boy? How can anyone feel good about ruining this young boy's life by making him feel completely worthless and evil? This is disgusting. There is no place for this on the Earth. There is no place for this in America. I will not tolerate it any longer. No one should tolerate it. These stories should stir up every heart to anger--at least any heart that has any sense of justice and humanity in it. The actions taken by the bullies against the gay people of this school district are those of a psychopath. Ask yourself if you really want to support a religion that encourages psychopathy.

All of the churches who teach anything but love and acceptance toward homosexuality are evil. They promote and encourage this kind of behavior and it is disgusting. I hate it. I hate any teaching that homosexuality is evil. I hate anyone who believes such nonsense. The baptist church, the evangelicals, the Catholic church, and the LDS church. The LDS church likes to pride itself in saying that it's gay friendly, but in many ways that's more harmful because it convinces its members that in the very act of discriminating against gay people they are showing the maximum amount of love for those people. Such a horrible thing to teach.

If you disagree with me, stay out of my way. I will tear to shreds anyone who thinks that it's okay to bully people like this. Don't even try to defend any sort of horrific doctrine that teaches that some people are evil just because of whom they love--or any other equally disgusting and discriminatory doctrine.

I have been motivated in the past to speak out in favor of gay rights, but now my efforts will be redoubled. I will do all that is in my power to ensure that the day will soon come when gay people will be treated equally and no longer as inferior or second-class citizens. It is no longer okay to hate or discriminate. It is wrong and it is evil. And if you find yourself defending this position, I will consider you to be evil as well.

The day will come when the mainstream churches will accept gay people in full fellowship. It is inevitable. They will either do so or they will dwindle into a fringe religion and lose any positive PR they have heretofore acquired. But, until that day comes, I cannot speak positively of its position on homosexuality. I must speak against any church that teaches hateful things such as god hates fags or gays go to hell.

We need more love in the world--real love, where you treat other people kindly regardless of any differences. We need less fake love--the kind where you say "praise Jesus" and then turn around and start gossipping about people or ridiculing them and judging them for being different. That is not love. That's hypocrisy. And it's disgusting.

Making the pathway bright

2012-02-02T23:53:00.004-05:00

I like making people smile. I try to be funny. I tell jokes and say things that I think will make people laugh. In class, I tell jokes to my students and I even confess that they're cheesy and that it's okay if they don't laugh. Sometimes I offer extra credit for anyone who does laugh.

At any rate, I really enjoy brightening other people's lives. I have been told by a few different people that I am a positive source of energy, and I really like being seen that way. There is much sadness in the world and I would like to think that I do my share to combat it.

In fact, this is why I have decided to be as vocal as I have on the matter of gay rights. I think it is unjust to allow straight people to marry but not gay people. I think that in order to decrease the amount of sadness and oppression, gay marriage should be legalized. So, I fight to brighten the lives of other gay people such as myself. I don't delude myself in thinking that I make an enormous difference--that I tip the scale or anything--especially since I have joined the cause so late in the game, where the momentum is already built to the point of being unstoppable (for which I am very grateful). However, I do like to think that I've done something to the effect of helping people who had previously had unpleasant views of gay people or a less than adequate understanding of the topics involved with gay rights.

But, aside from that, I try in every aspect of my life to make people happy. Perhaps I do this too much, maybe not enough. But I enjoy doing it. Knowing that I have brightened someone's day makes me that much happier myself. Seeing a smile on another person's face that I put there is so very rewarding to me. Of course, I'm also flattered when someone laughs at my jokes because it confirms my egotistical notion that I'm funny. But, the fact of the matter is that I genuinely care about people. I want them to be happy and I want their life to be better for having interacted with me.

You can live a happy life in this world of toil and strife
If there's sunshine in your heart.
And your soul will glow with love from the perfect light above
If there's sunshine in your heart today.

I think that that this is very true. Regardless of what things are going on around you, you can choose to be happy. You don't need money, you don't need good grades. You don't need a nice car or a huge house or any other such amenities in life. Happiness is a choice. (Of course, I don't mean to discredit those who are clinically depressed, what I have said I mean to be interpreted in the context of having a normal balance of chemicals in the brain.) You get to decide how to react to any situation. When someone cuts you off in traffic, you can be angry at them or you can be grateful that they didn't cause an accident and that you and your car are still fine.

I am a very happy man. And I have many reasons to be happy. Certainly, I have many reasons to be unhappy too, but I see no value in focusing on those reasons. I could complain about this or that or the other, but the point is that I don't like doing that. I like acknowledging that there is much good and happiness in the world around me. I love my boyfriend, I love my job, I love my life. And I love making other people happy too.

So, here's for brightening your day. Go out and brighten someone else's. Smile at that grumpy cashier. Give an extra large tip to that waiter/waitress. One time, when Karen and I were first married, one of the guys in our apartment complex hit a ball into our kitchen window. We baked him a plate of cookies and took it over. It felt so much nicer than being angry at him or upset at the fact that our window was broken (fortunately, we had very efficient management at that complex and it wasn't long before the pane was replaced--in fact, they had already vacuumed up the glass before we ever got home and saw it broken). Now that I think about it, I don't often have things like that happen to me in life, but when I react with kindness like that I find myself and the other person much happier than when I react hastily with anger or bitterness.

Chip-on-the-shoulder-fil-A

2012-01-28T18:30:00.000-05:00

I have to admit, I'm rather surprised at how passionate some people are getting in their attacks against Chick-fil-A. This story has been circulating around. And for a while now, I've seen people accuse CFA of being "anti-gay". But, personally, I think this is just one more example of an overreaction.

To be fair to gay rights activists and those others who say things like this, I have to point out that gay people take this issue personally for good reason. Being told that you're not allowed to marry, or that your relationship is not based on real love, or many of the other hurtful, thoughtless things that people say is certainly offensive and depressing. And it's very personal because it's about one's personal life--there's no way to make it not be personal. So, all of the emotion that gets poured into the activism is quite understandable. However, like any other emotion, I think there comes a time when it needs to be reined in.

So, Chick-fil-A has donated money to some Christian organizations--some of which actually do have anti-gay agendas, and some of which are at least perceived as such. This much cannot be denied. But to take the next step of calling CFA themselves "anti-gay", and even calling for a boycott against them I think is more than mildly myopic. For one thing, it makes a mockery of our own cause. It sends the message that we take every little thing and blow it way out of proportion--that we can't even stand other people disagreeing with us.

Let's examine the donations a bit further. One of the two million was given to a fund entitled the "Marriage & Family Legacy Fund". I searched that phrase and found only this document about it. So, it would appear that this is part of the Marriage CoMission. From the tiny bit of information they have on their website, it really looks like they're just a group of people trying to push for actual strength of marriages, which I don't think is bad at all--in fact, I think it's quite good. It would not surprise me if this group only wanted to strengthen straight marriages, or even that it openly opposed gay marriage. But, it really does seem like their main purpose is to strengthen families, which I believe is a noble cause.

25% of the $2 million donated to "anti-gay groups" was given to an organization called "Fellowship of Christian Athletes". This is merely a group that wants to promote Jesus in sports. Seriously, that's their goal. Obviously not a goal I agree with, and it's just as obvious that they'd likely be anti-gay, but still not enough reason to call CFA "anti-gay" simply for donating to them.

So, that leaves less than half a million for all the other donations criticized in the Huffington Post article I linked to above. Focus on the Family and Exodus are admittedly anti-gay. I don't know anything about the others, but that's only $6,000 together, so I don't think it matters. Okay, so yes, CFA did actually donate money to groups that are actively campaigning against gay rights. But, honestly, $12,500? Considering that CFA makes $4 billion in annual revenue? Even if the entire $2 million that the article discusses all went to anti-gay groups, that would still be less than one tenth of a percent of their revenue. I hardly consider that to be a significant amount of money.

But, honestly, let's examine the actions of CFA themselves. Have they ever campaigned against gay rights? Have they ever instituted an anti-gay company policy? Do they fire gay employees? Do they do anything that could be interpreted as actually being anti-gay? If so, I am wholly unaware of it. And if they want to donate some of their money to causes that they think are worthy causes, then why should anyone judge them for that? Honestly, leave them alone.

The main problem with calling CFA anti-gay when they really aren't is that it detracts from organizations that truly are anti-gay, such as the LDS church, the Catholic church, NOM, and many other organizations. If you're going to call any group "anti-gay" simply because there are some members in it that personally feel that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, or because they give some of their money to groups that have an anti-gay belief, then the phrase starts to lose its meaning.

Think how many transactions you would actually do in your day-to-day life if you took the trouble to look up how every organization spends all of its money. You wouldn't ever buy anything. You wouldn't ever spend any money at all. I'm sure Wal-Mart donates money to groups that have views that I don't personally agree with, but if I used that as a reason not to shop there, people would probably think I was being rather ridiculous (also, Wal-Mart wouldn't care because the other 300 million Americans would still shop there). I mean, really, if you take the time to pick apart a company or organization and see where they spend each dollar that they have, you'll probably be disappointed in every one of them. So, this seems rather futile to me.

If CFA did actually campaign against gay rights, I would definitely join in a boycott against them (I don't eat there anyway, since they don't put anything other than chicken on their sandwiches--no lettuce, no tomato, nothing that tastes good--but I would join with others in spreading the news and calling for a boycott). But, the truth is that they haven't. And I see no reason for a boycott. I don't see a need to burn any more bridges than I need to. Boycotting CFA seems like it has as its fruit only making CFA dislike gay people more, and making the general public maintain the idea that we're all just a bunch of angry people who will cry whenever anyone doesn't agree with us. I certainly don't want that image for myself.

So, what I will call for is more research. Before you start attacking someone or some organization, look deeper into what the claims are. And certainly, before you jump on the boycott bandwagon, find out exactly why the boycott is valid. I mean, do you really want the guilt of putting a company out of business (not that that would happen with CFA) simply because some information was blown out of proportion--that the company you just bankrupted was innocent of any charges you put against them? I know I would feel bad if I had done that. There's far too much sensationalism in the media, and I really don't want to contribute to it any.

Lessons from Javert

2012-01-16T14:04:00.000-05:00

Conrad and I just watched Les Miserables yesterday. I love the music and I love the story--as tragic as all of it is. I was surprised when Conrad told me that for him the most sentimental part was when Eponine died because to me, that was always a part of the story that I didn't really notice very much at all. Eponine was (to me anyway) just a minor character and her story a side plot. Certainly, she is pitiable (for being raised by the Thenardiers if for nothing else) and I don't mean to dismiss that at all, it just never stuck out to me.

But, the story that I think is extremely tragic is that of Javert. Javert spends his entire life serving the law and exacting justice. He identifies himself with the law. He hunts down Jean Valjean everywhere he goes. He devotes his entire life to justice. He knows nothing of mercy or compassion. His world view is so black and white, so absolute--there is no room for error, no room for forgiveness, no room for exception. And then, when Valjean releases him rather than killing him, his entire world is turned upside down.

Personally, I think that it is easy for many people to demonize Javert and thereby distance themselves from him--Conrad didn't have one good thing to say about him and didn't feel bad about him dying either. But I think this is dangerous because each one of us really has a Javert inside. When I first read the book back in high school, I probably had more pity for Javert than for any character. The thing that I find so tragic about Javert is that his misery (and the misery he causes others) is entirely of his own making. He is at the same time the perpetrator and the victim (although, not the sole victim) of his crime--not his crime against the law but against humanity. His entire life he had the power to do good, but he never (that's probably a strong word, maybe "rarely" would be better) did not because he wanted to be evil, but because he thought that serving the law was the best way for him to be good.

I would assert that by far the biggest cause for evil in the world is people doing what they believe to be right, but being completely wrong about that belief. I don't think that Stalin really had in mind the slaughter of his people when he made his plan. I think that he was trying to make a better Russia (and in many ways he did) and felt that the way he was doing it was effective. I don't think the US government had as their goal the suffering of all the innocent civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima when they decided to bomb Japan. I think that they really were doing what they thought was best. Unfortunately, one's intentions do not excuse one's actions--as they say, the road to Hell is paved by good intentions. I think that many of the evilest deeds ever done (as those mentioned) are done with the belief that they are actually good deeds.

But, yesterday, as Conrad and I were eating dinner and talking about the play we had just seen, I started to realize one way in which I really could relate to Javert. When he sees Jean Valjean be so kind to him, his world is shattered. The way he viewed everything his whole life had been so wrong. All he had believed and lived his life for was false. He could not comprehend that someone could be as compassionate and forgiving as Jean Valjean was to him. He could have had his life taken, and even expected it to be, but it was spared instead. Unfortunately, the cognitive dissonance this created caused him to take his own life. I had always seen this as his brain simply snapping because he realized that he was wrong his whole life. And that's exactly how I felt when I realized that the LDS church is not true. My brain snapped. I didn't know what to think or what to feel anymore. Such a surge of cognitive dissonance as I had never felt before. Gladly, it wasn't so bad that I felt it necessary to kill myself, but I can definitely relate to how Javert felt.

Of course, it goes further than that. Just as Javert came to realize that people are good--that even a criminal can do something kind and compassionate for someone else--I came to realize that people are good. I had always thought that people who didn't know Christ (or, more specifically, the LDS church) simply didn't know how to be the best they could be. That is, I thought people were good in spite of being non-Mormon. Then I came to realize that people are inherently good. In fact, those who have no dogma to follow are more genuinely kind than those who are dogmatic. That is, that people are good because they are non-Mormon (or, more specifically, non-religious).

What is not religion

2012-01-13T08:36:00.001-05:00

I remember when I was a young child, I found a video my dad had that was a man (probably a Fundamentalist Christian) arguing for the case that America is a Christian nation and was founded as such. I recall at one point that he argued that atheism is a religion. That was probably the first time I had heard such an argument, and it may have even been one of the first times I heard the word "atheist". Since that day, I have heard the argument many times by many different people.

One time, I even said it to my office mate who was atheist. This would become the first time I was exposed to an argument against the claim that atheism is a religion. His case was that religion usually involves some sort of ritual or ceremony (baptism, communion, etc), of which atheism is devoid. At the time, I thought it was a rather weak argument. And I still think it's only part of a complete argument (just as cereal is part of a complete breakfast).

I don't really want to argue here whether atheism is a religion. I assert that it is not, and I'll briefly give some of the reasons why I believe this, but I don't want it to become central to today's post. As mentioned above, I think a religion should involve some kind of ritual. But, aside from that, religion requires active belief in something (a god, many gods, some kind of supernatural explanation of the natural world) whereas atheism is merely the position that things which are claimed should be supported with evidence, and that the more spectacular the claim, the more substantial the evidence backing it should be.

What I do want to talk about in this post is my own thoughts on why I think people say things like "atheism is a religion". I've just recently heard a few people say that they think science and academia are religions. I was completely baffled when I first heard this. I would like to know what kind of argument someone would have for supporting the claim that academia is a religion. Or how science qualifies for that word.

So, I've been musing about it and here is one conclusion that I came to. The word "religious" and its adverbial form "religiously" are used to describe religion, but also as synonymous with "dogmatic" or "dogmatically". Of course, I see good reason for this: most religions (until some of the more recent ones) are dogmatic. Most religions require their members to follow a strict code of conduct, and those who do so are very devoted, very rigorous in their observance--very "religious".

I think this is perhaps one reason why people use the word "religion" (and its derivatives) to describe science, academia, atheism, and other things that I believe are completely lacking in anything resembling a religious belief. It is because there are those in science who are dogmatic about science. There are those who claim that science is the ultimate end-all be-all. I assert that much of what we know about our universe is due to science, and that certainly the scientific method is a tried and true way of learning truth. And I think those who take science for what it is are in no danger of interpreting it as a religion. But there are those who dogmatically follow science and even go so far as to condemn any other way of learning. So, they are dogmatic scientists (or followers of science).

Likewise, there are those in academica that treat academia as a dogma. But, in either case, I don't think there's cause to call it "religion". There is no entity being worshipped, there are no rituals or rites that are performed. Okay, in academia there is a lot of ceremony, but I think that's quite different. I don't think there's anything religious about academia. At times dogmatic, but never religious.

In short, I think that one main reason why the word "religion" is used to describe things such as atheism, academia, and science is because it is used synonymously with "dogma". In fact, many dictionaries even include a definition for religion something like "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". I don't believe that this word should be used in this way. I think that it should be reserved for a specific kind of belief, but I'm sure I'm not the only one with an opinion on what the definition of "religion" should be. I think the problem with being too inclusive with definitions is that it destroys the purpose of vocabulary. If anything that people get overly excited about is called a religion, then it would include virtually every hobby and personal interest that we have. So, I think that it should be reserved for things where people claim to worship a supernatural being or claim to have some connection with the supernatural world.

At any rate, I would say that science, academia, and atheism are most definitely not religion. I admit that in just about any group of people, there are those who are dogmatic and stubbornly insist that their way of understanding things is the best, and I also believe that such behavior is silly, but I think that religion is just one place where such behavior is found, not the only place. I think the world is much more amazing and wondrous when you admit that you don't know all there is to know, that there are wonderful things out there waiting to be discovered, and that no one has all the answers.

Hitchens v god

2012-01-10T23:00:00.001-05:00

I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.

I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.

Vlog

2012-01-09T23:46:00.000-05:00

I have started a video log. The link to the vlog itself is here. I will also be putting my videos on my YouTube channel and you can subscribe to the video podcast via iTunes.

I'll continue to maintain this blog, as I have done. We'll see if my vlog and this blog converge at some point in the future. For now, I'm basically just explaining some of my background information.

I hope to keep my vlog updated every week or so. The first part of the semester is usually slower than the second part, so I might slow down after Spring break, but we'll see. As usual, any and all input is appreciated.

The Fear of Opposition

2012-01-08T07:44:00.001-05:00

I came across this video on my Facebook newsfeed. As far as the main thrust of the guy's speech, I'd say that he's making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't believe that personalized ads or search results are even remotely dangerous.

One thing he talked about did pique my interest, though, and that was when he pointed out that Facebook started filtering out his conservative friends from his newsfeed simply because he clicked on his liberal friends' profiles more often. I've known that Facebook's been doing this for a while--I'm not certain exactly how long that's been, but it's never bothered me either.

However, it did make me think about why that is the case. Obviously, part of the reason is that Facebook's just trying to make it easier to find the things you're more interested in and filter out the things that you're less likely to be interested in. In my opinion, that's not necessarily a bad thing. What I do think is bad, though, is that we do this as humans. We did it before the internet ever came out, and I'm sure that we've done it for pretty much all of the history of our race.

I've noticed that as I came out of the closet and started posting more gay-related things on my wall, dozens of my old friends (and family) unfriended me, blocked me, or simply removed my items from ever appearing in their newsfeed. They don't like the things I'm posting (for whatever reason) and therefore, they avoid them. Interestingly enough, many of the people who have unfriended me have sent me an email explaining that they did so, and why they did so, and still considered me to be a good friend and a good person in real life, but simply didn't want to be reading my posts anymore.

I think this is very dangerous. This may very well be one of the things causing these filterings that this guy is talking about. People don't like to talk to someone who disagrees with them. People don't like confrontation (or, they do like confrontation, but only for the sake of fighting, not for the sake of actually holding an intellectual discussion). I know I'm guilty of this myself. I often avoid clicking on links that people post that are about things that I don't believe or agree with. I think it's very much a part of human nature.

We don't like to socialize with people that disagree. We view such people as enemies, contending against us on something that we believe. This is unfortunate, and dangerous. It causes people with a certain mindset to become more solidified in that mindset because they only want to socialize with people who have the same mindset.

For example, Mormons like to socialize with other Mormons. They home teach each other, they do activities together, talk at church, invite each other over for dinner. But, they don't branch out of that social circle as much as they should. I remember when I was at an activity with all Mormon people, we talked about this very thing. Many of them there were saying that they have very few or even no friends who were not Mormon that they regularly socialized with. Of course, they knew dozens and likely hundreds of people who were not Mormon, but they didn't go drinking with them, they didn't go to their parties, didn't invite them to their own parties, et cetera.

The same is true for liberals and conservatives. Liberals like socializing with other liberals and conservatives with conservatives. You tell a liberal that you're conservative and ey're liable to dislike you (or at least not choose to be around you during leisure time). People simply prefer the company of those they identify with. I mean, it's definitely true that you need something in common with someone in order to motivate having a friendship with them. But, to avoid any discussion with a person simply because they don't agree with you seems like a drastic overreaction.

Identity

2012-01-06T03:17:00.000-05:00

Most of my posts are just my own musings. Some of them are based on actual knowledge--fact, evidence, and whatnot. And some, such as today's are my own musings, but triggered by a nugget of wisdom uttered by someone else. For the inspiration of today's post, you have my friend Scott to thank. In a discussion concerning religious debate, Scott said that (I'm paraphrasing) one problem that believers have is that they identify themselves with their beliefs.

I understand that believers hold their beliefs very dear to them. This much I know for certain, because that's exactly how I was when I was a believer. In fact, I even posted about how there's evidence to support the idea that not only are religious beliefs deeply emotionally ingrained in a person, but that they are also linked to a person's survival instincts.

What is sometimes difficult to communicate to a believer, in having a religious debate, is that when I attack a particular religious belief (eg, that god exists), I am not attacking any particular individual who believes it. There is a great difference between saying "I think that the belief that god exists is ridiculous" and "I think you're ridiculous for believing that god exists". Often, the type of statements I make (or mean to make) are of a nature like the former sentence, while what is perceived by the believer is that of the latter. And I do believe that it's because the believer believes so intensely that ey actually identifies emself with eir beliefs.

I don't think this is intentional. In fact, I don't even think that it's conscious. I think it's just a natural reaction, since a believer holds eir beliefs so dear to eir heart. I think in just about any personal opinions or personality-related topics, it is difficult to remain objective about the discussion at hand (for example, someone saying "I believe that homosexual behavior is evil" can easily be interpreted as "I believe you are evil because you're gay" by a homosexual). But, I think that this effect is magnified many times over when it is religious beliefs that are being discussed.

As I said in my previous post (and in a couple others a while back), I definitely feel like freedom to believe as one chooses is one of the things that has helped make America great, and I am very grateful for the freedom to choose which religion I am to follow (or, as I have chosen, to follow none at all). I have no problem with anyone believing any religion they like. I do not feel I have ever ridiculed anyone for believing as they choose, and I certainly don't plan to do so. I may (and often have) ridicule the beliefs themselves, but that's entirely different. Persecuting someone or discriminating against them because of their religious beliefs (or anything else, really) is wrong. If I were to hear of any political movement to force people to believe something (for example, that homosexuality is moral), then I would fight against it because I believe that everyone should be able to choose what to believe or not believe.

So, when I say that I don't believe in any gods, I'm not saying that anyone who does is a fool. When I point out all of the reasons that I no longer believe, I'm not telling you that your beliefs are invalid or that you have no reason to believe them. Your experiences in life have been very different from the ones I've had. What those experiences are and (more importantly) how've they've influenced you is something I'll never fully comprehend, try as I might. So, I'm not going to judge you for having an opinion different from the one I have. I won't use labels like those so often applied to non-believers ("infidel", "apostate", "heathen", etc).

Religious Freedom: A rebuttal

2012-01-04T19:42:00.004-05:00

I encountered this article from the LDS Newsroom on Facebook today. So, I wanted to post my response to it. It smacks of paranoia, with the tone of "If you disagree with our religious convictions, then you're infringing on our rights to believe as we choose." I'll pick a few passages from the article to comment on, and then perhaps give more commentary on the article as a whole.

Contrary to what some may assume, religious freedom is not simply the freedom to worship or to believe the way one chooses, though these are essential parts of it. Neither is it just for religious people.

Okay, you've got my attention. If religious freedom isn't simply the freedom to practice the religion of your choice, then tell me what is it? As for the second sentence, I wholeheartedly agree. Religious freedom is also for people like me who wish to have no part of religion, and we should be free to do so. Non-religious people should be free to be non-religious without being persecuted for it.

So while religious freedom encompasses the liberty of religious belief and devotion, it also extends well beyond that, incorporating the freedom to act — to speak freely in public, to live according to one’s moral principles and to advocate one’s own moral vision for society.

In other words, churches that wish to perform gay marriages should be allowed to do so. Fundamentalist Christian churches, such as the LDS church, want people to think that all religions preach that homosexuality is bad and therefore advancing it infringes on religious belief, but this is far from the truth. There are many gay ministries and Christian organizations, whose freedoms are being oppressed by those who wish to keep gay marriage illegal. The church doesn't want true religious freedom, it only wants to be rid of criticism from the public. It wants to be able to teach whatever doctrine it likes (which it should be able to do) but without any consequence from those who disagree. One of the many truths I learned from Mormonism is that you can choose your own actions, but you can't choose the consequences of those actions. This is something that the church seems to fail to realize here.

When honored, religious freedom helps to avert violence and to mediate conflict.

To that, I only have one thing to say: 9/11.

Empirical data also suggest that religiously free societies enjoy many other benefits, including higher levels of other freedoms, than do those where religion is repressed or disadvantaged.

I'm actually quite shocked to see this in an article that the church is presenting as scholarly. This is the altogether common logical fallacy made by the novice student of statistics that correlation implies causation. Consider why there is a correlation between religious freedom and other freedoms. In a country where religion is repressed, the government is likely the kind that is overly controlling--that is, they wish to micromanage the lives of their subjects. However, in a more democratic (or republic, as ours is) type of government, the government has less control over people's lives and therefore grants (or allows, whichever way you wish to see it) more freedoms to its subjects. A government that grants freedom of speech is more likely to also grant the freedom of religion than a government that does not allow free speech. So, I don't believe what the author is implying here, which is that allowing freedom of religion makes other freedoms more likely to be granted.

In the United States, we maintain a healthy independence of church and state, though we should not sequester religion’s moral influence from the nation’s public affairs.

I agree with this statement, with only slight modification. But, it seems that the person writing it either does not see the difference between having separation of church and state and forbidding morals to influence national affairs or does not want the reader to know the difference. Separation of church and state is actually very vital to religious freedom, and that is one of the reasons that I am an advocate for it. Too many governments have either been run by or been significantly influenced by churches. In some countries, a national religion has even been established. In America, we have (or should have) separation of church and state. No church should have any political power--they should not be able to make or change laws, they should not be able to exact any legal punishment for breaking laws. Neither should the government have the power to enforce policy in any particular church. Such is necessary for religions themselves and individuals to have true freedom of religion.

However, morals should influence the nation's public affairs. The laws of a country should reflect what its people believe to be moral. But, as the author worded it, this responsibility would lie with religions. That is not true. While each religion has the right to preach to its own membership what it believes is moral and immoral, the responsibility to influence national (or local) affairs with one's morals lies with the individual, not with a religion. What's the difference? The difference is that if Jack Smith thinks that gay marriage is immoral, he has the right (and perhaps even the obligation) to vote and campaign against it. But, if the LDS church thinks that gay marriage is bad, the only power it has (or should have) is to teach its members not to engage in it. It should not have the power to influence legislation. As an organization, it should not campaign for any political party, candidate, or policy. It should leave that right to the individuals, where it belongs.

Challenges to religious freedom are emerging from many sources. Emerging advocacy for gay rights threatens to abridge religious freedom in a number of ways.

Really? In what ways? Can you think of any? Because you aren't listing any. The way I see it, your church is trying to oppress my freedoms by not letting me marry my fiancé. I'm not trying to oppress any of your rights. I'm not trying to make it illegal for you to hold worship services. I'm not trying to pass laws that make it illegal for you to teach that gay marriage is bad. I'm not trying to tell you what to believe or how to live your life. All I want is to marry the man that I love. How is that infringing on your rights? You don't want the definition of marriage to change? I'm sorry, but you're going to be having a lot of temper tantrums if you have a fit whenever the definition of a word changes. Language is fluid, not stagnant. Also, if you want to use the word "marriage" to only include heterosexual unions, then by all means, do so. No one's telling you that you have to include gay couples when you use that word. Do you really want to claim that changing the definition of a word is somehow an infringement upon your religious freedom?

Changes in health care threaten the rights of those who hold certain moral convictions about human life.

Really? You mean, like if abortion is legal then you can no longer believe that abortion is immoral? Or, if abortion is legal then you'll be forced by the law to have one every month? This doesn't make any sense. Coffee consumption is legal, even though it is forbidden by the Mormon faith. Does that infringe on Mormon's rights to believe that drinking it will damage one's soul? Of course not. Of course, you have the right to campaign against gay marriage or abortion or any issue you want, but if you lose the political battle, it doesn't mean that your rights are being oppressed. You can still believe whatever you want and conduct your own personal life in whichever way you feel is moral. If you feel that someone else believing that life doesn't start at the time of conception is somehow an infringement upon your own right to disagree with them, then you've definitely got a victim complex going on.

Given the depth of these conflicts and the controversy that they sometimes create, it is essential that all parties are civil as they negotiate these deeply important issues.

I agree. And I would very much like to see churches, especially the Mormon church, act civilly. It would be nice if they wouldn't try to act behind the scenes in campaigns such as that for Prop 8 in California, or setting up an organization to hide behind, such as NOM. It would be nice to see them report their campaign contributions properly, instead of lying about them. It would be nice to see the church actually take responsibility for its own actions and to apologize when it does something wrong (racism, anyone?). It would be nice if they would be humble and actually admit that they don't know everything. I'm not going to delude myself by saying every gay rights activist is civil. Obviously that is not true. It would be nice to see them be civil as well. It would be nice if no one vandalized any churches back when Prop 8 was passed (or at any point in time). It would be nice if everyone was kind and courteous to each other. But, the point I want to make here is that the LDS church demands that of those opposing it, while not behaving that way themselves. This is commonly called hypocrisy.

To sum things up, I really feel like this article (which claims to be the first of many in a series) is a last-ditch effort to save itself from all the backlash from Prop 8 and to try once more to set itself up as a victim in the hopes of opposing gay marriage. Religious freedom is not under attack in America, certainly not by gay rights activists or abortionists. Claiming that this is so when it is truly not is merely paranoia.

Lessons from Doctor Who

2012-01-02T08:58:00.002-05:00

Doctor Who is probably my all-time favorite TV series. My dad really liked it, and recorded just about every episode that was ever aired in America. I remember one time (probably around the time I was in middle school) I went on a Doctor Who binge and just watched tape after tape of these recordings. I've always been interested in science fiction and in fantasy. I love Star Trek and Star Wars as well (I think it's silly that so many people feel like they have to choose one or the other--I like both equally well).

At any rate, I have to admit that as fun and exciting as the old Doctor Who series were, I really like the new series. My favorite doctor is, of course, David Tennant (the only other option for real Doctor Who lovers being Tom Baker). Just the other day, Conrad and I were watching the two-part episode which are the last that the Doctor spends with Rose Tyler. Near the beginning of the first part, the Doctor made a statement that caused me to reflect.

When the Doctor and Rose land back in Rose's time, they find that there have been "ghost" appearances all over the world. These mysterious human-shaped blurry objects appeared in random places. Rose's mom Jackie had one that would appear in her kitchen. She was absolutely convinced that it was her dad. When asked how she knew this, she said it was the smells--the cigarettes. Of course, none of those smells were real. Neither Rose nor the Doctor could smell them. But, when they informed Jackie of this she only replied with "Well, you've got to try harder." Then the Doctor said it. "The more you want it, the stronger it becomes."

So, I've thought about that. I mean, it's no secret that all throughout its history Doctor Who (and many other Sci-Fi shows, for that matter) ridicules religion and touts the superiority of science. So, I have no doubt in my mind that this was meant as a jab toward religion. Of course, the first time I saw this episode, I was a totally believing Mormon, so I just chalked it up as another one of the silly things skeptics think and say. But, I've really thought about it a lot since I'm now a skeptic myself.

When I was Mormon, I really wanted it to be true. I wanted it so badly. I wanted to be the really spiritual guy. I wanted to be the one who always "knew" that the Book of Mormon was true--that the church was true. I always wanted to be the missionary who could convert thousands of people to Mormonism. I wanted it all so much. And so it was really strong. I believed it so much because I wanted it so much. Mormons have a vested interest in their church being true (if for no other reason than that they pay a tenth of their income to the church) and therefore they want it to be true. Wanting it to be true makes the belief all the stronger.

But, the same is true for every other religion. Baptists want their church to be true, and so they are convinced that it is. Muslims want their church to be true, so they convince themselves that it is. And so on. I was always taught that the way to determine that Mormon commandments were truly commandments from God is to live them and see how happy they made me. Well, this only compounds the want/believe cycle. I study my scriptures because I want to have a testimony, so I believe more strongly, so I want to read my scriptures more. It's a perpetual cycle set up specifically for the purpose of instilling loyalty into the members of a church. That's why all religions use the same tactic. That's why it works so well.

Being a skeptic is much less addictive. I have no particular attachment to one philosophy or another. There isn't any specific version of the truth that I want to be true. My only desire is to learn what the truth is, with no preconceived notions about that truth. I don't "want" Mormonism to be true, nor do I "want" it to be false. I do remember when I had my first college math course and I simply couldn't accept the fact that the set of real numbers and the set of natural numbers weren't the same size. I "wanted" them to be the same size, but eventually gave in to the reality that the former is much bigger than the latter. I was humbled. But, I really think it's easier to learn the truth when you do so objectively, merely trying to seek out fact and eliminate fiction.

So, aside from being highly entertaining (and, oh boy is David Tennant ever entertaining--especially with how tight his pants are), Doctor Who can also be very educational.

One check or two?

2011-12-29T15:43:00.000-05:00

When I was with Karen, anytime we'd go out to eat, we were never asked if we wanted one check or two. It was naturally assumed that I would paying the check. Whether we were just on a date or whether we were married, I would be paying. This is the culture that we live in. We could even be just two good friends going out to eat together and want to pay separately, but if that were the case we'd have to inform the server ourselves. Honestly, I find it funny because the whole time we lived here in Tennessee, Karen made twice as much as I did, so while I would be the one who pulled the card out and signed the receipt, it was actually Karen's money that was being used.

Anyway, whenever I've gone out to eat with Conrad, we've invariably (that is, without exception) been asked "Will this be together or separate?". Even when we've been extremely open about displaying affection toward each other. I've fed Conrad bites of food from my own fork, held hands, played footsie, and even kissed. I think only the most oblivious of servers would not realize that we're romantically involved. And yet, it has never been assumed that we would be paying together. This has always been a question.

I'm not pointing this out because I'm offended. In fact, I think it's very sensitive of the server to make such an inquiry. If I were to advocate for any change at all, it would be that I think they should ask all parties whether they'd be paying together or separately--whether they're gay or straight couples. Of course, I wouldn't mind being brought one check and having to tell the server that we want it split up either (if we ever did want it split up).

The only reason I mention this is to indicate one more way that gay people are treated differently than straight people. It would be one thing if Conrad and I just acted like we were two guys hanging out. If we, like heterosexual men, always stood at least one person's width apart from each other, never made direct eye contact with each other, or smiled at each other, then I could see the server thinking that we would want to pay separately. But, when you're making it quite apparent that you're a couple and the server treats you differently than ey would treat a straight couple, the unequal treatment is keenly felt.

I hope you haven't thought that this post was about checks at a restaurant and how servers treat their customers. I hope you see the bigger picture. This is about equality. Gay people just aren't treated the same as straight people. I do think part of the reason is that homosexuality is new to the general populace. Straight couples have been out and about for ages, so there's a "norm" there and everyone treats them according to that norm (eg, the guy pays for the lady's dinner). But gay couples are only recently out and about (until the last decade or two, they were pretty much confined to pretending they weren't gay or only going to a few select gay establishments), so people don't know what to do. They're not sure if gay couples go dutch or pay together. That was even something that was confusing for me when I started dating guys. So, I'm certainly not condemning anything here. All I'm saying is there's lots of room for progress toward true equality.

On a lighter note, after dinner, we went to Aeropostale, and overheard a fun conversation. A girl went to the cashier and asked "Do you have eyeliner?" to which the cashier (also female) replied "What? You mean for girls?"

Truth seeking

2011-12-29T01:25:00.001-05:00

[As an aside, I first want to say that I really want to start using gender-neutral pronouns. I find he/she, (s)he, and alternating between he and she to all be awkward or ridiculous. I think it's most reasonable to use just one pronoun when referring to "a generic person", and "they" simply won't do since it's plural. So, I shall begin using gender-neutral pronouns. There are many conventions out there, and as far as I am aware, none is more widely adopted than the other, so I will use the one I think sounds best, which is the Spivak convention (ey/em/eir/eirs/eirself).]

When a mathematician has a theory (usually called a conjecture), ey sets about to prove it using all of the tools of logic available to em. If ey believes that ey has constructed a convincing proof, ey proceeds to share it with peers. It is then reviewed by peers who determine whether they believe the proof or not. If a hole in the logic is found by anyone, it is presented and the original mathematician (or possibly others) try to fix the hole, if it can be done. Sometimes this is a very simple process, where no revision is necessary, and other times it can be a very complicated and drawn-out process, taking several months or several years to complete.

Even after the paper is published, it is not immune to scrutiny. It has happened many times that after publication, something has been found to be wrong with a paper, and another mathematician (or the same one as the original author) will write another paper indicating the error of the previous. This is good for the mathematical community because it helps minimize the amount of error that is propagated.

Why is it so important to have correct mathematics? Because every science is based on mathematics. With incorrect or flawed math, all of the applied fields--biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science, etc--would also be flawed. Correct mathematical principles are necessary for understanding the world in which we live.

Imagine, for a moment, if mathematical truth were treated the same way as religious truth. One mathematician would make up rules for math that ey thought was true. Ey would then claim that a superior being revealed these mathematical truths to em through some supernatural form of communication. Ey would then preach these ideas of math to other people. Ey would ask other people to learn these principles and to accept them. Perhaps ey would encourage others to pray about these principles to find out if they are true--not to scrutinize them and determine whether there is a flaw, but just to get a warm feeling in eir heart that these teachings are in fact true. The actual veracity of the teachings would not be on trial here, but only the learner's will--to see whether it would bend to that of the teacher.

Imagine that this original teacher actually did have a flaw in eir mathematical principles somewhere. As society grew and more people adopted this flawed system, the other sciences would suffer from it. Rocket ships wouldn't be able to make it to the moon with any real accuracy, because the math being used to try to get them there would not be working. People might start asking whether the math behind the rocket theory was correct, to which the math-prophet would reply that they simply needed to have more faith in the mathematical teachings, and try harder to accept them into their own lives.

The error would never be solved, because it would not be suspect of causing this harm (or impediment) in society. Anyone who might suggest that ey had a better version of the truth would be told that only the math-prophet was capable of receiving mathematical revelations, that the math-god knew all mathematical truth and would never deceive his people. People who did question the math would be labeled as heretics, infidels, apostates, and heathens. Their opinion in anything would instantly not matter. Simply for questioning a mathematical principle, they would be cast out of society and hated.

I hope that I have presented sufficiently the case for critical thinking and logic in the interest of seeking truth. The only way to know the truth is to question what we currently accept as truth, to determine whether it really is true. We must attack it at every angle. It must never be preserved by words such as "sacred", "holy", or "divine". These words only allow errors to be multiplied and perpetuated. Question why something is true, question how it is true, question what evidence would support its truth, or what would its truth or falsehood imply. Don't just accept something and drown out all contradictions. That way you learn nothing. That way you are arrogant. Admitting that you might be wrong is the only way to attain a higher level of truth.

The power of love

2011-12-28T03:47:00.002-05:00

(Okay, so that's the Seasons of Love, not the Power of Love. But it's more applicable than the other to this post and so is the title of the post.)

If I have learned anything this year, it's the true power of love. Love really is the most powerful force I have encountered in all of my interactions with people. How do you measure a year? I'm a mathematician. I measure everything numerically. But this year has been so much more than just 12 months, much more than just 4 seasons. This year I have found love.

My life is so much more meaningful with a man by my side to share it with. Love permeates everything in life. I make dinner with love for my husband. I wait eagerly on the couch for him to come home, ready to pounce him with a burst of love.

A lot of unfortunate events have happened this year. I have lost several friends. I have hurt many family members. I have had quarrels and altercations. I've had a crisis of faith, ending in a complete loss of faith. But all of that hurt and that pain is washed away with love. I love my family, and they love me. I love my friends. And most importantly, I love my Conrad.

The power of love is so strong that I am certain it will overcome every unfortunate thing that people have said to me concerning homosexuality. The love that my fiancé and I have for each other will prove all such negativity wrong. Not because I have a personal need to prove others wrong (which, honestly, I do have), and not because I wish to vindicate myself, but because love endures. Hate wears out. Hate gives up. Hate corrodes and destroys. It is temporary and will not last. But love builds. It strengthens. It encourages, enlivens, and enlightens. It endures all things. Our love will last through any storm. In many ways we have acted as a shield for each other, blocking out all of the assailants that come our way.

How do I know it's love? I would do anything for this man. He means the world to me. I would stand by his side through any trial or test. I would endure with him any hardship that he is asked to endure. And I know that he feels the same toward me. Each of us is so willing to put the needs of the relationship before our own that we have never had a quarrel. We have never had a disagreement. Nothing is more important to us than harmony in our lives. Neither of us holds an opinion so strong that he attempts to coerce the other into adopting it. We are one, in virtually every way possible.

And so, I have no doubt that love will win. Though there may be times that trouble, though there may be people who doubt, love will press on. Love knows no bounds.

Forgiving

2011-12-27T01:54:00.000-05:00

I can hold a grudge for a while. Some grudges I've held for several months. But, even when I have tried to do so, I haven't been able to hold a grudge for over a year. I just don't have it in me. I think of myself as a forgiving person. Perhaps others do not view me as forgiving as I view myself. But, the truth is that I just don't have the energy or the memory to hold grudges for too long.

Maybe it's not called forgiveness if you simply forget about something that someone did in the past to offend you. I don't know. It's probably also required, at least in some cases, to inform the offender that you have finally forgiven them. I don't think it's any coincidence that forgiving people is one of the 12 steps in AA's famous recovery program. Forgiving others goes a long way toward personal healing.

I can't speak for others, but I know that for myself, I find that the difficult in forgiving someone is greatest at the time the offense is committed, but decays exponentially as time progresses. For me, I would say that the half life of the difficult in forgiving varies proportionately with the severity of the offense, ranging anywhere from 1 or 2 hours to perhaps 2 or 3 weeks. I also find that the more I forgive people, the easier it is to forgive future offenses, and the longer I hold onto grudges the longer I am capable of doing so.

I have definitely been hurt by many of the things people said to me when they first found out that I was gay. However, I believe I'm over all of that. I daresay I've forgiven anyone who offended me by anything they've said.

Making up and pressing forward after the forgiving has been done is the next big step--at least in my book. I feel that in some cases it is appropriate to explain the nature of the offense so as to help the other person avoid repeating it (especially in cases where they were unaware that their behavior was offensive), or at least to lay down ground rules so that both parties have the same understanding. In the interest of doing just that, I give my own following ground rules.

I will not tolerate name-calling and attacks on my character. I am a good person, I try to do what is right in everything that I do. You may disagree with me, but that doesn't make me an idiot.
I will not tolerate religious bullying. You may have your own religious convictions, but know that I may not share those beliefs. Don't try to force your morals onto me. I believe in true freedom of religion. You're free to believe as you choose, and so am I.
I will not tolerate emotional manipulation. Feelings and emotional experiences are very strong and mean a lot to me personally. Do not try to leverage these experiences and emotions against me to bend my will to your way of thinking.
I will not tolerate violence or threats of violence against me or any other person. If the only reply you have to give someone is a threat to smack them, then I would suggest that you consider the shortcomings in the logic of your own argument.

I will continue to publish my own thoughts and feelings, as I have done thus far. These things may contradict your own beliefs. They may challenge views that you have. I would hope that you'd be open-minded and objective enough to listen to someone with a differing perspective, even though you strongly disagree. However, I understand if you do not feel capable of doing this, or that doing so has no merit for you. In this case, I would expect you to be respectful of my own beliefs by either remaining silent or expressing your disagreement politely and respectfully.

I don't expect everyone to like everything that I publish. I have never had that expectation, and I'm sure that no matter how diplomatic I tried to be, it would never happen. Therefore, you shouldn't feel any need to express to me your dissatisfaction with what I post. My posts reflect who I am and I will not change who I am for anyone. I am always interested in improving myself and becoming a better person, so if you have constructive criticism on how I could word things more respectfully or amiably, then I would be happy to hear such advice. While I recognize that my content is often offensive, know that my intent is to share my own personal thoughts, never to offend people. And if I do offend you, I would be interested in being informed of such so that I can have the opportunity to apologize.

Say what you mean? Or mean what you say?

2011-12-26T23:50:00.002-05:00

I've recently come to wonder about this saying "Say what you mean and mean what you say." I probably started thinking thoughts slightly along this train back in high school, when I read Orson Scott Card's Ender series. I believe it was in Xenocide (although I'm not sure) where Valentine has an interaction with a cripple where Card points out Valentine's very compassionate and empathetic value of responding to what people mean to say rather than the actual words they say. Since that time, that's been one of my goals and I hope that I've made some progress in that area. I believe it to be good wisdom.

But, it's only been recently that I've started to think that saying what you mean and meaning what you say aren't necessarily the same thing. (Of course, from a logical perspective, this is immediately obvious since one is the converse of the other, so I should have known all along.) The fact that they are not equal means that they can be satisfied independently or simultaneously.

The reason I've thought about this recently is because there are many phrases that I've picked up over the course of my life that I now find have placed me in a rather difficult situation. One such saying is "God bless you." This can actually be used in a variety of situations and can mean a whole range of things, depending on context. When someone sneezes, it can be used as some sort of automatic response (usually as the abbreviated "bless you"). I suppose back in the day, it was believed that when you sneezed, your soul left the body, so if someone didn't bless you right away, the devil would take your soul. I hope no one believes that anymore, but it does beg the question of why we still say it all the time.

But, there are many times when I want to say "God bless you" because it's the sentiment I'm trying to convey. The problem with this is that I think it's a vacuous statement. I don't think there is a god to do any blessing, so I don't think that any deity will be influenced (one way or the other) due to me uttering such a statement. So, if I do say that phrase, it's not because I mean it. What I mean is something (again, depending on context) along the lines of "You're a wonderful person", "Thank you", "I hope things get better for you" or some other such thing. However, I'm at a loss as to whether I should actually say what I mean or to say what the other person will interpret as what I mean. That is, if I'm speaking to a believer (which is to say, just about every person I know) then saying "God bless you" means (to them) what I mean to say to them. Therefore, I'm not saying what I mean, but they are interpreting what I say as what I mean to say to them.

Another phrase is "I'll keep you in my prayers" (or some other variation). When someone tells me something unfortunate that has happened in their life, I genuinely feel sorrow and have used this phrase in the past to express what I feel. However, I really hesitate to say it now because I really truly won't pray for them. But, at the same time, if I say "I'll pray for you", then they can have the comfort that comes to any believer when they hear that expression from a friend. So, in this situation, I'm truly at a loss as to what I should say. Personally, I think prayer is completely futile (having prayed and been prayed for countless times myself) but other people believe it to be helpful. I want to portray the emotion that I will help out a friend (or family member) in need, but not be misleading or trite in saying that I'll pray for them.

So, there are lots of things that I've been in the habit of saying that I have examined more closely in the last couple months, trying to determine whether I really mean them and whether I should say them despite not meaning them. I suppose one thing making it so difficult is that religion is so deeply ingrained in English that it's difficult to avoid. It also makes me wonder what a purely secular language would be like.

The impact of your actions

2011-12-22T04:39:00.000-05:00

I'm sure this will easily sound like a self-pity party, or complaining, but I really don't mean it to be that way. My hope in writing this post is to cause those who read it to introspectively search themselves and try to understand why they do the things they do.

I also need to add that my family has not been rotten throughout this process. What I'm about to say might make it seem like that. On the contrary, I actually have it quite well. Many families of gay people disown the person when he/she comes out of the closet. Many have very bitter, angry feelings that they hold on to for years. I have been treated very well by nearly all in my family. As far as I know, there are only one or two who may have very bitter feelings. I'm not even making a commentary about my family in particular, I'm only using my family as an example to illustrate in general the feelings a gay person has.

When I got engaged to Conrad, I wasn't sure exactly how or when to tell my family. While I was in Utah this last May, I told only a few people in person, and then I posted it on Facebook. The people I told in person responded with "Oh." or silence. On Facebook, of my entire family (which, believe me, is rather big) two cousins congratulated me. I got a "really?" and nothing else from family. I had lots of congratulations from friends. And I'm very happy to be engaged. I definitely have no regrets there. But, I hope you can understand how deflating it might be to have not one member of your immediate family congratulate you on something that you personally are so excited about.

Contrast that with just about any engagement announcement of a straight couple. Or, when a married couple announces their anniversary, and are congratulated for being together for so many years. It's very easy for a gay person to feel left out. Imagine if you announce your engagement (to someone of the opposite sex) online or in person and all you got from your family was "Oh" or "really?". How would you feel? I love my family very much and how they treat me really matters to me.

I have a very sweet sister who had her children color pictures and send them to us. Each child addressed them to "Keith and Conrad" and that meant the world to me. My mother has emailed Conrad and spoken with him on the phone a couple times. I'm not sure how much that meant to him, but it meant a lot to me.

Aside from that, no one else in my family has even acknowledged that I'm in a relationship. No one has asked me what Conrad's like, how we met, what our wedding plans are, or anything that I would expect them to be asking if I were engaged to a woman. Think how that would be for yourself. When you're engaged to that special someone that you really love and are so excited to marry--(almost) everyone in your family pretends like nothing has happened. For all you know, they think you're still single.

I know I'll have fun planning the wedding, and it will be a wonderful time for both of us, regardless of who's there to share it with us. It would be very nice to have family there, to have them celebrate the day with us. But, whether they're there or not, I will be happy that I'm marrying the man of my dreams.

I've thought about this a lot, really. As for me personally, Conrad brings me so much happiness that it easily outweighs any sorrow I might feel over my family's non-acceptance (or at least, my perception of such). But, the conclusion that I always arrive at is that if dogmatic obedience to your church outweighs the feelings of your loved ones--the opportunity to rejoice with them when they are happy in life--then, what is the purpose of your religion? If you cannot share the joyous moments in life with those that matter the most to you, then what good does your religion do you? Even if it is true, and you can be with your family forever, is it worth it if it makes you miss out on the good times in their lives? And is it worth making your gay family members feel unworthy of your praise and congratulatory expressions?

Loving your children

2011-12-20T21:07:00.003-05:00

While I lived at home with my parents, I had much opportunity to witness how my sister treated her children. She always encourages them in any interest that they have. Her oldest wanted to play violin, so she found a violin for him and set him up with lessons. Her youngest wanted to raise some chickens, so she bought some chicks and my dad helped her kids build a coop for the chickens. She always does what she can to help her children accomplish things that they are interested in.

As I mentioned briefly before, my mom did the same thing with me. When I was a boy and expressed interest in learning how to crochet, she taught me without hesitation. She taught me how to sew, iron, and cook. And, as I recall, it was almost always because I asked her to teach me. She taught all of us children how to cook, because we each took turns cooking for the family. But, I know for sure she didn't teach everyone how to crochet (in fact, I don't think she taught anyone except me).

I've been following this blog called Raising my Rainbow for some time now. The author is a mother with two boys, the younger of which is effeminate. His name is CJ. He likes girl toys, he asks to have his birthday cakes decorated with Disney princesses, and he even celebrated his 4th birthday with the princesses at Ariel's Grotto in Disneyland.

I admire this woman so much for what she is doing. So many people try to make their children fit into a mold as they're raising them. So many parents try to force their boys into the male stereotype and girls into the female stereotype. (It's not just parents, either. Friends and other students at school can be very harsh against a "girly" boy. But that's another topic for another day.) What's sad is that people such as Dr. Phil and Dean Byrd try to encourage parents to force their children into these narrow gender molds that we have. Well, I have news for them--some people like tomatoes and some don't. You don't have to be a boy to like tomatoes and a girl to like mushrooms. So, why do we insist that only girls can like dolls and only boys can like GI Joes?

I've read stories about boys who were taught that their interest in "girly" things was bad and their parents even instituted a reward/punishment system to encourage him to fit the stereotypical male norm instead. It is psychologically damaging to the child. Telling them that the things they find interesting are wrong and that they should find other things to be interesting is not healthy. So, when someone like Dr. Phil gives advice to that effect, I definitely find that to be disgusting. Please, whatever you do, don't try to control what your child likes. Don't try to tell them what they should be playing with or who their heroes should be. Let them express themselves. Let them have their own interests. Love them for who they are. Don't try to use love as a reason to change them into something they don't want to be.

Doughboy

2011-12-19T15:36:00.000-05:00

Those that have seen me recently can tell that I've put on a lot of weight. In fact, I've gained 80 pounds over the last year and a half. As you can imagine, I've had many comments about it, of varying natures.

The truth is that I like my body. I enjoy having a belly that I can grab and jiggle. It's kind of fun. I was at Wal-Mart the other day and saw a T-shirt that said "Doughboy" (in XXL, of course) and another that said "Go ahead and pinch me" and immediately bought them. I really like these shirts, and if I see any more like them I'll probably buy them too.

The reason for this post is to continue along the theme of my blog about raising awareness. In our culture, there's such a strong push for people to be skinny--to lose weight and to look like the Hollywood star 1% body fat anorexic supermodel. I think, though, that people are becoming more tolerant and even more educated about fat and fatness, and I want to do my part.

Whenever anyone has commented on my weight gain, I have taken it as a compliment. I like how I look, and so I interpret what other people say as reinforcing that. But, the truth is that many of the things people have said to me could be interpreted as mean or insensitive to someone who's not so comfortable with how they look. (For example, one person simply said "You're enormous!" and another said "You need to get skinny again.") Our society is very oppressive of people who are plump, and I don't think that's healthy.

I was just reading the other day that there are societies where being fat is considered a good thing, and that fat people are considered to be attractive. I didn't read all that much about it, but I wonder if people who find it difficult to gain weight feel bad for being skinny. At any rate, I personally believe that a person shouldn't have to feel like they're being judged for how they look. I don't think that someone should feel societal pressure to change their body weight. I don't think it's right when someone feels like they are ugly simply because they have a higher (or lower) body fat content.

There are health concerns, yes. There are lots of health problems that are associated with obesity. Some of these are caused by obesity, and some of them may cause obesity. So, if an individual wishes to improve their health, then maintaining a body fat percentage in the teens (or maybe low 20s) will likely help with that. Also, if a person really doesn't like the way they look and wants to gain or lose weight to change that, they should feel free to do so and, I think, should be able to expect positive, supportive reinforcement from friends to do so.

Indeed, where my own health is concerned, I probably should get out and do some exercise. I don't think I'm healthy right now, I think I might have increased risk for heart disease. And I do have a goal to maybe go jogging or ride my bike or something. But, I don't really want to lose weight. I like my belly and I don't really want to see it disappear. I just want to make my heart and muscles get into and stay in shape.

I've told many a fat joke in my day, and I still do. Now, I tell them about myself more than anyone else. All of these jokes were just meant in good fun, but I wonder how many people I personally made feel less than beautiful by making such comments. There are many things I have said that I wish I could take back. And anyone that I've teased about being fat, feel free to send any teasing back my way now that I'm fat too. As long as it's not too hurtful, I'll enjoy it (as I said before, I'll take it as a compliment).

I really find that I'm becoming the stereotypical jolly fat guy. I'm so much happier now than I ever have been before. Life is wonderful. I have a great boyfriend who loves me whether I'm fat or skinny, hairy or bald. He is a great man, and it makes me so happy that he likes my belly (almost as much as I do).

So, love your body. Love everyone else's body. Don't let Hollywood tell you what you should or should not look like.

Merry Paganmas

2011-12-14T17:16:00.001-05:00

I've known for some time now that Christmas is really just some Pagan holidays enveloped by Christianity. I've also known that if Jesus was born during the Passover, which the Bible claims, then he would have been born in April not December. In fact, Mormons hold that Jesus' birthday was April 6th. So, I kind of chuckle under my breath when people say that it's Jesus' birthday.

At any rate, I'd never really thought before about the irony of Christians now claiming that people are trying to "take the Christ out of Christmas" when in fact it was never there to begin with. They should be complaining that we've taken the Paganism out of Christmas, because that's what it was to begin with. I suppose this is just one more example of how Christians can be hypocritical without even realizing it. They take a holiday away from one religion (or several) and then get all huffy and offended when they feel like someone's trying to take a holiday away from them (even though this isn't the case).

People all too often argue that there's some sort of war on Christmas or on Christianity. Why? Well, in part because some people say "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas". I already wrote about why I think it's silly to complain about that. Other people complain about efforts to remove Nativity scenes from public property. I'm sorry, but one of the problems that early Americans had with Britain--one of the reasons they wanted to declare independence--was that they were tired of having only one choice for religion. They didn't want to be dictated to by the Church of England. They wanted people to be able to choose for themselves what religion to believe (or to believe in none at all). So, merging church and state in this way is not a step toward freedom of religion, it is a step away from it.

To publicly support one religion by using public property and public funds to celebrate its holidays is a step toward an establishment of religion, which the Constitution forbids--and for good reason. Therefore, requiring that public entities remain neutral in the religious sphere is only promoting religious tolerance, by allowing people to worship whichever religion they want and to celebrate whatever holiday they want.

True Christians

2011-12-13T22:54:00.000-05:00

The word "christian" is often used as an adjective to mean "having or showing qualities associated with Christians, esp. those of decency, kindness, and fairness." and also as a noun to mean someone who possesses those qualities. It is that usage of the word "christian" that I wish to use in this post. In the interest of focusing on the positive rather than the negative, I list here several people I know who are true christians. If I neglect to mention anyone in this list, it should not be inferred that it is because I believe them to be not christian, since I make no such implication in doing so.

Any list containing kind, selfless people would be incomplete without the mention of my late wife Karen who was, in virtually every way possible, a good christian. As I discussed in detail in this post, she is beyond question the most compassionate, understanding, humble, and selfless person I have known in my life.

The next person I'd like to highlight is my mother. My mom always tries to make sure everyone in the family feels loved and appreciated. She tries to smooth over any family difficulties that there may be, encouraging each of us to build on our commonalities rather than create distance between us due to our differences. She encourages us to love one another and to look past each others' failings, to assume that other people are doing the best they can and not be upset when they don't live up to the expectations that we have for them.

My sister Lisa is a wonderful peacemaker in the family. She is very tender-hearted, and very giving. She has helped me out through many difficult times in life. She protected me from bullies in elementary and middle school. She got me my first job. She's ever sweet and ever accepting. She does a good job at not judging other people or telling them what she thinks they should or shouldn't do with their lives. She does all she can to promote peace and harmony.

Karen's mother is a person who has a near infinite capacity to love. She keeps on giving, even beyond what most people would consider a very generous amount of love and kindness. Ever since I started dating Karen, I have been treated as one of the family. This coming Christmas will be my third since Karen passed away, and each year I have been included in the family festivities. I won't be able to attend in person this year, since Conrad and I won't be able to make it out to Utah, but I am included in the gift exchange and in spirit. Karen's mom continues to call me, to talk to me, and to treat me as her own son. In most cases, when a gay person who is married heterosexually comes out of the closet after years of marriage, their in-laws (and in some cases even their own family) turn against them, view them as an enemy, and discontinues contact or only maintains contact in order to remind the gay person of how evil they are and what a horrible thing they've done to their son/daughter. Karen's mom, however, has been able to see through the irrationality of such behavior, and has recognized that while Karen was alive, I was a good husband to her--I treated her well and I was kind to her. And so, Karen's mom has shown true compassion.

Karen's sister Tanya is also an amazing person. She's very thoughtful. She writes emails, calls, and posts on my wall, just to say hi and ask how I'm doing. She's always thinking about other people and how she can brighten their day. She comes up with wonderful ways to have fun when the family's together. She's very grateful, very quick to apologize, very good at smoothing things over.

Conrad's mother has also been very loving and accepting. When Conrad's brother got married this last May, she asked me to be in their family pictures at the temple. That meant a lot to me. She has treated me like part of the family and has done a lot to reach out to me and make me feel welcome. When I went down to Texas to pick Conrad up to move him here to Tennessee, they threw a going-away party for Conrad, and the whole family gathered to have dinner together. It was good. She also threatened me that I had better invite her and my own parents to the wedding.

I promise there are compassionate, loving men in my life too. It's easier to think of women that are, but men can be just as loving and caring. My brother Marc is a wonderful father to his children. He is very loving with them, very patient, and very fun. As an older brother, he always picked on me and teased me while we were growing up, and even a little bit after we became adults too. But, it became quite clear that this was his way of showing love. As soon as I understood that, I could see how beautiful his heart was. He is a very tender and loving man.

I have a friend named Brent who is very loving as well. I hope he doesn't mind me writing about him, but in case he does mind I'll withhold his surname. At any rate, he and I have been friends for about 10 years now. He is probably the most humble person I have ever met. He is very slow to anger, very amiable, very diplomatic. He's good at calming down tense situations--especially angry debates online. He is kind in every possible way.

So, let us each look for the good in people, emphasize that good, and emulate it. And may we all be the embodiment of what a Christian ought to be (regardless of religious belief or whether you believe that Christ was divine). Let us be kind, loving, charitable, forgiving, meek, humble.

Traditional values

2011-12-12T21:03:00.001-05:00

So, I just posted a link on my Facebook wall about Romney disrupting a date of a gay couple. Personally, I think it's rather tacky to go interrupt people's dinners in order to do some campaigning, but this particular one turned out rather unfortunate for Romney because he just happened to choose a gay couple to harass.

But, the point of this post is one quote that Romney said to these men, which is

Actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written marriage was between a man and a woman and I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.

Wow. Really? Ok, so let's go by the standard of whatever definitions and standards were back at the time the Constitution was written is what's right and should be adopted today. So, basically, black people only count as three fifths of a person (Article I Section 2 of the Constitution), women couldn't vote, and black people couldn't marry people of other races. Maybe I'm just too "progressive", but if you ask me, those don't sound like values we want to be adopting. So, quite frankly, I don't buy the argument of "That's the way it was back when the Constitution was written, so that's the way it should be now."

I don't think the Framers wanted America and its morals to remain stagnant forever. I'm pretty sure that's why they allowed provision for amendments to the Constitution. I don't think they were arrogant enough to think that they had everything figured out and they had achieved perfection in their moral code. So, I don't see any reason why we should automatically accept the way things were back then as how we should live now.

Sadly, I hear these types of arguments all the time. People say that the Founders wanted this or believed that. Well, quite frankly, who cares? They're all dead. What matters is what is good for America now, not what was good for it 200 years ago. What is good for humanity? How can we progress and become a better species, a better nation, a better society?

What I find most amusing is when people use this argument when it doesn't even apply. People say the Founders believed this or felt that way, when in fact the opposite was true. I think we hear all the time how America was founded as a Christian nation. To people who think that and spread this teaching around, all I have to say is: learn history.

I'm an atheist....now what?

2011-12-09T07:15:00.001-05:00

While I was religious (especially before I met my first atheist friend), I had this image that atheism=hatred of all things religious. I think many people think things similar to this when they hear the word, which is one reason why I hesitated using it to describe myself for so long. I'd even use the word "apatheist" to describe myself, since it portrays the meaning of complete apathy toward any deity--not necessarily hatred or dislike, just disinterest.

One misconception I had about atheism was that atheists stubbornly insist that there is no god, the same way most Christians stubbornly insist that there is a god. While some atheists do this, I find that the vast majority simply assert that they have not seen enough evidence to support claims of existence of any deity that they have thus far encountered. This is how I feel. I do not see any significant evidence to support the claims of a god. The only evidence I ever had as a Mormon was the burning in my bosom, which I was taught was the Holy Ghost. However, since leaving the church and becoming atheist, I still have that same feeling in my bosom, so I must conclude either that it was not the Holy Ghost to begin with (which I have concluded) or that the Holy Ghost is now confirming to me that atheism is true (which seems absurd).

At any rate, as I find myself changing religious beliefs (or, more appropriately, losing my religious beliefs) I see this conundrum of trying to figure out what to keep and and what to shed. As I mentioned in a previous post, I just found an atheist forum and I rather like participating in it. On that forum, I asked a question concerning whether singing hymns was hypocritical for an atheist. Nearly everyone that replied said that they saw nothing wrong with it. One person even said that he/she sang in a church choir. My preconceived notion that I had to cast off all things religious was false. In fact, the truth is that I don't want to do that anyway.

I love singing hymns. I've developed the habit of singing hymns as I wash dishes, bake, drive, and just about any time that I'm doing something with my hands, but not using my mouth or my brain for anything in particular. As I've stopped believing in the Mormon church and in religion altogether, I've caught myself singing songs such as "Praise to the Man" and "O My Father". I've stopped and asked myself if I should be singing these songs, since I no longer believe their content. However, I've concluded that they're pretty songs and I like them, whether I believe that they're true or not. So, I sing them.

I've been posting Christmas music on my Facebook wall every day now, since Black Friday. Some of it is secular and some of it is religious. But, I like all of it and I see nothing wrong with enjoying the music, even if I no longer believe that baby Jesus was literally the son of god. I feel it's safe to say that most people don't believe in Santa Claus and yet they still enjoy music about him. So, I don't see any particular need to believe in a god in order to sing songs about him.

I believe in seeking for good wherever it is to be found, and in filtering out the bad. So, I still have my Mormon scriptures, I still have all of my manuals and books from the church. There are so many good things that are taught there, so many wonderful lessons to learn. The church teaches so much about how to raise children and how to strengthen family bonds. I'll hold on to that. I have the picture of the Ogden temple given to me by my family upon Karen's death hanging on my wall, to remind me how special marriage is. I have the proclamation on the family, with a wedding photo superimposed. I believe that family is important, even if I think that parts of the proclamation are misguided.

So, really, for me the main changes in becoming an atheists are 1) I'm more open-minded, since I no longer have one narrow definition of what is right and what is wrong, 2) I'm less concerned with proving myself right and other people wrong, 3) I'm more intrinsically motivated to do good, rather than being extrinsically motivated by my church. Other than that, I'm basically the same person. I sing hymns, I love the good parts of the scriptures and other religious teachings. I enjoy beauty in nature.

I've had people tell me that I'm just trying to justify my lifestyle. Go ahead and think that. I really don't care what people think of me. But it's not true. I feel no need to justify anything because that would imply that I feel guilty about it, which I don't. I truly believe that there is nothing wrong in homosexual activity or homosexual relationships. Some say that I want to get god or society to approve of me. This is also false. I don't believe in god, so how would it make sense to say I want his approval? And, I don't really care whether society approves of me or my relationship with Conrad. I push for social reform so that gay people can be treated equal--that is not for myself, it is for humanity. It is so the rights of all people will be recognized by the law and by society.

I've also had people tell me that I'm mad at the church or at god. Yes, I am mad at the church--for lying, for oppressing black people and gay people, for many other things. And I think I've been pretty obvious about this anger. But, I'm not mad at god--again, how could I be when I don't even believe that such a being exists? It doesn't make sense.

I do not worship science as a religion. I worship nothing and no one. If I see sufficient evidence to believe something (math, physics, biology, chemistry, etc), then I will believe it. If I believe something is true or even "know" it is true and then see evidence against that belief that is more convincing than the evidence I had to believe it, then I will admit that I was wrong. This happens in science, and it happens in math. It is not uncommon for someone to have a proof of a theorem and believe that it is a convincing argument, but then be shown a hole in that proof by a fellow mathematician. When this happens, usually the error is viewed as such and corrected. This is how I believe knowledge is best attained. I do not dogmatically stick to any one particular belief. Yes, I have pride and I can be stubborn, but if you prove me wrong, I will admit it. I do not seek to defend any particular belief or teaching, I seek only to discover all that is true. So, if your Jesus teaches to love other people, I will believe that--I have sufficient evidence to support the claim that being kind to people is good and benefits society. If your Jesus teaches that gay people shouldn't marry (which he never taught, by the way), I will not believe that since all of the evidence I have encountered shows that gay marriage is beneficial for society and in particular for gay people.

Make noise

2011-12-07T17:26:00.001-05:00

This is why I came out. This is why I will not be quiet. This is why I make all of these annoying posts that have chased away so many people in my family and so many of my friends. I will not be silent. I will not stand by and watch injustice happen.

So many people have turned away from me because of this. So many have unfriended me, blocked me, or have just simply ignored me, because they don't think that what's happening is wrong, or because they think that I'm too annoying or too vocal.

I will not tolerate bullying--for myself or for any other person. I will not tolerate bigotry. I will call out bigotry as often as I see it happening, and I will speak against it. I look forward to a brighter future. I look forward to a world in which all people are treated with respect and love.

I have personally only been a very minor target for all of the horrible things that happen to people. I have had some people call me names, one or two tell me that I'm going to hell, and a couple others that have made violent threats. But, none of this matters to me. Nor do I even think to use this as a reason to set myself up as a victim or a martyr for any cause. No, there are people out there who are really suffering--people who are bullied in school every day, people who are physically abused by their parents, by people at their church, by people in their community. There are people whose spirits are broken and whose will to live itself is extinguished by hateful comments, by fear-mongering, and by misunderstandings.

I will not tolerate the hateful things spoken every day by religious people against those they perceive as sinners. I will not tolerate all of the bigotry and prejudice spread by organizations such as the National Organization for Marriage, the Westboro Baptist Church, Focus on the Family, and many others.

I care about my fellow human beings. I think all people should be treated with love and with acceptance. I don't think anyone has the right to judge someone else based on their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, or any personal opinions they might hold. I will fight for the right of every person to be treated with love and respect, to live a life of peace--free of the fear of being attacked physically, verbally, or emotionally.

Perhaps my hope is too great. Perhaps my goals are too lofty. Perhaps the vision I have is impossible, and will never happen. Perhaps there never will be a day when people are mature enough to live and let live. But, I will not rest before that day comes. I will not be silent. I will not cease to stand up for people who are pushed to the point of suicide.

This is why I came out as a gay man, and it is why I came out as an atheist. If I were silent, I would only be an enabler to all of the wrongs committed against people who are different. If I were to remain silent, my conscience would plague me forever with the guilt of every teen who commits suicide.

Anyone who does not feel compassion for bullied people, for people who are suicidal, for people who have committed suicide, for the families and friends of people who have committed suicide is, in my opinion, completely heartless.

The injustices against atheist people, the injustices against gay people, against transgendered people, against women, against those of other races, against people who speak different languages, against any single individual--for whatever reason--must be stopped. The oppression must end. Are we not an enlightened people? Have we not seen enough bloodshed? Is our thirst for blood so great? Is our sadism so insatiable? What will it take to finally end all of the horror? Was Pearl Harbor not a great enough casualty? 3,000 died. Will we continue to kill innocent people? Were the 60,000 deaths in Nagasaki and the 90,000 in Hiroshima insufficient? Are the hundreds of thousands killed in the Iraq War insufficient? Do we need to kill millions before we're satisfied? Or billions? Will we not lose our lust for blood until the entire human race is extinct? Will we not lose our hatred for those who are different until everyone has committed suicide?

I call for humanity. I call for love. I call for peace. I call for forgiveness. I call for understanding. I call for building bridges. I call for tolerance for all peoples. I call for open-mindedness. I call for compassion. And I'll do it very loudly. I'll make noise. If that offends you, search your own heart and ask why that is.

Doing good without god

2011-12-06T23:22:00.001-05:00

I recently found a forum called the Happy Atheist Forum. From what I've seen so far, it seems to be a fairly pleasant group of people discussing all sorts of topics, including religion, atheism, philosophy, politics, etc. One of the threads mentioned charitable organizations founded and run by atheists. This piqued my interest, since I am a very compassionate person and enjoy helping people who are in need. So, I'd like to share some information about these types of organizations and to do some advertising for them.

Atheists Helping the Homeless is an organization in Austin, Texas. They have been running for about two years now. They have events they call "giveaways" (no, it's not a sweepstakes). They give food, clothing, toiletries, and other essential items to homeless people. It's a relatively new organization, but they've helped over 1,500 people so far and more chapters are forming outside of Austin. This is an organization that I could feel comfortable contributing to. If I lived in Austin, I would certainly donate my time in any way that it was needed. Since I do not, I will definitely consider donating money instead. I don't know if I'll try to start my own chapter all the way up here, but if I find a similar organization here in Knoxville, I'll be happy to help out.

Foundation Beyond Belief is a secular humanist organization that collects money from its members and then forwarding that on to other charitable organizations. They have a team of people who research different organizations and try to pick the best ones based on efficiency and other factors. Each quarter they pick one charity from each of 10 categories: (health, poverty, environment, education, human rights, peace, animal protection, child welfare, other worldviews, and the Foundation itself) and donate money to those charities based on the preferences indicated by each individual member (when you donate money, you pick how you want it distributed among those ten categories).

The Fred Hollows Foundation works to end avoidable blindness and to improve health. Many developing countries have high rates of blindness due to malnutrition and other factors. Helping prevent this blindness is one step in breaking the cycle of poverty.

Freethoughtpedia has a list of charities and non-profit organizations established to effect social reform.

Kiva is a non-profit organization that lends money to people in developing countries in the effort to help those countries develop faster. People lend money to Kiva and then Kiva distributes it out to its beneficiaries. The money is repaid, and so this is not technically a charity, since lenders can expect to get their money back in time. However, it is a way to help other people who otherwise might not ever have the opportunity to break out of their poverty. There is a team on Kiva specifically for atheists who wish to lend. So far, each of the 18,000 members has made an average of 10 loans and the the team has lent a total of $5.7 million. This actually places it as the highest-ranking team on all of Kiva, the second being Kiva Christians at $3.2 million. I'm not the most financially-blessed person ever, so this might be a good option for me since I can get back the money that I loan.

At any rate, there are plenty of organizations that are out there for skeptics, such as myself, to make the point that we do have morals, we do care about other people, and we want to contribute to making this world a better place for all of us. We can do good without having a god that we worship. We can be ethical. We can be moral. And we can be charitable.

A most peculiar paradox

2011-12-06T00:04:00.001-05:00

There's something that's been bothering me ever since I was young and has grown increasingly more so over the years. I was raised as a Christian. As such, I was taught to love others, to exhibit charity, to treat others well, to share my blessings with other people, and to be compassionate. I think these are core principles of Christianity wherever it is to be found.

What I find intriguing is that Christianity seems to have become the backbone of the Republican party. That in itself might become dangerous, since it might lead to establishment of (or favoritism toward) one religion over another, but that's another matter for another day. But, what's really perplexing to me is that the republican party--the religious right--is fighting so hard against charitable government programs.

As a child, I readily accepted what my parents taught me about religion, and just as readily I accepted the things my dad told me about having small government and maximizing individual freedom by opposing socialist ideas and provisions. But, as I've grown older I've eventually lost my fervor in opposing government welfare programs.

I find it interesting that the people who believe in the Bible--the people who believe in "go the extra mile", "sell all thou hath and give to the poor", the people who believe that when they see their creator in the next life He will say "I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in" to those who have helped people in these ways--that these people are not the ones who are the most vocal in advocating for government welfare programs. In fact, fundamentalists Christians are among the most vocal in opposing such programs. Most of the people I know who are Mormons are against any kind of government help--whether it be food stamps, health care benefits, or anything of the sort.

I find it highly ironic that those who believe most strongly about helping others and being charitable--or at least profess to believe these things because of their religion--are some of the ones who are fighting so fiercely against making such programs a reality. I don't know how many good, Christian people I have heard complain about being taxed to pay for welfare, for food stamps, for medicare, medicaid, and social security programs. I don't know how many people I've heard say they want to abolish all of these practices and make sure they never happen again.

So, I wonder. I really, truly wonder how people can have this kind of disconnect. How can someone claim to be charitable, to be kind and loving, to be giving and philanthropic, and simultaneously oppose any measure made by the government to institute such charitable acts? It's very difficult for me to understand where the logic lies there.

Now, it would be one thing if these people who fight so vehemently against government programs actually donated to private charities designed with the same purpose--of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless. And yet, the reality is that a precious small percentage of them do. I suppose that many Mormons give to their church, believing that the church will give the money to people who are in need. Well, I think we know what the truth is there. (See here and here.)

As for me personally--I don't have any problem with paying taxes to support welfare. I know several people personally who have at some point or other (some currently, some in the past) been on one government program or another. I have seen these programs do much good in the lives of these friends. When Karen and I were first married, she didn't have a full-time job with benefits. She could not get a private health insurance plan--no one would take her because she had cancer. The only option available to her was to go onto the state insurance plan, which she did. If she hadn't been able to be on that plan, it would have meant literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills (over the next few years) for the two of us. We would have had to declare bankruptcy. So, I am grateful for state insurance plans. It was literally a life-saver for us, financially. Now, when she got a job here in Tennessee, her insurance plan was the best I've ever heard of. But, the year we spent in Provo together is a good reminder to me that not everyone is in the position to get good health coverage through their employer.

I have only two problems with government programs at the federal level. First, I am not convinced that they are Constitutional. I have not yet seen an argument presented to me that I find convincing enough to indicate that the Constitution grants the federal government the power to institute such programs. I have no problem with them running such programs, but I feel that perhaps the Constitution needs to be amended in order to make these programs legal.

The second issue I have is that the government tends to be rather inefficient. They have extremely high overhead. I want to see my money go toward actually helping people, not toward paying some bureaucrat in an office who stuffs his face with eclairs and has affairs with his secretary. I'd much rather see it go toward someone who's having trouble finding a place to live or a job or clothes to wear.

I have no issue with my taxes being used to help people who are needy. I have no problem with helping people out. I am a very giving person. I have had people stop me on the street and ask for money. As often as I am carrying cash (which is quite infrequent, to be honest), I give them money to help them. I love all people and if I see someone in need, I want to reach out and help them. So, I will not complain about my money being used to fund welfare or social security or any other government program. I have seen people who need these programs and I have seen people get back on their feet after being taken care of by these programs.

I must say that I feel very much as Charles Dickens must have felt as he wrote his classic novel A Christmas Carol. One of the most stirring lines is when the ghost of Christmas Present, fully enraged by Scrooge's disconcern for his fellow man, bellows Scrooge's own unfeeling and ignorant words back in his face "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" Oh, what cruel irony--that so many of my Christian friends who love this novel, who find the moral of the story so compelling that they watch the movie and read the book every year, are also the ones who oppose the kind of social reform that Dickens was calling for in writing his book. They are those who would reopen debtors prisons and would exact "justice" upon those too poor to pay for their own food, clothing, and housing. They would blame these unfortunate souls for their own misfortune, rather than showing compassion and sharing of their abundance.

"This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!" cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. "Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end."

In other words, go ahead and pretend that there aren't homeless people. Go ahead and be cozy in your own life, ignoring those who are on the brink of starvation. But, the condemnation will be upon your own head for omitting to right a wrong that you had the power to right. Be remembered for generations as the society that would refuse to give to those who were less financially privileged than you. And, if you believe in a god, risk his wrath upon you for turning your blind eye on your fellow man that you might have otherwise helped.

My conscience will not allow me to do this. It will not allow me to stand by idly as I watch people suffer needlessly. When I have so much, I cannot turn away from those who have absolutely nothing at all. It is not right and it is not excusable.

Polygamy

2011-12-05T15:47:00.001-05:00

I just want to make it quite clear before saying anything else, that I am a proponent of polygamy. I have never had an issue with polygamy, nor do I at the present time. If multiple people all love each other and wish to enter a marriage all together, who am I to say that they can't? Now, I also have never had any desire to practice polygamy for myself. I have never had any interest in having multiple spouses--male or female. Being in a relationship with Conrad, I have no desire to be with anyone else, in a romantic way. When I was with Karen I had no desire to be with anyone else either (aside from the fact that I wished it was with a man instead of a woman). My brain is wired monogamously. I only want one mate. But, if someone else has a brain that's wired differently, I won't get in their way. I won't stop them from being happy.

Now, that having been said, I think there are many problems with polygamy and many ways in which it is (or has been) used for ill purposes. There are societies where polygamy is practiced and it seems to be the case that in many of these societies, the women are repressed. I don't think that oppressing or repressing any individual or group of individuals is ever good. But, misogyny is especially bad because it's so widely accepted (even today--in 2011) and tolerated. I think that in a polygamous relationship (or in any relationship, for that matter) all parties should be equal. It should not be just one man presiding over a bunch of women. Sadly, this is all too often the case. One man has a huge libido and wants to be with multiple women (this seems pretty common for men--in fact, biology suggests that men are wired to spread their seed as widely as possible). That's okay, just as long as all of the women are okay with it as well. If they all consent and aren't just being pressured into it by their community or by their religion, then I say go for it. Or, if three guys and two girls all want to get together. Whatever relationship they want to work out among themselves, that has no effect on me and I see no reason why I should support legislation that prevents it from happening. If, however, it is found that polygamy cannot exist without all of the misogyny and repression that so often accompanies it, then in that case I would concede the point and oppose the measure simply in the interest of protecting women's rights.

Now, as I said, I've never had a problem with polygamy. The entire time I was Mormon, I was ok with it. I was nervous because sometimes in church people would say that at some future date, the practice of polygamy would be reinstated and I personally didn't want to live that law. But, in a theoretical sense of other people practicing it, I was always cool with it and I still am. I knew that Joseph Smith had multiple wives, and I knew that Brigham Young had multiple wives. That wasn't a problem for me.

What was a problem for me was when I found out more about Joseph Smith's wives. First of all, he kept everything secret. The community--the church that he presided over--didn't even know that he had multiple wives (except, of course, for the women he married). His own first wife Emma didn't even know that he married all these other women. That's what really bothered me. The fact that he deceived people, and blatantly lied when he claimed that he was monogamous. He kept secrets from his first wife, and he made all of his other wives keep their marriage to him secret. In fact, what led to his final arrest immediately before his murder at Carthage jail was due to events that followed after a publisher printed an article about all of his multiple wives. Obviously it was something he had kept very secret and was quite angry when it became known. This is deceit and dishonesty and it is completely inexcusable. I think in any marriage, there shouldn't be any secrets (at least, not of this nature). Each partner should be completely open and honest with the other(s).

Also, there's the matter that Joseph Smith taught obedience to the law (Article of Faith #12). And yet he practiced polygamy, which was clearly illegal at the time. This is called hypocrisy--the act of teaching one thing and doing something contradictory to that teaching. He taught other people to obey the law, but then broke it himself. He even encouraged other leaders of the church to break the law as well by taking multiple wives for themselves.

But the thing that bothers me the most about the polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith was that he married several girls who were under age. He married three women who were 17, two who were 16, and two who were only 14 years old at the time of the marriage. (Read more about his wives here.) By today's standards, that would qualify him as a pedophile. He wasn't satisfied with taking consenting adults as his wives, he also lusted after young girls and coerced them into marrying him. This is completely disgusting. I would never support anyone who wanted to take a young, impressionable person, and pressure them into marrying him.

So, in summary, do I care that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy? Not one bit. I never have and I never will. If anyone else wants to practice polygamy, go for it. But, it makes me mad that he lied about it, that he broke the law, and that he married minors--even girls as young as 14 years old. I have a niece that's 13, she'll be 14 next July. I would punch any man who tried to marry her while she was that young. Even if someone that young is ready to be in a relationship, I really don't think they're capable of understanding the concept of marriage well enough to make that decision and to commit to someone for the rest of their life. So much of what Joseph Smith did, in the name of being a mouthpiece for god, makes me sick to my stomach. If there is a god, I'm sure that he is not happy with what that man did in this life.

Faithless courage

2011-11-28T17:14:00.001-05:00

I've seen this video going around Facebook, so I thought I'd share my thoughts about it. Nelson talks about how his faith helps him handle difficulties. That's great. That's wonderful. People who find strength or support in their own faith, go ahead and have that faith. If it helps you through hard times, that's excellent. I have no problem with that at all, in fact I think it's good. Do or believe whatever you need in order to get through the hard times in life.

But, Nelson takes a condescending tone throughout much of the video. He implies that anyone without faith, without a belief in Christ, is fearful. Yes, there are lots of fearful people out there. But, there are just as many religious people who are scared as there are irreligious people. And, I would be willing to bet that the woman on the plane who was hysterical was also a Christian. I don't think believing or not believing in a certain deity will make one more or less likely to have panic attacks in stressful situations, such as impending death.

I don't have any faith, but I am also not afraid to die. I can't word it as Nelson does (that I'm ready to meet my maker) because I don't believe that anything awaits me after this life. I don't believe I have a maker to meet. But, I do not fear death. If I were facing impending death, I would not panic. I would be calm and collected, just as Nelson describes himself being. Nelson says that we need an eternal perspective, but I think all I need is a long-term perspective. I live my life the best that I can, and so if I were to die now, I'd be content, knowing that I did my best in life and left the world a better place than I found it.

I believe in continually improving myself. I don't delude myself by thinking that I'll ever be perfect, but I know that it's quite possible for me to continue to be better, and that is one of my goals. I want to be a better teacher, a better boyfriend to Conrad, a better friend to all who know me. I don't need to rely on an imaginary being for strength to overcome trials or to help me be a better person. I have within me the power to improve myself, and I have friends and family who can help me through hard times, when I need that help. I don't think it's the gospel of Jesus Christ that grants that help and support, I think it's true love--loving parents, loving siblings, loving friends, and a loving spouse.

If faith were necessary to have hope in life, to improve oneself, to get through hard times, then irreligious folk wouldn't live very long. It doesn't stand to reason to claim that faith is necessary in order to face the future with confidence. It might help you. It may make certain things in your life easier, if you believe that there is a deity somewhere in existence who is watching over you and protecting you. And to claim that your faith helps you in hard times is perfectly acceptable. But to claim that those who do not have faith cannot have such peace of mind is a fallacy. An analogy would be that you get nutrients from eating an apple every morning and that it gives your body vitamins that it needs. You can go ahead and assert that your body benefits from the nutrients in the apple, but to say that all people must eat apples in order to gain those same benefits is flawed, since there are many other sources whence those vitamins can be obtained.

Happy Holidays

2011-11-26T09:03:00.001-05:00

I personally know people who refuse to do any Christmas shopping at stores that say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". I think it's rather silly, myself--and I always did, even when I was a believing Mormon. Now that I've seen this video, I think it's much, much sillier.

When I first watched this, I hadn't actually heard of this Dr. Jeffress or his church before (yes, the Baptist church, but not his specific congregation). My first thought when I heard him say he wanted to do something "positive" by making a grinch list was "How is that positive?" Yes, it is definitely taking action, rather than simply complaining about something. But, it isn't positive action. Putting a business's name on a "naughty list" because they don't say "Merry Christmas" is a negative thing, not a positive thing.

Also, as the couple in the video points out, it's hardly offensive to wish someone a happy holiday (unless you're offended by someone wanting you to be happy). Just like AronRa, in the video, I'm not offended if someone tells me Merry Christmas, nor do I hesitate in telling it to other people.

I do think it's really funny when some folk get all upset and say that they're being oppressed and their religious freedoms are being challenged simply because some businesses want to include people of other faiths by saying the more inclusive "Happy Holidays" or even "Season's Greetings" than excluding people by picking one particular holiday and only wishing well to those who observe that holiday.

Christians play the "you're infringing on my religious rights" card a lot. Wishing someone a happy holiday doesn't infringe on their rights. Me marrying Conrad doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Christianity is not under attack in America, it's leading the attack against those who believe differently.

Rationalism

2011-11-25T10:56:00.001-05:00

I've had some people express confusion over what my current beliefs are, and some even tell me that I've only expressed what my views are not and not what they are. So, I'll take this opportunity to try to articulate them properly. I believe that that all of the following labels apply to me, at least partially: atheist, rationalist, and secular humanist.

I am a rationalist because I believe anything that I feel has been supported by a sufficient amount of logic and evidence (which, would also make me an empiricist). That is, I believe anything that is logical and for which verifiable evidence can be produced. I accept as fact conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments, from logic and reasoning, and from my own senses.

I am not a materialist, since I do not believe that all that exists is material in nature. I am open to the possibility that there are things in existence which have no physical form or manifestation. What such things might be, I have no idea, nor do I believe I have seen any evidence to convince me of the existence of such objects. However, if such evidence were presented, I would gladly accept it.

I am an atheist in that I have no logical reason to believe in any god. I have seen no evidence in my own life that would lead me to conclude that some god or other exists. All of the arguments I have examined trying to reason that god does exist I have found to be flawed in some way or other, and therefore disbelieve them. So, my rational mind tells me that it is nonsensical to believe in such a being.

In my own experience in life, I have seen believers use their god as an excuse to control the behavior of other people (through indoctrination and dogma), to instill guilt in people for doing things that otherwise would not elicit guilt, and to condemn things that they themselves do not understand or are afraid of. I have seen people hide behind their god in saying cruel things to people that they would not otherwise say if they were actually speaking for themselves. I do not believe that a god such as the benevolent ones described by most religions would actually approve of such behavior, so I do not believe that people are representing their god when they say or do such things.

I am a humanist because I believe in doing good to all humans. I believe in treating all people with respect. I posted the ten commandments of humanism on my Facebook page a short while ago. I'll quote it here.

Proclaim the natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings.
Respect the life and property of others.
Practice tolerance and open-mindedness toward the choices and lifestyles of others.
Share with those who are less fortunate and mutually assist those who are in need of help.
Use neither lies, nor spiritual doctrine, nor temporal power to dominate and exploit others.
Rely on reason, logic, and science to understand the Universe and to solve life's problems.
Conserve and improve the Earth's natural environment--land, soil, water, air and space--as humankind's common heritage.
Resolve differences and conflicts cooperatively without resorting to violence or wars.
Organize public affairs according to individual freedom and responsibility, through political and economic democracy.
Develop one's intelligence and talents through education and effort.

I feel like, in order to avoid almost certain backlash, I need to add a disclaimer for item number 5. This principle does not imply that all (or even any) spiritual doctrine inherently dominates or exploits other people. It's merely stating that no power (spiritual, temporal, or otherwise) should be used to control another person.

I have to say that I agree with every item on this list. I think that all people are inherently good--that they have tendencies to evil, but that they also wish to do good. Some people have different temptations than others. Some people naturally want everyone else to be happy, while others are naturally more selfish. But, I believe that until someone gives me a reason to mistrust them, I have the obligation (and the desire) to help them in any way that I can.

I believe that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that religion is harmful, which might make me an anti-theist. However, from what I have seen, it is not belief in a god that makes someone more cruel than they would otherwise be. Belief in a dogmatic religion can and does cause this all too often. However, I believe that the majority of believers are not participating in unkind actions deliberately, nor do they believe themselves to be doing evil when they do so, since they feel their god requires it of them (eg, banning gay marriage). I believe that the malignancy is on the part of the leaders of those particular religions, not on the part of the innocent believers.

From what I have seen, irreligious people are just as capable of being kind as religious people. In fact, in many cases it is the irreligious that are kinder, since they do not have the prejudices so often associated with those who believe in and follow dogmatic religions. To demonstrate this claim, I cite as evidence the Japanese people. I served an LDS mission in Japan for two years and during that time I witnessed much kindness from the Japanese people. One time, while my companion and I were picking up garbage alongside the canal, a lady came by and gave us some rice cakes (rice cakes are actually a treat in Japan, they're not the flavorless garbage people try to sell here). Several times while we were knocking door-to-door, people would offer us food or drink, even though they refused to hear our message. One time, when I was on the train I yielded my seat to a woman and she gave me a pair of chopsticks that were in a holder that she made herself. What's the point of all of this? The Japanese people are largely irreligious. They claim to be Buddhist or Shinto, but in fact they only visit their temple or shrine once a year at best. Most of them just don't ever think about religion at all. But they have tender hearts and, as a society, feel very strongly about being kind to others and treating everyone well.

So, the parts of scripture that teach to love other people and to avoid judging and the like, I believe are correct and ethical principles that I wish to use to guide my own life. The fables and fairy tales contained in scripture, I believe to be false, but I also acknowledge that many of them teach good morals--such as patience that we can learn from Job or meekness from Jesus. Whether any of the particular people in the Bible actually existed or not--whether any of the events mentioned actually happened or not--I could not say, having not studied enough history myself. Nor do I believe that I ever shall study enough to know with any certainty whether any of it be real or fictitious. Whether there really was a Jesus or a Yeshua or whatever his name may have been, I don't see as having a vital effect on me personally. I do wish to emulate many of the character traits that the biblical character Jesus had, and that certainly will have (and has had) an effect on my life. That is good enough for me.

I also believe there are many horrific things in the Bible (and the Book of Mormon), such as genocide, slavery, and many many other things I could never condone but the god of the Bible seems to. So, I think there can be gleaned from the Bible things that are helpful, weeding out those that are harmful, to humanity. I also believe there are many other books and other sources we can look to for how to improve individually and as a race. I intend to seek out good teachings and principles wherever they are to be found--whether they be from philosophers, physicists, religious teachings, or otherwise. I will seek out the good and preach it. I will weed out the bad and use it the best I can to avoid making similar errors in my own life.

Giving thanks

2011-11-24T09:36:00.001-05:00

In celebration of the day, I would like to give thanks for the following things.

My dear, wonderful Conrad, who brings so many smiles to my face.
My kind, loving parents who raised me well and molded me into who I am.
My fun, excitable siblings for beating me up and playing with me.
My friends, who love me no matter what happens.
My teachers, who brighten my mind with education.
My students, who give me a sense of purpose and inspire me to always be a better teacher.
The peace of mind and self-confidence that come with being truly happy.
Facebook, to keep up with all of my friends and family.
Google, to tell me the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
Facetime and Google video chat so I can see the faces of my family even when I live 2000 miles away.
YouTube, to entertain me and educate me about the world, science, and current events.
The sun to brighten my day.
The rain to make my surroundings green.

May we all be truly grateful for the things we have been given. May we show our gratitude by sharing our blessings with others.

Lessons from my parents

2011-11-23T01:44:00.001-05:00

I'd like to share some of the things my parents have taught me and how I've used them in my life this year. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am truly grateful for my parents and the way they have raised me. I wouldn't be who I am without them. The words of wisdom are from my parents, but their applications mentioned herein are my own. So, if you don't like them, blame me not my parents.

One thing I can remember my mother telling me several times is the importance of corroborant sources. She'd always say that if you can find something from only one source, it's less likely to be true, but if you can find other sources which agree with it, then the chances are much more likely that it is true. I used this advice first in deciding that being gay is not a choice. I was always at odds with LDS doctrine because it taught that being gay is a choice and my own personal feelings said otherwise. Of course, if it's a question of me or the church, I'd stick with the church. Until I realized that no other sources agreed with the church. Science has found several biological and chemical explanations for homosexuality which make it quite obviously not a choice. Having seen countless sources all agreeing on the fact that a biological explanation is more probable than the church's explanation, and since that explanation agrees with my own personal experience, I concluded that the church must be wrong about this matter. (And, actually, the church no longer claims that homosexuality is a choice, but it has in the past and up until a little over a year ago I didn't know the doctrine had changed.)

The next way I used this bit of advice from my mother was to conclude that the church itself cannot possibly be true. The LDS church itself is not the only organization to claim that the Book of Mormon is true, but the Mormon movement is. The only people who claim that the book is true are churches that belong to the Mormon movement--churches that claim to be founded by Joseph Smith Jr. However, outside of the Latter Day Saint Movement, there are no corroborating sources. Archaeology, linguistics, history, and other branches of science all conclude that the Book of Mormon has a very small likelihood of being a true historical work. Having only one source that claims one thing and multiple sources that claim the opposite, I have decided that it is more logical to side with the corroborant sources all pointing to the conclusion that the book is fiction.

One of my father's favorite sayings is "If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, it's a duck." I suppose another rendition of a similar sentiment is "Call a spade a spade." My father would most commonly use this phrase when discussing politics--in particular, when calling out democrats for the antics they would play. It is this sort of critical thinking (of not just accepting that someone or something is what they claim to be, but in actually determining by their words and actions what they really are) that has helped me so much during this year. Just as my dad taught me to expose politicians for what they really are, I have exposed the church for what it really is. The church professes to speak for God, to have His standard and morals as their own. And yet, it has so often changed its standard and its morals as to make that claim utterly ridiculous. At one point in time, it preached anti-abolitionism, and also racism. Now, it teaches that all races are equal. My question is that, if all races are equal, why were they ever taught to be unequal? Also, the president of the church claims to be a prophet, and yet so many of the prophecies of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many others have failed. Joseph Smith claimed that there were men who lived on the moon, Brigham Young claimed that there were people who lived on the sun. If someone claims to be a prophet of God and to speak for Him and then, in His name, says something so ridiculously false, can I really believe them to a be a prophet?

One more thing that indicates to me that the church is a fraud is that it never apologizes for past behavior that is unacceptable. The church used to be racist. In 1978 it finally accepted black people, granting them equal status with white people. However, at the time of the change, it merely presented the change as if it was a revelation from God and that they had been following His will all along--even when they were oppressing black people. Someone who is honest will admit when they make a mistake. A fraud, however, will do what he can to cover the mistake up, brush it under the rug, and pretend that it never happened. Indeed, the church does claim that it was never racist, and most members of the church believe that, even though there is hard evidence to support the fact that the church was indeed racist and taught racism as doctrine. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Another way to apply this maxim to the church is in regards to its teachings concerning homosexuality. The church professes to reach out in love toward its homosexual members, and it even claims to teach that principle to its members as well. And yet, it doesn't. The church teaches that homosexual members must either overcome their homosexuality and marry heterosexually or they must simply remain celibate their entire lives. Neither of these is a loving thing to say to a homosexual. In the past, many gays were taught to marry heterosexually in order to cure their homosexuality. Fortunately, this is no longer official church policy (although, it is still practiced at the local level in some places). But, telling someone that they must never marry the person they love--that they must never even be in a relationship--is not a loving thing to say to someone. We are emotional creatures. We long for companionship. We need someone to love, someone to cherish. Telling someone that they must remain celibate their whole life is not a loving thing. It is not compassionate. It is oppressive. The church has the right to set its own doctrine. I don't mean to dictate what church doctrine is. I just mean to call out the lie spread by the church. It is not reaching out to its gay members in love. It is oppressing them and making them feel like they need to be something they are not. This is not love, it is cruel and it is evil. You have freedom of religion, so preach whatever you like. But, be honest about it. If you're teaching things that are oppressive to homosexual people, admit it. Don't try to claim that you're being loving.

I am grateful for my parents for teaching me good ways to use my intellect, proper ways to apply logic, and how to discover truth. They are wonderful people and I love them both very much. These conclusions that I have reached that I mentioned here and in many previous posts are not the same conclusions that my parents have drawn. They would disagree with me on nearly every point I made. My goal is not to disappoint them or distress them, nor to distress anyone who chooses to believe in the church. My goal is only to apply the knowledge and wisdom I have accumulated in the best way I know how. Mankind's search for truth will continue through the ages, and I mean to contribute to it as much as I can while I am here.

Be good to your sons

2011-11-22T09:04:00.001-05:00

I am very grateful to parents who nurtured me well as a child--parents who let me have my own interests and follow them, parents who fed my curiosities and encouraged me along those paths that I chose. My mother is probably the most supportive mother in the entire world. She taught me how to crochet, even when my brother kept saying that was gay. She supported me when I decided that I didn't want to walk at my high school graduation, when I told my school counselor that she shouldn't tell me I want to major in engineering instead of math, and many many other times in my life. I have never felt any pressure from my parents to be anything other than who I am.

I am truly grateful for parents that have done this for me. For parents who raised me the way I am and not the way they wanted me to be. So often I have seen parents that break their children. So often I have seen parents dictate to their children what they should or shouldn't be. So often I have seen children, with the innocent and loving desire to please their parents, completely brokenhearted and beleaguered in spirit because of their overbearing and stubborn parents.

There's a song that I really like. It encourages fathers to be good to their daughters. I think this is a wonderful message. I think that, in general, fathers are good to their daughters--protecting them from boys that they think are dangerous, wanting what is best for them. And I think songs like this are good to help remind fathers to keep being nice or perhaps to be nicer to their daughters. I'd embed it, but it's only viewable on YouTube, so you can watch it here.

There's one part of this song that I really don't like, which starts around timestamp 2:30. It says that boys you can break and find out how much they can take. I don't agree with this at all. I think boys are just as tender-hearted and loving as girls. I don't think any child should ever be broken. As I said before, I've seen it happen right in front of my own eyes--in the mall, in other peoples' homes, and even at church. It's saddening and disgusting in every occurrence. Be good to your sons too. Be good to all of your children. There's no excuse for breaking a child.

What prompted this post was a blog post from a friend of mine. He tells of a fishing trip where he was broken. The excuse "It's time you learned to be a man" is a hideous reason to treat a child that way. Such ignorance and such a complete disregard for a child's emotions has no place in society. People who treat children in such a way have no right to raise them--no right to be parents at all. This is inexcusable and evil. Children are people too. They have feelings, they have rights, they deserve respect. They deserve to be treated well. Don't break your children. Don't break your nieces and nephews. Don't break your grandchildren. Yes, teach them, guide them, give them correction, show them what you believe to be a good example. Just don't break them. They might not be exactly what you expected your son or daughter to be, but let them be who they are. Let them grow up to be their own person, not just another copy of yourself.

Sound a trumpet before thee

2011-11-18T20:32:00.001-05:00

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
-Matthew 6:2 (also 3 Nephi 13:2)

The LDS church is very vocal about its charity around the world--helping out those in need, cleaning up after disasters, etc. To be sure, these are commendable acts, and I am glad that the church does these things. But it brags about it all the time. Wherever they have these disasters, they have everyone helping wear the bright yellow Mormon Helping Hands T-shirt, so that everyone will know how wonderful Mormons are. And they make sure to get lots of media coverage to let everyone know anytime they donate food or aid of any sort. They have their reward.

But, now let us examine just how helpful the church really is. It certainly puts on a good front of being helpful and caring about people. So, let's see how much the church does help out. According to its own report, the church spent a total of $1.1 billion dollars on humanitarian efforts over the period from 1985 to 2009. This makes an average of $48 million per year. That's wonderful. That's more money then I'll ever be able to donate to humanitarian causes. But, how much is it really?

The church does not publish its financial information in the United States, because it is not required to do so. But, fortunately, it is required to do so in Canada. So, we can use Canada as a guide. In 2009, the church earned a total of $161 million dollars in revenue (in Canadian dollars). How many members are in Canada? A little bit over 160,000. So, that means that the average Canadian paid the church $900 (Canadian dollars). The exchange rate in 2009 was roughly .80 USD per Canadian dollar, so converting to USD yields $720 donated to the church per member in Canada. Now, just from this money alone, what that means is that the church spent only 37% of the money it raised in Canada on humanitarian efforts (and that's the total they spent, not just the amount that came from Canada).

37% isn't all that bad, right? The church is pretty generous. After all, it still has to maintain its buildings, pay for people to go to the bishop's storehouse, and other things, right? So 37% on humanitarian efforts isn't bad. Well, in the USA, the church has a little over 6 million members. Assuming that the average American pays the same amount as the average Canadian ($720 USD per member for 2009), that would mean that the church raised $4.3 billion dollars from its American members. Now, just to be fair to the church, let's say that US members are only half as faithful (or generous) as Canadian members, so the church only collected $2 billion from its members in the United States (I'm quite inclined to think the number's actually higher, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt). Now, how much did the church spend on its humanitarian efforts? 2%. A lousy 2% of its revenue (just from the USA, mind you) was spent on giving people aid. The wonderful, charitable organization that always sounds its trumpet whenever it gives money or aid to people actually gives less than 2% of its revenue to such causes. And, remember, the church has 14 million members worldwide, so the 6 million in America could easily be donating less than half of the church's revenue. They might be making as much as $8 billion in a year. (If only they'd release their financial information. I wonder why they don't.)

Now, let's compare these statistics with an actual charitable institution. Action Against Hunger is an organization based in New York, founded in 1979 with a focus on ending world hunger. For the year 2009, they collected $40 million in revenue and spent $30 million on its various programs over the world designed to help people who are starving. That's 75% of its revenue. So, as far as percentages are concerned, Action Against Hunger is about 30 times more generous than the LDS church. As far as sheer numbers are concerned, it gave $13 million less than the church, but its revenue was at least $2 billion less than the church's.

Now, let's talk about the number of people affected. In April 2008, H. David Burton, who is the presiding bishop of the LDS church and as such oversees all of the church's humanitarian efforts, gave a talk in general conference about the church's humanitarian efforts. In it, he stated that the church had helped 4 million people in 85 countries during the course of the year 2007. Contrast that with Action Against Hunger, who this year has helped half a million people in the Horn of Africa alone. Just in the month of August, they sent 215 tons of food assistance to 12,000 Somalians. If Action Against Hunger had the same revenue as the church (which would be about 100 times its current revenue), it seems like it would have helped somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 million people--12 times as much as the church helped.

Here's another one: Africare is an organization based in DC founded in 1970 with the express purpose of helping countries in Africa develop. In the 40 years since they have been founded, they have delivered over $700 million in aid to Africa. Now, this isn't as impressive as the $1 billion the church gave over the 25-year period, but let's put things into perspective. For the fiscal year ending June 2010, Africare's revenue was not quite $55 million--not even 2% of what the LDS church's was. How much did they spend on aid in that year? Almost $56 million. (Yes, the expenditures were $1 million more than revenue, but it's ok--they still have $6 million in net assets.)

I remember a few years ago, when some charity or other came up, Karen said that she'd rather donate to the church because she knows that they have no overhead, so all of the money is used for a good cause. At the time, I agreed with her. Now, however, I strongly recommend against giving any money to the LDS church, since there is little evidence that they spend any more than a minimal amount of money on humanitarian efforts. What the church spends the rest of its billions of revenue on is entirely beyond me, but it obviously isn't going to helping out starving people or improving living conditions in underprivileged countries. The church seems to be more interested in preventing gay people from marrying and building malls in Utah than in actually helping people who are dying of starvation. (3.5 million children die of starvation every year--that's over 9,000 daily.)

The criminal mind

2011-11-18T10:28:00.001-05:00

I think there was a show on television a while back called something like "America's dumbest criminals". I believe I saw an episode or two and was amazed at the stupid things that people do. So, I just wanted to take some time to share my own personal experiences with the matter.

I'm growing quite nicely into the stereotype of absent-minded professor. Twice this year I have lost my wallet. The first time, I left it on the top of my car at a gas station and drove off. I figured someone would turn it in to the gas station manager so I could come back and pick it up. Well, I was wrong. They took my wallet and started making charges on my cards. The second time happened just a couple days ago. I was missing my wallet when I went in to school yesterday, but I thought perhaps it was just in some crevice of my couch or something like that, so I figured I'd look for it later.

The irony that I wanted to point out brings us back to the point of criminals being stupid. In each scenario, the way I found out that my wallet had been acquired by a dishonest person was by an email notification from Redbox that I had made a rental (which, obviously I didn't make myself). While I'm extremely grateful to the person who ~~stole~~ found my wallet (in each case) for alerting me to the fact, I'm entirely dumbfounded that they would do this. To those who may be unfamiliar to Redbox, let me explain how this happened. When you make a purchase from Redbox, at the end of the purchase you have the option (it's not required) to send a confirmation email to your email account. If you opt for this, you type in your email address and then it's sent to you. For your convenience, Redbox keeps your email address in its database, linked to your credit card number. So, when you check out in the future, it pops up with the same page (Do you want an email confirmation?) with your email address already populating the entry box. On this page, you can select "yes" or "no" as to whether you want the email sent. So, in each case, the person who acquired my wallet and used my card to rent the DVD/video game actually clicked "yes" on this page. I'm not sure why. I can't imagine what they were thinking. Maybe they thought that it would be like teasing me--saying "haha. I just rented something using your card." Maybe they didn't even realize what they were saying "yes" to when they clicked the "yes" button. Maybe they thought that they wouldn't get their DVD if they clicked "no".

I'm amazed at this level of sheer stupidity. I mean, each individual purchase made by whomever it is is listed on my recent history on my credit card, so I know exactly where they've been. They're almost begging me to come find them. I'm not complaining--by any means. If anything, I'm grateful that my wallet was found by someone that's so stupid about how to abuse someone else's identity.

The other thing that's nice is that credit card companies are very good about reversing any charges that I didn't make. That's why I rarely carry cash on me (I think I had about $10 in my wallet when I lost it this time, and none the previous time). The cash in my wallet is gone ($10--no big deal). The money spent on my credit cards, I don't have to pay. Of course, this does make me worry about who takes the hit. I assume the credit card company demands their money back from the merchant, so if the merchant can't get their hands on the person committing the fraud, then I suppose they take the hit. I do feel bad for them, since it kind of makes a victim out of them. But, on the other hand, I'm also rather upset that Walmart approved three transactions, totaling almost $500 all in one night on my card without any proof that the person using the card was actually me. That's why I'm grateful when people actually ask to see my ID when I use my credit card. So, while I think that it's Walmart's fault for completing a transaction on a stolen card, I still do feel bad if they're the ones taking a hit on this. But, knowing Walmart they probably have some sort of credit card fraud insurance or something, so they don't take the hit either. But little Ma and Pa shops, I would feel bad for them losing money. I am grateful that the credit card companies take care of the charges, so I don't have to be responsible for them, but I still do worry about it.

The scientific method vs the religious method

2011-11-17T09:50:00.001-05:00

I find it interesting when people cite the fact that science keeps changing as a reason to disbelieve it and to believe instead in the "eternal" doctrines taught by some church or other. Let's examine why science keeps changing. Here's the scientific method.

Develop a hypothesis (this means "have a belief").
Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.
Conduct the experiment.
Determine whether the hypothesis is believable based on the results of the experiment.

This is why science keeps changing--because people notice flaws in it and correct them. People once thought the solar system was geocentric, but now know that it's heliocentric. How did this happen? By using the scientific method. Scientists are willing to admit that they're wrong. They're willing to give up a bad idea when they see evidence that it makes no sense. Contrast this with the religious method (simplified version).

Have a belief.
Look for evidence to support that belief.
Ignore evidence that rejects that belief.
Maintain your belief.

Actually, some churches, such as the LDS church, have a much more complicated method that helps those like me who wish to apply logic to their religious beliefs. Here's a fairly accurate depiction of the Mormon method.

As you can see, I didn't design this flow chart, but having been a Mormon for 28 years, I can attest that this is the way concerns are treated. I couldn't even begin to count how many times I either gave or received every single point of advice listed in this chart. (Oh, and the box at the very bottom isn't part of the flow chart, it's just the author's conclusion.)

Strangely enough, the LDS church (along with many other churches) dog on science for changing all the time and yet it preaches "continuing revelation". Continuing revelation means that the doctrines of the church change as the current prophet receives revelation from God on what to teach the people. So, for the church to call science false for changing all the time is hypocritical. Also strange is the fact that believing mormons (including myself when I was one) have convinced themselves to simultaneously believe that the church's doctrine is eternal and unchanging and that continuing revelation is a reality. The explanation (or at least one of the possible explanations) is that God's truth is unchanging, but that He teaches it to us line upon line, and so continuing revelation is necessary to help us learn more and more of the truth.

Why is this so strange? Because it is exactly the concept of the scientific method. Science contends that absolute truth is available for us to find, that we don't currently know everything there is to know, and that by performing experiments we can draw closer to the truth, weeding out false hypotheses and discovering better approximations of the truth. So, a Mormon believes that science continually changing is a reason to disbelieve it (or at least reject it if it contradicts religious beliefs) and that doctrine continually changing is one of the reasons that they should believe it, since it shows that God still teaches us line upon line.

I've lost count of how many times I've been told that I should believe the teachings of the prophets over the teachings of men--that I should reject logic when it disagrees with doctrine. I did that, but I can only suspend belief (in logic/reality) for so long. I was willing to have lots of questions about how science disagrees with religion (eg, the Earth having geological evidence of being older than 6,000 years) and still believe my church. But, I had to ask myself, at what point is it too much? And I suggest that you ask yourself the same question. If the prophet asked you to believe that gravity was a false teaching, or that people whose bodies were accelerated toward the Earth by gravity were evil and possessed by the devil, would you believe him because he's the prophet? What if the prophet told you that the sun doesn't exist--that God just turns on a light switch during the day and turns it off at night? How much are you willing to reject logic in the name of preserving your beliefs? And I don't mean to be challenging, I mean to get you to think about your own beliefs. Be introspective. Search your feelings, Luke.

I no longer believe the prophets because I reached that threshold where I was no longer able to suspend belief in science--in reality. The prophets say that being in a same-sex relationship will not bring happiness, and yet I am happier in my relationship with Conrad than I have ever been before. The prophets say that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical document and that the Nephites were a real people, and yet there is no archaeological or genetic evidence to support the claim that the book is true. No, I will stick to what can be concluded based on actual, verifiable data, not on the teachings of a group of men whose claims are to be accepted solely on faith which, by definition, is the lack of evidence.

Benefits of ex-mormonism

2011-11-16T10:34:00.001-05:00

I do feel that in almost every way, leaving the church has been a benefit to me. There are the obvious drawbacks--I lose a great deal of my Mormon friends and all of the fun mormon activities that I used to participate in, there is a possibility of wedges forming between me and my mormon family, etc. But, I think for the most part, it has been good for me and I want to take this opportunity to describe those benefits.

When I was a Mormon, I was very judgmental. As much as I heard lessons in Sunday school about not judging people, as much as I told myself that I shouldn't judge and wasn't a judgmental person, I really truly was. I didn't even realize just how judgmental I was while I was mormon. The realization didn't come until after I left the church and looked back (I've heard that hindsight is always 20/20). I would see someone with a tattoo (my trainer on my mission had a tattoo on each arm) and I would think they were dirty for having defiled their body. I would see a woman with her shoulders or belly button exposed and think that she was a slut. I would see a gay couple and think how evil they were (and simultaneously be jealous, wishing I was in their shoes). I often expressed distaste for music with lyrics that I thought immoral. One time, I was riding in a car with a couple girls and one of them was going through the CDs and said "Oh, I love this song" and put it on, and the other girl expressed concern over letting me know that she owned that CD because she knew that I would disapprove of its lyrics. I could go on and on about the extremely long list of ways in which I judged other people, all based on my Mormon beliefs. Suffice it to say there were myriad such examples.

Contrast that with my current attitude. I hardly ever judge anyone anymore. I see people with tattoos and I am able to admire them--some of these tattoos are very skilled artwork. I see gay couples and I am happy for them. I see women wearing just about anything and don't once question her character--let her wear what she wants. I see religious people of all sects (yes, including Mormonism) and I think no ill of them for doing so--in fact, I admire them having and sticking to their own code of ethics.

My whole mindset is so different. I used to feel a compulsion to make everyone understand the truth and know that they had to be Mormon in order to go to heaven and live with God. Now, I feel no need to make anyone else believe as I do. Let people believe what they want. If it makes them happy, then I'm happy for them. If someone feels that they should be a man instead of a woman, let them transition. What is it to me? It doesn't harm me, it doesn't affect me in any way. If it makes them happy, let them do it and be happy. So, maybe I subscribe to the belief that "gender is eternal" (which, I don't, obviously), so what? If by having a sex change in this life, someone ruins their relationship with God, then that's between them and God, and I have nothing to do with it, so why should I try to stop them? Why try to make such a thing illegal? Why encourage looking upon such people as second-class citizens? No, I have decided that each person has their own feelings and what makes them happy may be completely different from what makes me happy. So, let them pursue happiness in their own way. I used to believe, as the Mormon church teaches, that there's just one cookie-cutter way to be happy, which is to enter a heterosexual monogamous marriage and bear children. Not everyone has to fit that mold. Some people prefer to be single. Some people prefer not to have children.

As a Mormon, I felt responsible to answer to my bishop for my own morality. I felt that I had to follow a prescribed list of do's and don'ts. I was constantly worried about whether I would be able to live up to this standard, always trying to suppress feelings that were natural and harmless. Now, I set my own morals. I know the difference between right and wrong and I am confident that my conscience will not lead me astray. I am capable of controlling my own desires to the point where I do not affect others for ill, and it requires no great mental effort on my part--in fact, it's quite natural. I spent so long fighting the "natural man" and now that I've stepped away from Mormon dogma, I find that my natural desires are to do what's right, not what's wrong. I want to help other people, not hurt them. I want to do what is best for me and for those around me. I have no more checklist, no more stress over whether I'm doing everything on the "do" list and nothing on the "don't" list. I merely do what is good and avoid what is bad.

As an ex-mormon, my mind is open to a whole world of possibilities. I am free to learn science--about evolution (instead of creationism), about homosexuality (instead of insisting that it's a choice), about transgenderism and hermaphrodism (instead of insisting in a strict, eternal gender binary), and a whole slew of other topics that are taboo for a believer who doesn't want to endanger losing his testimony. I no longer fear a differing opinion simply because I perceive that it might ruin my current beliefs. I'm open to changing my beliefs, as I gain new knowledge and information. I'm open to questioning what I believe to be true, since my pursuit is of truth and not of proving that I am right.

I still have these undesirable traits pop up. I still like being right sometimes and get angry when someone proves me wrong. Sometimes I judge people. But, I've noticed that the longer I've been out of the church, the more these symptoms fade into nothingness. I like the person I am becoming.

Just because it's you

2011-11-15T14:24:00.001-05:00

As I was fixing myself a bowl of ramen today, I thought of how Karen always had an aversion to ramen--unless I made it. (The funniest things can trigger the most obscure memories, can't they.) When we were first married, I remember talking about how much I loved ramen and that I could eat it all the time (and it's so cheap too), and she said that she thought it was gross and preferred her own cooking. (I prefer home cooking too, but ramen is so convenient and cheap.) Anyway, one time I made some ramen for myself and Karen wanted to take a bite, so she did--and ended up finishing the bowl for me. Then a few days later, she made a bowl for herself, took one bite, and didn't want the rest (she's anything but a picky eater, so it was a complete shock that she didn't finish it). When asked about the difference, she said that she liked the way I made ramen better.

I would notice that over the three years we were married, it seemed as though the food on my plate was more attractive to her than the food on her own plate--even when it was the exact same food. I didn't mind at all, because that meant that I could finish off her plate of food. But, I did find the phenomenon completely perplexing. How was my food any better than her food? Was it really possible that I was more skilled at microwaving ramen noodles than she was? Something didn't make sense.

That is, it didn't make sense until now. Now I can understand what it was that made Karen enjoy my food more than her own. She was infatuated with me--as every person should be with their spouse. I now know what it is like to be in love with someone and infatuated with them at the same time. I love watching Conrad eat. I get the strangest pleasure from seeing it. I would probably have never played Pokemon ever in my entire life, but the fact that Conrad plays makes me like the game. When he first moved in, he gave me two of his games to play and I played them for hours at a time, sincerely enjoying them--but not because they are games that I would have independently found enjoyable, but because they were games that Conrad liked.

I love wearing Conrad's shoes (they're the only apparel we can share because he weighs less than half of what I weigh). I have my own sandals and my own shoes, but his are more fun to wear because they're his. Every once in a while, just around the house, I'll put on one of his shirts. Of course, it almost bursts at the seams when I do, but it's fun just to wear his clothes. And it makes him smile. When he's at work and I'm home, I stare at the clock willing it to go faster so that he can be home with me. On days when I'm supposed to stay late at school for a seminar and he's home because it's his day off, I find it difficult to stay at school, so I just go home so I can see him.

The yearning to please him, to be with him, to make him smile and be happy, is stronger than pretty much any emotion I have ever felt. What makes being with him so amazing? Nothing, other than the fact that it's him. What makes watching him eat so thrilling? Nothing--I get no similar pleasure from watching anyone else eat--it's just because it's him. What makes wearing his shoes so fun? Nothing, other than the fact that they're his shoes. I have no desire to wear anyone else's clothes or play anyone else's videogames. All of these feelings I have revolving around doing things with Conrad are solely because I am infatuated with him. He lights up my eye and brings a spring to my step. In my own opinion, everyone deserves to have someone that makes them this happy.

Sandusky

2011-11-12T23:36:00.001-05:00

I don't watch TV, so sometimes I'm a bit behind on my current events. I just heard about Jerry Sandusky, formerly assistant coach at Penn State. As I understand it, the man was found guilty of sexually abusing 8 boys over a period of 15 years. Apparently, since it has been discovered that the head coach (Joe Paterno) knew about this but did not report anything to the authorities, he has also been fired. I find this whole story to be rather tragic.

Should the head coach have been fired? I really don't know. But, what I do know is that knowing about someone who abuses someone else and not doing anything about it is a dishonorable thing to do. Sexual abuse is a serious thing, and I think that all too often we take it lightly in our society. If he had it in his power to stop Sandusky from ruining more boys' lives, he should have done it. Not snitching on your friend when you find out they smoke pot and not reporting someone who you know is sexually abusing children are two completely different things. In the latter case, innocent people are being hurt by your apathy. So, I say shame on Paterno, and anyone else that knew something and said/did nothing.

There are those who are trying to use this tragedy to continue to push the propaganda that homosexuals are evil, that gay people make bad role models/parents for children, etc. To me, this says exactly the opposite. To me, this shows the necessity of allowing gay people to be recognized as equal with straight people and giving us equal status in society. Why? Think about it. Obviously, Sandusky is a gay man (or perhaps bisexual). He has a wife. The society he lives in does not like homosexuals, so he marries a woman to blend in and to avoid the disapproval of his society. But, he really wants to be with guys because he's gay. So, what does he do? He engages in sexual conduct with boys. Think how it would be different if he grew up in a society that treated him equal with others--where he would be allowed to marry the man of his dreams and not have to keep secret the fact that he's attracted to people of the same sex.

Don't mistake me. I don't mean to set up Sandusky as a victim. He is not a victim in any way at all. He is the perpetrator. He chose his own actions and needs to be responsible for them. What he did was completely inexcusable. No one should ever be forced or coerced into sexual conduct with any other person--this is something that should only be done between consenting persons. Being sexually abused is a serious thing, and it can be extremely difficult for the victim of a sexual abuse/assault to recover from the psychological and emotional damage that is caused by such an event. The life of these 8 boys may never be the same simply because of the despicable actions on the part of Sandusky. Shame on Sandusky for not being in control of his own emotions and for taking advantage of those who are younger and more impressionable. I believe in a zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse/assault. It is never okay, and it is never the victim's fault.

I also don't mean to say that sexual urges are impossible to control, or that they shouldn't be controlled. I think that they can and should be controlled. All too often people say that the urges are too strong to control. I disagree. I think there's danger in ignoring those feelings or trying to suppress them altogether, but I think that it's quite possible to have sexual relations only with people who consent to such. What I'm saying is that everyone should feel free to have a positive outlet for their sexual feelings (that is, be able to be in a relationship with a person they're attracted to) and not be ashamed to let the public know about their relationships.

All I mean to say is that if our society were more accepting of people who wanted to marry someone of the same sex, there would be fewer stories like this. People would be better able to release their sexual energy in positive, uplifting ways--with a partner that they love and commit themselves to--rather than in secretive, coercive ways such as abusing a child. I mean, just think how high rape rates would soar if everyone in society felt like straight sex was immoral (so, the only way for reproducing would be artificial insemination). People who had no other outlet for releasing their sexual energy would just find some unsuspecting teen somewhere and assault them. They'd have to do it in privacy and secrecy because if they did so openly they'd be shunned by society. So, I think anyone who is interested in stopping sexual abuse, allowing gays to be treated equally is one step in the right direction. No, it won't solve the problem altogether, but I think it will help.

Also, if gay people feel comfortable being open about who they are, then we can have more gay role models step up to the plate. There are wonderful gay men and women out there who are excellent role models, but are closeted. They are afraid to come out, for whatever reason, but are great people and contribute well to society. They make wonderful role models to the youth. And, if they were out and allowed to be themselves, then they would become good role models of what a great gay person can be. They could show gay youth how to be a good gay. Think how Sandusky's life may have been different if he had positive gay role models to look up to when he was young and learned from them how to be good. Perhaps then he wouldn't have grown up to be the kind of guy that would sexually abuse boys. Again, I'm not setting up Sandusky as a victim, I'm merely trying to point out ways in which our future might be brighter if we achieve a greater level of acceptance for gay people and a greater level of encouragement for us all to be more respectful of others and their feelings.

Freedom of religion

2011-11-12T19:13:00.001-05:00

This story is actually a couple months old now, but I just heard about it. Once again, people misunderstand what it means to have the right to practice religion freely. As you probably know, same-sex marriage has been legal in New York (the whole state) since July of this year. What does that mean? That means that anywhere in the state, a gay couple can go to the clerk's office and get a licence to marry, and then proceed to get married through whichever method they seem best.

One town clerk, in Ledyard, has decided to refuse to issue any licences to gay couples, on the principle that it is against her religion. She claims that she has the right to keep her job and to remain faithful to her religion (by not issuing licences to gay couples). Let's examine the issue in more detail.

Under the new law, it is a misdemeanor to refuse to offer licences to any couples, including same-sex couples. Now let us see how the freedom of religion applies when a different law is in question. Suppose that Ms. Belforti (the town clerk in question) belonged to a religion that taught that God hated people who paid taxes and therefore paying taxes of any form was sin. Would she then be justified in not paying taxes in the name of religious freedom? Of course not, because failure to pay taxes is illegal. What would happen if she refused to pay taxes and claimed that if she was forced to pay taxes then the government was infringing on her right to practice her religion? The argument would be dismissed, since it is ridiculous. Therefore, she has no right to disobey the law (requiring her to issue licences to gay couples) even though her religious convictions say that homosexuality is immoral.

Now, let's look at this not in a legal light, but just in the terms of her job description. Let's suppose that she belonged to a religion that taught that use of telephones was immoral. Let's also suppose that she was a receptionist. Should she be allowed to have her job in light of the fact that she refuses to answer the telephone? It would be impossible for her to do her job without using the phone. Is her employer infringing on her religious rights by asking her to do something that's against her religion? Of course not, the employer's only asking her to do her job, nothing more. The same principle applies here. As part of her job as town clerk, she is required to issue licences to gay couples. If she has religious convictions that don't allow that, then she should resign and find a new line of work--one that will allow her to practice her religion as she sees fit.

So, what is the real issue? She's merely showing her own bigotry by refusing to issue these licences, and she shouldn't be allowed to continue as town clerk. Suppose that she believed that interracial marriages were immoral and therefore refused to offer licences to couples who were not of the same race. How would people respond to her? They would call her racist and say that she should issue the licences anyway. So, why is this homophobia tolerated? Why is she still in office?

Is removing her from office a violation of her right to freely practice religion? Of course not. She's still free to practice her religion, and to believe that homosexuality is immoral. She's free to refuse people who wish to be married in her own church (or, at least, the minister of her church has that right). But, if her religious convictions are getting in the way of her doing her job properly, then she must choose between the two. The receptionist who can't answer the phone based on religious principle isn't being persecuted, she's just incapable of completing her duties as a receptionist. Same here, removing her from office isn't religious persecution, it would simply be because she's incapable of completing her duties as town clerk. Not only that, but she's also breaking the law. Does her religion encourage crime? Is that what Jesus would do?

Deconversion

2011-11-12T12:40:00.001-05:00

In voicing the fact that my beliefs have changed from the monotheism of Christianity to atheism, I have been told I am attacking other people's beliefs. Certainly, I have raised concerns I've had with Mormon doctrine, so I suppose that could be considered an attack. But, in my opinion, being honest about one's own feelings is a good and commendable thing to do, not something that people should complain about.

Conversion to a religion is a very long process and requires a great deal of effort on the part of the convert, which is why it happens so infrequently. But converting to atheism (or, more appropriately, irreligionism) is very different. Yes, it takes a long time and it's an involved process, but for different reasons. There is no ritual that you need to learn and follow, there are no required meetings to attend on Sunday morning or Wednesday evening. You don't have to learn a new set of rules and make sure to follow them closely whenever you're around other atheists. Pretty much the only thing you have to do is figure out how to live your life outside of religion. This is why I think the word "deconversion" is more appropriate than "conversion", and it's a term I've seen used by many people.

As I've said before, I have no real motivation to change people's religious beliefs. I have no need to make people think the way I do. I don't believe anyone's going to hell if they don't agree with me--I don't even believe in hell. So, why do I share my thoughts and feelings? I want people to know the truth--of all things. That's part of the reason why I want to be a professor. I like teaching, and I like teaching things that are true. I believe that knowledge is power and that the more things people learn, the better they are equipped to face the challenges that come in their lives. So, I share things that I believe to be true, and I encourage other people to study things out, think about them, and come to their own conclusions on what is true.

I've watched a lot of YouTube videos of people who have deconverted and are now atheists. Some of them I have found to include a lot of bitter and spiteful feelings toward Christianity, all religion, or some specific religion. I don't blame them for this. They have good reason to feel these feelings, and I hope you can understand what those reasons might be. I think it's healthy for them to be honest about their feelings and express them. I don't think that sharing those kinds of videos and feelings with my Christian friends is going to be productive, so I have refrained from doing so. I did, however, come across one YouTuber that has expressed his experience very matter-of-factly and with respect for those who are Christian. This is the link to his playlist on his deconversion experience. The first video in this playlist is embedded below. This guy, whose handle is Evid3nc3, also has a blog. I would recommend perusing the blog and also watching his videos. I want to add that much of my own experience is very much like his, and so reading and understanding his story may help you to understand my own.

Americans over-democratic?

2011-11-09T11:03:00.003-05:00

I think Americans get over-excited about their right to vote on things. This spirit of democracy floats around so strongly that sometimes it's quite scary. (Interestingly enough, most people don't even know definitions well enough to realize that America is not a democracy, but that's not the point of this post.)

So, I just came across one of the many polls on Facebook concerning mathematics. These always make me laugh because it seems as though people believe that the truth can actually be voted on. So, if enough people vote that 1+1=3, then it can be true. I think part of this is that people don't like math, part is that they don't understand it, and part is because they want it to be easier than it really is.

So, here was the question on the poll "5 + 5 + 5 - 5 + 5 + 5 - 5 + 5 x 0 = ?". This is a very simple question. Anyone with a third-grade education should be able to answer properly. The order of operations states that multiplication is to be carried out prior to addition/subtraction. Therefore, the correct answer 15. What do the poll results show? Here is a list of the answers given, together with the total number who have (thus far) responded with that answer.

Answer	Number of votes
20	4,671
0	65,542
40	1,493
15	45,818

So, there were a total of 117,524 that have answered so far and less than 40% were able to answer correctly. Now, this is a simple arithmetic question. In fact, if one were to type this into just about any calculator, the calculator would yield the correct answer of 15. The one exception is the kind of calculators which act like adding machines, in which case, if the buttons were pressed in the order that appear in the expression, the answer would be 0 because it would actually be calculating (5+5+5-5+5+5-5+5)x0, which is very different from the expression given in the poll question.

As you might guess, to a math instructor this type of mathematical incompetence running so rampant in society is actually quite infuriating. It wouldn't bother me if it was a calculus question and no one could get it right, but when less than 2 fifths of the people who answer know the right answer to a simple arithmetic question, I find it difficult not to completely lose all faith in society. (As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised if I found a significant portion of those who answered the question didn't know what 2 fifths meant.)

But, the fact that people can't do math isn't the real issue here. The issue is that people think that they can just vote on what the truth should be. The correct answer is 15, even though a majority of people (over 55%) voted for 0. 0 is incorrect, and 55% of people voting that that should be the answer does not change the fact that it is incorrect. Truth is truth and can't be changed by ignorant people.

If enough people say that god exists, then he exists. If people vote to say that gay marriage is immoral, then it is immoral. If the enslavement of an entire race of people is voted into legality, then it is acceptable--and not only acceptable, but permissibile by the imaginary god that the people have invented. Call me crazy, call me whatever you like, but I think that truth is absolute and cannot be changed by democracy.

Emotional honesty

2011-11-09T03:16:00.000-05:00

I've been looking around the Internet for forums and support groups for people who leave the LDS church. There was one site I mentioned before, postmormon.org, that I really like. They seem to be focused on maintaining a safe and pleasant atmosphere. I think I'll be spending more of my time there.

Unfortunately, there are other forums where the focus is on anger toward the church itself. I can understand why people have anger toward the church and toward its members. I can understand that people have been through a lot of negative experiences during their time as members of the church. And I do understand the importance for some people to have a place where they can vent their anger and their frustrations. But, I've found that participation in these forums where the energy is spent attacking the church only serves to make me more angry and bitter inside and I don't like that.

I have seen people shut out all logical thought due to their religious beliefs, and I see no value in that. But, when people shut out all logical thought due to their hatred of religion, I don't believe that is any more productive nor reasonable. In fact, if anything, it's only more damaging because it's not only illogical, it's hateful. I understand that people get emotional--that emotion is a large part of the human experience--but I think that mixed in with all that emotion there should be logic as well. In my opinion, blind faith is bad but blind hatred of faith is worse.

I have come across people that have been so jaded that they refuse to admit that they had even one positive experience with their time as a Mormon. I see no reason to deny all of the feelings I had while I was a believing Mormon simply because I no longer have those same feelings. I see no reason to pretend that I gained nothing positive from my Mormon experience. Mormonism taught me many wonderful things, and I am grateful for that. While I was a Mormon, I was happy being such. I don't have to pretend that I was miserable the whole time I was Mormon simply to prove that I'm happy now, having left the church.

This is one reason why I like the mentality of postmormon.org. I view my departure from the church more like graduation. While I was a Mormon, I was in high school and I enjoyed my high school experience very much, with all of my high school friends. Now, I've graduated from high school and I've moved on to college. I still enjoy associating with my high school friends--all of my friends and family who are Mormon--and I'm not going to de-friend anyone simply because I don't go to high school with them anymore. But, I look back on my time as a Mormon with fond memories.

Mormons who have served full-time missions commonly call them "the best two years of my life". I would agree. I would say at the very least that my mission was the best two years of my Mormon experience. I love Japan and the Japanese people, and that is something that I developed on my mission. I went back to visit Japan last year, and it was such a happy experience for me. There is a special place in my heart for Japanese people, and I think there always will be.

Certainly, I feel resentment at the fact that I've been lied to my whole life. And I feel stupid for having believed in it as fiercely as I did while I was a member. But, I wouldn't say that any resentment or anger is directed at any person or persons in particular. Can I be mad at my parents for teaching me LDS doctrine simply because I've found out that it's false? I don't think that's reasonable. My parents raised me with love, and I have nothing negative to say about their parenting technique nor how they've treated me. Perhaps I can be mad at Joseph Smith for making it all up, but why? He's dead. Maybe I could be mad at the current leadership of the church for maintaining the charade. But, again, I ask why? They're cute old men. I've often heard that holding a grudge is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die. I could be mad at Thomas Monson, but it won't affect him in the slightest--it would only serve to ruin my own life.

I'm not afraid to admit that over the last couple months I've felt very embarrassed about the fact that I ever believed in Mormonism. But, during that time I've learned quite a bit about the brain and why religion is such an attractive thing to the human psyche. I've learned lots of the brain's mechanisms that religion exploits, and also about mechanisms that make it easy to believe in a religion and hard to leave it. It's been wonderfully educational to me, and quite liberating. I don't have to feel bad about believing in things that, when viewed as an objective outsider rather than as a subjective insider, seem altogether ridiculous. It's just the way my brain is wired. Knowing more about myself empowers me to take more control of my own life. The more I learn about this subject, the better I can prevent future exploitation of my brain's natural functions. I found a video series discussing the psychology of belief and have found them to be rather enlightening. It certainly has motivated me to try to learn more, and I would recommend the videos to anyone--believer or non-believer.

I'm still not quite as emotionally mature as I'd like to be, but at least I can admit that I have fond memories of Mormonism, I had many happy experiences there, and I do miss many things about being a Mormon.

True Peace of Mind

2011-11-08T00:26:00.002-05:00

One of the selling points of Christianity, and other religions, is that it offers peace of mind. One of the things Mormon missionaries are taught to say is that we know where we came from, why we're hear and where we're going after this life. This is supposed to give a peace of mind, having finally answered all of life's big questions and giving hope for a brighter future.

The truth is, I did not have peace of mind while I was Mormon. Yes, I did believe in a wonderful afterlife, and I did hope for a better future. But, the simple fact is that I was never certain I would make it to the Celestial Kingdom, I wasn't even sure that I would be able to make it. I put on a strong face for everyone else, because that's what I do, but I was uncertain. I struggled for well over a decade trying to overcome my addiction to pornography and masturbation. I was told by my religion that the innate feelings I had toward males were unnatural, that I needed to "overcome" those "tendencies" in order to be made whole. I never had any real peace of mind. A hope, yes. But it was not an enduring, peace-giving hope.

I believe that knowing and facing the truth brings peace of mind. The first step of the 12-step AA program is to admit powerlessness. I have adapted that step for my own life. I have admitted a lack of knowledge of what will happen at the time of my death. This brings me peace. I am no longer worried that my actions in this life will not measure up to the standards of some unknown deity. I am no longer worried whether I will be with my loved ones or trapped in a lower degree of glory, unable to share with them the joys of their inheritance. I used to say all the time that I know this or that about the next life. The truth is that I don't know anything about life (or lack thereof) after death, and the truth is that no one does.

This has truly spoken peace to my mind. I know that I am in control of my own destiny. I can choose the things I want to do with my life. I don't need a dogma telling me what innate feelings are good and which ones are bad. I can decide for myself what is good and what is bad. I have a conscience and the power to reason. I have an innate desire to do good, to help other people and to contribute to society. I know that if I live my life according to the dictates of my conscience, I will have true peace in life. I don't need to worry about what will happen in the next life. If there is something awaiting me, I know that I will find peace and joy there based on the fact that I lived my life well here--completely unrelated to whether I followed some arbitrary set of rules established by a religion. If there is nothing after this life, I will obviously not care either way since my consciousness will no longer exist.

So, I have finally achieved a peace of mind. I know that I seek to do what is good. Of course, I can and should accept input from other people to help me continue to improve myself. But, I do have a conscience and I do follow it. I know that my own desires--my sexual desires, including the fact that they're toward people of the same sex as myself--are of themselves merely part of who I am and that they become good or evil only based on how I act. Being with Conrad is not evil, in fact it is one of the best things I have done with my life. I am able to share a love with him that I have never shared with anyone else in my life, and both of us are much happier than we were before we found each other. If I were to act in other ways on desires I might have--for example, to be promiscuous--then perhaps that might be evil. At the very least it would have the possibility of breaking Conrad's heart, and I believe that in itself would be evil.

At any rate, the main point of the post is that you're wonderful just the way you are. You have the ability to see what is good and what is evil and to decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. You don't need the approval of some imaginary god who has sadistically placed you in a world where he cannot contact you in the attempt to prove you worthy. You are worthy. You are amazing. Let your light shine, just the way you are. Be the best you you can be. You don't need to check off items on a list that someone wrote in order to get into heaven. You just need to be as fabulous as your potential will allow you to be. Maybe you're destined to be a mom, maybe not. Maybe you'll save people's lives, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll go through three or four marriages before you find the right one. Maybe you'll find the right one the first time. Maybe you'll never marry. But, you don't have to fit someone else's mold of perfection in order to be perfect.

To me, true peace of mind means knowing that I am in charge of my own fate. I control what I do with my life. And, most importantly, I have relinquished any preoccupation I had previously over what will happen in the future--particularly after death. I will live the best life I can live and let come what may.

Entitlement

2011-11-07T14:30:00.001-05:00

So, I ran across this interview with Glenn Beck today. I'm a fan of Glenn Beck. He definitely has a lot of things to say that make a lot of sense, and some of the things he says in this interview do make a lot of sense. I've had people tell me that Americans deserve free health care ("free" as in "socialized"). I've had people tell me that medical treatment is a right, that everyone is entitled to.

I agree that it certainly seems unfair to say that one person gets medical treatment because they have enough money for it and another person doesn't because they don't. I agree that everyone has a right to live--a right to life. But, I'm not so sure about the claim that medical treatment is a right. Where do we draw the line? Is plastic surgery a right? Is only the treatment required to keep someone alive a right, but anything above that is a privilege? Does everyone have the right to food anytime they're hungry? Does everyone have a right to live in a single-family house? Does everyone have the right to wear designer clothes? Does everyone have a right to own their own business?

I get really wary when people tell me that health care is a right. I think one of the biggest problems with our society is greed. Doctors are greedy because they want to get rich off of helping other people with their medical problems. Lawyers are greedy because they want to sue doctors and take their money. Patients are greedy because they want free medical treatment, or they want to sue the doctor for malpractice. Insurance companies are greedy because they want to pay the minimal amount they can get away with in claims, and cover the least amount of stuff they can. Everyone wants their piece of the pie. And all of this greed drives medical costs up and up. There are many factors that make medical costs so expensive--that could be a whole blog in itself. But, I believe that it all boils down to greed.

But, back to the video. I agree with the principles of responsibility being taught in the interview. I believe that people should be rewarded for good contributions to society. There is value in teaching children that they need to manage their own money. There are so many good principles being taught in this video, that I think parents should teach their children.

One thing I disagree with was a very brief comment near the beginning of the clip that alluded to the Occupy Wall Street movement. I concede that there probably are people participating in that movement that are doing so out of entitlement--the "I deserve to make more money" kind of mentality. This is just the same greed that the fat cats on Wall Street are guilty of. However, the way I see it, there is a lot of corruption on Wall Street, and in the government--and I believe that all that corruption is really all the same--and the protest is against that corruption, not just a childish sense of entitlement.

The Federal Reserve is not a government institution. It is a private cartel of banks, and it is allowed to print money. In fact, it is the only entity that is legally allowed to print money. If anyone else were to print money--including the government itself--it would be considered counterfeit money. Tell me how that makes sense. They have way too much power. They can raise and lower interest rates of banks nationwide. Is that not scary? What's the worst part? They're never audited. We don't know what goes on at the Federal Reserve because they don't have to answer to the public--remember, they're a private institution. So, I think there's legitimate concern for the economic policy of our country, and that the protest against Wall Street goes much deeper than a mere immature "Give me my allowance" temper tantrum.

So, in summary, I believe that the principle of personal responsibility should win out over the socialist mentality of "the world owes it to me". I believe that this selfish, greedy attitude is what has got us into this big mess we're in--where medical costs are ridiculously high, the rich are ridiculously rich and the bulk of Americans are poor. And I believe that we need to improve our society soon if we want to avoid crisis--bankruptcy, riots, who knows.

Lessons from Professor Higgins

2011-11-06T11:10:00.003-05:00

One of my favorite musicals of all time is My Fair Lady. And one of my favorite songs on the show is Rex Harrison's "Why Can't a Woman be More Like a Man?". Now, having said that, I don't want to be seen as a misogynist. From what I have seen, women have their own strengths. There are skills that men have and other skills that women have, and I think that each should employ those skills however they can or wish to do. Anyone who knew how I treated my dear Karen knows that I am not misogynistic. For those who are unfamiliar with the musical, here is the song in question.

The part that I'd like to discuss for this post is found around timestamp 4:10 or so. I'll transcribe it here.

Why is thinking something women never do?
Why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

Of course, the irony is in the fact that for the remainder of the musical, Higgins doesn't really do one logical thing. Anyway, from what I have seen in my own life, it's not women, but people in general that don't use logic. Perhaps an argument could be made that men are more logical and women are more emotional. However, from what I have seen people are just, in general, apathetic. Thinking is something that people rarely do. A majority of people really are more worried about "straightening up their hair" (ie, taking time to make themselves look nice) than about sorting out all of their own opinions and beliefs.

As political campaigns come and go, I ask myself why people like Mitt Romney are "electable" and people like Ron Paul are "unelectable". I don't mean to single out these two candidates in particular, just to use them as types for two different kinds of politicians: those who flip-flop frequently and those who are consistent. Mitt Romney is a politician in every sense of the word. He's always ready to tell the people he's talking to at the moment what they want to hear. If he has any values or opinions of his own, he keeps them well-hidden. Yes, he's technically Mormon, but when he's pressed about it he won't respond in any real way at all. What is it about this that makes him electable? Is it that people enjoy being lied to? Is it that they just hope so hard that what he says to them is true that they believe it and want to vote for him? That certainly seems to be the case with Obama, and many people who voted for him later reported regretting it, since he hasn't brought about the "change" that he so strongly promised during his campaign.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, actually has opinions and beliefs. He stands for something. And he has been consistent in those beliefs for decades. He's been elected to congress 10 or 11 times, so he's obviously electable. So, why do people say he's not electable as president? Because he's unwilling to "compromise"? I would much rather have a politician that was predictable than one who would flit about with whim and with whatever he felt was the popular or politically correct thing to do at the moment. Ron Paul might have opinions different from yours, but at least you know what they are and you know he's not going to change his position every five minutes.

So, again, I ask why is it that someone who's predictable has "no chance" of winning and someone who's completely arbitrary and does what he thinks will win him the most votes is "electable"? One answer I would propose for this question is that people just don't want to bother looking something up and researching it. They don't want to check out Mitt Romney's claims and statements and see if that's what he's done and said in the past. They don't want to take the time to see what he really believes. We're in an instant gratification society. People want to turn on the TV to be entertained and updated on the news. They don't want to be bothered with actual details and facts.

I recently posted something on my wall with a calculus expression in it. One of my cousins said "It's things like this that make me not want to learn anymore." I was floored. Nothing personal against that cousin, in fact I have found this to be a very common reaction among people in general. When someone comes across something that makes them think one of the first reactions is to avoid it at all costs. Why is thinking something people never do? Is it really so hard to go back and look at someone's political history and see what they've done with their past, then use that information to determine whether there's any credibility to what they're currently saying?

As you know, I've condemned arguments against gay marriage many times for being illogical. This is another example of where people don't bother to try logic and use the power of reason. One of my favorite tactics that I've seen used all over the political sphere is to accuse "the other guy" of what one is oneself guilty of. For example, all the time my dad tells me about how liberals do this that, and the other and the whole time I'm just thinking "Conservatives do that too, dad." But, in the context of gay marriage, the accusation is actually laughable. Religious people claim that gay rights activists want to take away religious freedom and tell religious people what to do with their life. I would like to know how this is ever accepted as reason. How is pushing for the right to marry someone of the same sex have anything to do with religion? How would such legalization infringe on anyone's right to worship as they choose? And how is that telling anyone how they should live their life? Quite to the contrary, it is opponents of gay marriage that want to tell me how to live my life by telling me that I can't marry the man I want to marry. They want to take away my freedom. Me being married to Conrad is no threat to any religion nor to anyone's right to worship as they choose. The two of us married together will not close down any churches or stop any worship services. We won't make people marry someone of the same sex if they don't want to. I mean, honestly, this is one of the rare cases where the person making the accusation is the one guilty and the one being accused is entirely innocent. (Usually, from what I've seen in the political sphere, both accuser and the accused are simultaneously guilty, and often they each accuse the other.)

A few times now I've stressed the importance of thinking for yourself. It's actually quite frustrating to me when I see people who don't care about finding out what's true and what's false, people who just believe the first answer that comes along, or the one that fits into their own world view, or the easiest answer, or the most convenient. Truth is rarely easy, nor convenient, nor does it always fit into our own world view. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept, sometimes it takes an open mind--requiring you to actually think outside of the box of your own world view.

So, while I'll keep searching for answers to my questions, such as the one concerning flippy-floppy candidates versus consistent candidates, I do believe I have at least one plausible answer for that question. People just want what's easy, and believing the words coming out of the mouth of the man talking to you at the moment is easier than trying to decide whether he really means them, actually researching out all of the candidates and what they have done with their past. Trying to figure out which candidate best aligns with your own views is difficult, and so that path isn't often tried. But, watching the TV and deciding which one tells you the things you want to hear most is easy, so that's what people resort to. It's sad, really.

Reparative therapy

2011-11-05T09:31:00.001-04:00

History books have a way of being cleaned up. We, as humans, don't like to face the ugly truths of our past. We pretend that certain things never happened. We turn a blind eye to Chairman Mao slaughtering millions of his own people. We bury the holy wars from the past. Yes, we teach about some of these things in our history classes, but it's usually in a sterile intellectual sort of way, and many of us never stop to think about what it was really like--how truly inhuman we can be sometimes. And, for this reason, many people do not like talking about this sort of thing--about children being abused because they're gay, or about inhumane therapy that has been (and still is) attempted to try to make gay people straight.

The truth is that reparative therapy exists. Plenty of places exist that claim to change people from gay to straight. And too many of them use practices that are wholly unthinkable to an enlightened society. I have heard of electrodes being strapped to genitals, of vomit-inducing IVs, and all sorts of disgusting treatments. It must stop. We must treat all people like people, not just the ones who are "normal".

Fortunately, BYU has discontinued the unethical practices it once participated in in the attempt to "cure" gay people. However, they still teach that homosexuality must be controlled or changed, and this is just as bad.

As sad as reparative therapy is, I would have to say that the most disturbing thing about this young man's story is the treatment he received from his own parents. A family should be a place of refuge. It should be a place where one always feels loved and accepted. It should be a place where everyone looks after everyone else and seeks the best for each individual and for the whole family. No one in a family should ever beat another member of the family. No one in the family should ever turn their back on another member of the family. No one should ever be deserted, kicked out of the home. This is tragic. Anyone or any teaching that encourages a family to dissolve is evil. The doctrine that homosexuality is evil is a false and a detrimental doctrine. It breaks families apart. I have seen it time after time, and it is extremely saddening and infuriating to me. Telling your gay children that they have no place in your home is evil. Telling your gay siblings that they must change is evil. Telling your gay cousins that you want nothing to do with them is evil.

This boy did nothing wrong. He had never committed any homosexual act, so he cannot be labeled as a sinner even by Christian doctrine. He confessed that he had feelings for one of his friends and what did that earn him? His father sent him to the emergency room multiple times. Are these the acts of a loving father? Is this the Christian idea of real love? This is pure evil, completely immoral, and has no place in our society. The obvious culprit here is the false teaching that homosexuality is evil. This innocent boy looks to his parents for love and support. In doing so, he reveals to them something for which he could not possibly be considered guilty. What does he get in return? Hatred.

These are the fruits of your teachings that homosexuality is wrong. This is what it brings about in people. Is this what you want? You take exception and say "I would never physically assault a child--especially not my own--I only teach that being gay is bad, not that abuse is ok." And to you I would say that teaching your child that their own innate, innocuous feelings are evil is just as bad. Your children want to please you. They want you to approve of them. They will do almost anything to make you proud of them. Don't break their spirits and numb their hearts simply because they're not what you expect them to be. Teaching a child that they must have heterosexual feelings when in fact they have homosexual feelings is wrong. It is evil. Telling them that the love that they feel is immoral or is unreal is a horrible, nasty lie and will only cause distress in your relationship with your child and in their own psyche.

People say "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." This is false. Verbal abuse is just as real as physical abuse, and at least as damaging. Words can kill, and they do every day. Teenagers just wanting to fit in with their friends, just wanting their parents to be proud of them, kill themselves every day because of the things they are told. This must stop. How many more need to die before we finally decide to treat people right? How much suffering do you need to see before your sadism is satiated and at last you feel a twinge of humanity seep in?

There was a bill being discussed in the Michigan legislature. It would be an anti-bullying bill, to prevent LGBT students from being bullied in their schools. At the last minute, a stipulation was added to the bill that would allow “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.” My question is why would such an exception be added to an anti-bullying bill? If someone's religious beliefs are a form of bullying, then should that bullying be allowed in public schools merely in the interest of protecting the freedom of religion? This is nonsense. And, if you wish to make the claim that people expressing their religious views is not bullying, then I would ask why there's a need to put this in an anti-bullying bill? If someone expressing their religious views is not bullying, then there's no need to even mention it at all in the bill, since it has nothing to do with bullying. To me, this is just a manifestation that the religious view that homosexuality is immoral is hateful and the state legislature of Michigan has at least enough sense to recognize that fact, even if it doesn't have enough sense to prohibit the bullying.

On a slightly light-hearted note, I'd like to add one more video. This one shows just how ridiculous the notion of reparative therapy is. As a disclaimer, I'd probably rate it at about PG-13, so the more sensitive of my readers might take offense at some of the parts in it, if any of you are still reading my blog.

New Template

2011-11-04T15:26:00.001-04:00

So, if you've been reading my blog for a while now, then you know I've kind of tweaked the appearance a little bit. I really like the new background pic that I added a little while ago. The one before was really cool too--I love that long black dress coat. But, I've been keeping a close eye on Blogger's new "dynamic views" and I really like them. As you can see, I finally caved in and made it the default view for my blog. I wanted to wait until I could make the text boxes transparent, because I didn't want to obstruct the view of Conrad's beautiful face in the background picture. So, now that I have discovered how to make the text boxes transparent (or, more accurately, to decrease their opacity), I caved in and changed my template. I hope you like the new look as much as I do.

Sadly, one of the consequences is that the sidebar, with my blogroll and Facebook link, are all gone. But, Google assures me that they will have that fixed in the near future, so I look forward to having a sidebar again.

Finally, one of the benefits of this dynamic view is that if you don't like it you can pick a different view from the drop-down list right under the blog title in the top-left corner. This view is called "Timeline", and there are several others to choose from. Enjoy.

Live and let live

2011-11-03T16:49:00.000-04:00

This is a video that I tried embedding here, but it didn't work. Maybe you can only view it on YouTube.

I firmly believe in the policy, "live and let live". The full quote from Thomas Jefferson that Glenn Beck quoted in the above video is:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

So, this is the question that I ask to all of those who oppose gay marriage: "Does gay marriage pick your pocket or break your leg?" If not, then what business is it of yours whether gay couples marry?

Let us go through some of the reasons people might give for how it harms them. Some people say "I don't want my children growing up learning that gay is ok." I addressed this issue in a previous post, but I'd like to add one more rebuttal in light of this argument. I'll address my Mormon reader base, since I am most familiar with their standards. You don't want your children growing up being taught that coffee is okay either. You believe that drinking coffee harms the body and the spirit, and that it is against God's will. But, I don't see you pushing for any legislation or Constitutional amendments to outlaw coffee? Why not? Because it doesn't harm you to have it legal. People who drink coffee don't affect you in any adverse way, other than possibly being cranky at you prior to their morning cup of coffee. But, you're perfectly free to teach your own children that coffee is bad for them, and this is exactly what you do. The fact that it's legal has zero effect on what you teach your children. Yes, other sources (TV, school, etc) may show your children images of people drinking coffee and make it seem normal (which, it is outside of Mormonism), but numerous studies have shown time and again that a child is more likely to trust his/her parents than outside sources. So, there's no fear of you raising a child who thinks coffee is okay, even though the "outside influences" teach them it is.

You may say that homosexuality is immoral and therefore gay marriage degrades the souls of those who participate in it. The easy solution there is just to avoid gay marriage yourself. There are lots of things that you consider to be sinful that are legal and even everyday practice in our society. People drink alcohol and have premarital sex. That doesn't affect you in any adverse way. Yes, someone who decides to drive while intoxicated may cause injury to you, but that's different--driving while intoxicated is illegal. But, someone being intoxicated in their own home--which is perfectly legal--isn't harmful to you, and I don't see you attempting to outlaw it. Nor do I see you attempting to outlaw premarital sex. Your children see it on TV and in movies and other places, but you can teach them in your own home that it is best to wait until marriage before having sex. You can teach them any standards you wish. What is legal and what is illegal in this country has no effect on that.

You may say that homosexuality, because of its immoral nature, degenerates society and therefore damages you because society is falling apart. In this case, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that this is the case. I have as of yet seen no evidence that this is true. I have seen plenty of evidence indicating that irresponsible sex with multiple partners and little or no protection has the adverse effect of increasing infection rates of STI's, but that's different--that's true for straight and gay sex alike. If you want to point to statistics and say that gay (male) sex is more dangerous because of higher infection rates, then I will rebut with the fact that lesbian sex has the lowest rate of infection and therefore straight sex is more harmful than lesbian sex. So, if you argue that gay sex should not be allowed because of its higher infection rate, then I would say for the same reason straight sex should also not be allowed and therefore the only people who can have sex are women who do so with other women. Clearly, this is nonsense. So, while there is evidence that unsafe sex with unknown partners can be shown to be risky or harmful, I have as of yet seen no real evidence that homosexuality somehow has an ill effect on society.

In the video, Glenn Beck alluded to some infringement of free speech that has happened in Canada, and Bill O'Reilly mentioned that the same thing has happened in Sweden. I have to admit, I don't know what specific incidences they may be referring to, but I looked up a few allegations made to the effect of religious persecution in Canada and discovered that it was actually violation of hate speech laws. A person--including a pastor or priest--can oppose homosexuality and gay marriage without doing so hatefully. If they do, they are in no danger of citation of infringement upon this hate speech law. If they do so hatefully, then they are responsible for their actions, including a possible intervention by the law. Is this going too far? Perhaps. But, there is no religious persecution going on. The cases I read about were exactly the opposite. It wasn't a pastor who was preaching in his own congregation that was suddenly shut down by the government, it was a man who would put fliers in people's mailboxes with graphic images of dismembered fetuses (against abortion) and of illnesses that he claimed could be spread by gay sex. This is persecution of gays and women who have had an abortion. I think things like that should be stopped. Yes, you have the right to believe what you want, but you don't have the right to violate people's privacy and place graphic images in their mailboxes. That's going way too far. My dad would always tell me that having the right to free speech doesn't mean that you can yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, and I agree. Having freedom of religion, as I've said before, does not mean having immunity from the law--being able to do or say anything your religion teaches is okay.

So, again, I ask: "What is it to you if gay people marry each other? Does it harm you? Does it violate your right to believe as you wish? Does it pick your pocket or break your leg?" I am aware of no movement to ban religion. Gay people are perfectly fine co-existing with religious people. In fact, many gay people are themselves religious. The fact that you belong to a religion does not harm me in any way, so I feel no need to push for legislation that would ban you from doing so. I do not wish to be a member of any religion myself, but that doesn't mean that I have to make it illegal for other people to do so. You may not want to marry someone of the same sex, and you may even believe that it is sinful for people to do that, but that doesn't mean that you have to make it illegal for those of us who don't see anything wrong with it.

This is my challenge: can you come up with any real reason why legalizing gay marriage will damage you or your family? Can you come up with hard evidence to support your claims? If so, please inform me of it so that I might be aware. If not, then why not just live and let live?

Love the Mormon, hate the Mormonism

2011-11-02T09:58:00.000-04:00

I received an email recently from a Mormon friend. As part of the email, the concern was expressed "I hope I'm not bothering you with this email." I took this to mean that since I no longer wanted to have anything to do with the church, that I no longer wanted to have anything to do with its members. I do understand where this concern might come from. I have been very clear and very decisive in my disapproval of Mormon doctrine and policy. I would even go so far as to say that I dislike the LDS church and am suspicious of the motives of its leaders. However, I do not equate the church with all of its members. As many religious folk like to say "Love the sinner, hate the sin." It's very possible to separate a person from their actions and their beliefs.

In the hopes of clearing up any confusion or misconception I may have caused, I make the declaration that I still consider to be my friend anyone who was previously my friend--whether they be Mormon or not--even though I have left the church and no longer view its precepts as divinely guided. If, for example, the missionaries were to knock on my door, I would greet them warmly, I would offer them something to drink, and I would be kind to them. I would help them in any way that I could. The same would go for any of my Mormon friends.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, but I am willing to be friends with anyone who wants to be friends with me. Several people have defriended me on Facebook. I hope that we can still remain friends outside of Facebook in spite of this, but I am sure there are cases where that will not be possible, and I find that to be lamentable. I myself have defriended some people on Facebook, simply because they would continually say hurtful things to me or about gay people and I did not wish to continually expose myself to such torment. If they wish to come back and be my friend, not saying such hurtful things, then I will gladly welcome them back as friends.

Virtually everyone in my family is LDS. I do not wish to cut off ties with any of them any more than I wish to cut off my own arm. I have never asked any particular member of my ward nor the leaders of the same not to attempt to contact me. I understand that some people do this when they leave the church, and I can understand why they would feel that way. I have no issues with people from the church contacting me, nor do I have any issues with them talking to me about their beliefs. However, as often as people will talk about their beliefs with me, I will feel it is appropriate for me to do the same. I have no problems with respecting the beliefs of others, nor with expressing my own beliefs.

If the leaders of my ward wished to assign home teachers to me and send them over, I would welcome them in and I would treat them as any other guest in my house. If they wished to discuss the church, I would be glad to discuss it with them. I doubt that they would want the conversation to continue on very long, seeing as our views concerning the church would be so opposite, but I would be willing to continue the discussion as long as everyone involved was polite. It's very tempting to have the chip-on-my-shoulder attitude, daring them to bring up the church just so that I can unleash all of my knowledge on them, but I'd like to think that I'm not that childish anymore.

I am very capable of setting differences aside. If I had a Mormon friend who wanted to go bowling together, I would happily go bowling with them and enjoy their friendship just as much as I did when my religious views aligned with theirs. I harbor no ill will toward people of any religion, race, or political view. If you want to be my friend, then I will be yours. If you do not wish to be my friend, I certainly will not attempt to force my friendship upon you. But I will wish you well in life.

I've been participating in a meditation group in the math department and it has been good. Just the other day, we did a "compassion" meditation, where we imagined different groups of people--eventually expanding to the whole universe--and wished each person happiness and to avoid suffering. It was a very positive experience for me. I do wish happiness to all people. If being Mormon makes you happy, then I have no issues with you being Mormon. If being my friend will make you happy, then I will be your friend. If not being my friend will make you happy, then don't be my friend. My goal is to maximize the amount of happiness in the world and minimize the amount of suffering. Anything that I believe will bring about those two ends, I will do.

Things as they really are

2011-11-01T11:04:00.002-04:00

David A. Bednar gave a talk at BYU-Idaho in May 2009 at a CES Fireside. The full text of the article can be found here. It was also summarized in the Ensign in June 2010 here. Elder Bednar is a very good speaker and a very intelligent man. And I agree with what he is saying in this article. I believe that it's very important for us to remember what in this life is real and what is fantasy. Spending hours on end playing a video game with online friends you've never met in person, it's quite easy to grow more attached to these friends than to your real-life friends or your family.

So, for this post I'd like to talk about things as they really are. In a previous post, I pointed out some of the falsehoods spread by opponents of same-sex marriage. Here I address a couple more. I have heard the concern raised by some of my LDS friends that were same-sex marriage to be legalized, the church would be forced to perform gay marriage--even in its temples. So, I present the following facts to address these concerns.

There are currently 10 countries where same-sex marriage is legal (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden). As far as I am aware, the LDS church has a presence in each of these countries. Aside from these countries, there are also six US states where gay marriage is legal, as well as the District of Columbia and Mexico City, Mexico. The church certainly has a presence all over the USA, and Mexico. There is not one single incident where the church was forced to perform a gay marriage in any of these locations. As far as I am aware, there has not even been one single gay couple who has asked the church to perform their marriage.

Concerning the matter of temples, in the locations listed above where same-sex marriage is legal, there are 18 temples currently operating, not including one under renovation, one under construction, and two more that have been announced (totaling 22). Of all of these temples, not a single one has been forced to perform a gay marriage. The rights of the church to continue its operation of these temples exactly the same as it was prior to the legalization of gay marriage have not been infringed. As far as I am aware, the church continues to operate in these areas exactly the same as it operates in areas where gay marriage is illegal. Furthermore, the church has always been allowed complete control over whom it allows inside its temples to be married. They have very rigorous standards for entry into the temple, and this has never been challenged by the government. The government has not forced the LDS church to perform interracial marriages. As of 1978, the church itself decided to allow interracial marriages, but prior to that it did not perform them nor was it required to. The church has never at any point been forced to deviate one iota from its strict criteria dictating whom should be allowed to be married in the temple.

So, when we hear propaganda in the news, let us remind ourselves to see things as they really are. When you hear that religion is being oppressed, go look for the actual evidence of that oppression. Find out what really happened. Not too long ago, Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk at Chapman University where he claims that religious rights are being infringed (the video and full text can be found here). He cites several cases to support this claim. However, it appears that he only cites part of the story and leaves out some important details. I have a good friend who debunked each one of these cases individually, giving the full story for each one and the real legal reasons for the decisions that were reached. You can read about them on his blog. The series of eight posts begins here. Thank you, Rob, for doing your homework and checking all of the facts. I think we would all do better to follow suit. Let us see things as they really are.

One thing that I have noticed when people claim that they have experienced religious persecution--especially in regards to the homosexual issue--is that for some reason or other, religions (or religious people) think that having religious freedom means being immune to the law, but it does not. If, for example, a city has an ordinance that a person cannot be fired due to their sexual orientation, then any violation of that law is a crime. Thus, if a church employs a person and at some point during that employment discovers that the person is gay, they cannot fire that person without facing consequences of the law. This is not persecution of that church, it is merely enforcement of the law. Is it ethical to fire someone because of their orientation? That matter is up for debate, but I believe that it is not ethical. But the point is that, in this scenario, it is illegal and religions are not immune to the law. So when you see a story about someone being "forced to choose between their religion and their job", ask yourself what the real story is. Perhaps they, as a doctor, are not legally allowed to dismiss a patient simply because they are gay. That is no infringement on their religious rights. If they want to be a doctor, they have to follow all of the laws that doctors are required to follow--whether they're religious or not. Think what our country would be like if religions were granted immunity. If one religion taught that it was okay to kill, then all of its members could be mass murderers and there would be nothing the government could do to stop them because it would be considered religious persecution.

People take advantage of emotion, belief, part-truths, and other things to get people to believe what they want. This happens all over the place. It is more the rule than the exception in the political sphere. It is not uncommon for both sides to engage in such underhandedness. So, it is up to each of us individually to seek out and search what is true and what is not. Is it true that religion is being oppressed by gay marriage laws? I don't believe so. Is it true that gays are being oppressed? I do believe so, since they are being told how to live their lives and not being treated equally in society. Is it true that anyone who opposes gay marriage does so out of hate? I don't believe so. So, let us spread no more falsehoods, but find out what is true and what is not. Let us share what is true and speak out against that which is not true.

In his talk, Elder Bednar spoke of a game called Second Life. In this game, a person has a character that they can design to be any appearance they like, and wear any clothing they wish. Then they can interact with other people playing the game. In the popular TV show The Office, Dwight has a Second Life character who in turn has his own Second Life character (within the game), therefore removing himself from reality one step further. I don't know that I would say this game is dangerous, but the idea of living in a fantasy world and thinking that it is true is dangerous. And, in my opinion, eating all of the propaganda that is spoon-fed to you over a pulpit is one way to live in a fantasy world where you're disconnected with reality. Go find out what is true and what is not. Don't take my word for it. Don't take your bishop's word for it, and certainly don't take Spencer W. Kimball's word for it.

Do unto others II

2011-10-31T14:43:00.000-04:00

I wanted to offer some further clarification concerning my post from a couple weeks ago entitled "Do unto others" and expound a bit on that topic. In that post, I gave several examples of the way people had treated me during my transition out of Mormonism. I wanted to make clear the reason for having done this, since the feedback I've received has made me think perhaps I didn't express it as well as I originally thought. In listing all of those things that happened, I did not mean to incite negative feelings toward any of the people mentioned, nor did I wish to elicit sympathy due to the fact that I had undergone any undesirableness. Nor did I wish to imply that any of those particular things were causes for me leaving the LDS faith. The sole purpose for sharing those events was to help those who are faithful, believing Mormons see ways in which their actions--as well-intending as they may be--can sometimes hurt people's feelings.

Sometimes, and I know this to be the case because I did it when I was a believing Mormon, Mormons get so caught up in defending the truth and standing for what is right that they believe it's okay to hurt other people's feelings when doing so. In fact, I have often heard the quote from some prophet (I've never looked to see whether the quote is real, so I can't vouch for its validity) that "I'd rather be right than be a friend." Also, in response to my "Do unto others post", I had a person tell me "Clarity and honesty show you more love than attempting to spare your feelings."

I have no sense of vengeance. I have no desire to destroy the church or the faith of any of its members. Having experienced all of the unpleasantness that I have disclosed here in my blog and in my book, I have no desire to make anyone else suffer those same things I have suffered. It is because I have felt those unpleasant feelings that I wish others to be able to avoid them, not to experience them. I don't like feeling cast out. I don't like the feeling of people judging me and making me feel like a lower life form because I don't conform to their idea of morality. So, I don't want to return that feeling to anyone else. I want people to be happy. If you're happy in your religion, then I am happy for you and have no desire for you to leave it.

The point is that the sentiment of "Clarity and honesty show you more love than attempting to spare your feelings." ignores the golden rule that the Savior taught. Yes, it is true that it's important to stand up for what is right. But, it's also important to treat other people like people, and to treat them the way you'd want to be treated if you were in their shoes. You don't want other people pushing their beliefs on you and telling you that if you don't like it, it's just the devil inside of you rebelling against the truth, so don't say those kinds of things to other people. You don't want other people ignoring your existence just because you're doing something that they don't like, so don't do that to other people. That's all I want to say. Think about how your words and your actions will affect another person before you do them and say them.

I believe in freedom of religion. I don't think everyone should be forced to believe in one particular religion. I don't think that people should have to keep their opinions to themselves. I think all people should have a voice in the public sphere, and all should be heard. I have had many people try to silence me because of my changed beliefs. I have had many people tell me to just not talk about the church anymore. I have had people tell me "I don't go around telling other people their beliefs are wrong, so you shouldn't either." However, that is entirely untrue. The LDS church and a lot of its members go around all over the world telling gay people that they're wrong. They aren't very shy about denouncing homosexuality as immoral. That is shooting down my belief that it is moral. That is a direct attack on me personally. And yet, you do it all the time. I don't try to silence you simply because your beliefs are an attack on mine. But you try to silence me. You say "Leave the church alone" and "Move on" and "Get over it". You tell me that I shouldn't post things that I find that directly contradict Mormon doctrine. That is not religious tolerance.

Having a belief inevitably brings with it the exclusion of contradicting beliefs. Saying "I believe that God exists" is to say "I believe that atheists are wrong". Similarly, saying "I know that the LDS church is true, and is God's one true church on the Earth" is quite explicitly declaring every other religion to be false. You attack other people's beliefs all the time. But, I don't think that's bad. I think everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions and their own beliefs. I am confident enough in my own beliefs to allow other people to contradict me and still believe as I do. I don't have any need to ask anyone who disagrees with me to stop posting such things, to stop voicing their opinion.

Think for yourself

2011-10-30T10:24:00.003-04:00

So, there may be those who think it's irrational or inappropriate to compare interracial marriage with same-sex marriage. However, if you go back to the time when this was a hot topic in America, you'll find that the things that opponents of same-sex marriage are saying now are exactly the same kinds of arguments that were given in opposition of legalizing interracial marriage back then. Some people believed that children of interracial couples would be infertile and therefore interracial marriage is immoral, just as today people teach that gay marriages are immoral because gay couples are infertile. The parallels really are staggering, and I would invite any who have not yet done so to go back and read/watch all of the arguments given against interracial marriage. It also behooves me at this time to point out that the LDS church and many of its leaders were among those who were most vocal in opposition of interracial marriage, just as they are now in opposition to gay marriage.

But, I don't want that to be the main thrust of this argument. I want this post to be centered on exposing the weakness of the argument against gay marriage. Claiming that homosexuality (in any of its manifestations--from mere same-sex attraction to homosexual behavior) is immoral is a matter of belief. Therefore, you are entitled to feel that way if you like, and I am entitled to disagree with you without any proof whatsoever. However, opponents of same-sex marriage go one step further and claim that gay marriage will destroy religion, the family, and even society itself. In our country, the precedent is "innocent until proven guilty", meaning that if you want to make claims like that, the burden of proof lies on you to support those claims, not on gay people to refute them.

That having been said, I would like to offer evidence that all of these claims are not only false but also laughable. Homosexuality is not bringing about the destruction of religion. If it were, then it would stand to reason that gay people would be irreligious. But, quite to the contrary, there have been many gay-friendly and even all-gay churches sprout up in the recent past. If they were anti-religion, they would not start their own church, they would leave religion altogether.

Next, the claim that gay marriage will destroy the family. Not one shred of evidence has been brought to my attention, nor have I a found any in all of my research on the matter, to support this claim. However, there is evidence to support the opposite--namely, that gay marriage strengthens the family. First of all, legalizing gay marriage allows more people to get married, so there are more people who can start their own family. It includes gay people instead of only straight people in the population of people able to marry. Also, there have been studies showing that in places where gay marriage has been legalized for a few years, there is only an increase in the strength of straight marriage (overall). Another study showed that children raised by lesbian parents (two moms, no dad) were better adjusted to society--better students, better citizens, more kind and compassionate--than their counterparts raised by straight couples. So, it seems to me that the evidence supports the claim that gay marriage strengthens the family, rather than destroys it.

Finally, the claim that homosexuality will bring about the destruction of society are completely laughable. In many cases, this claim is made entirely incredible--such as, for example, that it will cause calamities that will destroy the Earth. In more conservative versions of this claim, it is merely that allowing such immorality will reap the further moral decay of society and therefore bring depravity on us, as has happened with civilizations past. The only evidence here is speculative--that of mere belief. There is no real evidence to support this. In fact, to the contrary, studies have shown that in places where gay marriage is legal, gay people have better psychological health, lower rates of depression, greater integration into and contribution to society. When we are allowed to be treated the same way everyone else is treated, when we are considered normal rather than freakish, we do better. We contribute more to society--in the workplace and in the community. The evidence I have found has only supported claims that legalizing gay marriage will strengthen society rather than destroy it.

I have refuted three of the major claims opposing same-sex marriage, and others in previous posts. I find the argument against gay marriage very weak, and supported by nothing more than religious belief. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but let us not lose sight of where belief ends and fact begins. You can make claims like "I believe same-sex marriage is immoral" and no one can refute that. But when you make claims of fact, such as those above, you need to be able to support them with hard evidence and not just "God said so".

Continuing along these lines of weak arguments, and what spawned the idea for this post, is a recent faux pas made by the National Organization for Marriage, NOM, (which, in my opinion, would be more appropriate called the National Organization Against Gay Marriage). Here is an article exposing them faking the number of people in support of their cause by using a photograph from another gathering other than the one they said the photo was of. It turns out that the photo they used was actually that of a rally for Barack Obama. How incredibly ironic is this? Obama favors same-sex marriage, so it seems that they'd want to avoid any possible association with him and yet they use pictures from his rallies in order to fake the idea that they have lots of people supporting them. And what did they do when this was pointed out? Did they make an official statement explaining the discrepancy? No. Did they apologize for the mistake? No. All they did was quietly take the photograph down and pretend that it never happened, much as the LDS church pretends that it was never racist and that it never performed shock aversion or vomit-inducing ex-gay therapy at BYU and other places.

A situation such as this begs the question--why does NOM feel it necessary to lie about its own support? Why would they use a photograph that they know is not footage of their own supporters? It seems to me that the reasonable conclusion is that they know that they don't have that many supporters, but that if they pretend that they do then they might persuade more people to support them. But, the real question is, can such an organization be trusted? What does it say about the arguments against gay marriage if they have to resort to falsified photographs and seek to hide the identity of their contributors? They can't win by telling the truth, so they win by telling lies. Speaking of lies, here is a wonderful quote found on the LDS-owned site PreservingMarriage.org.

If Proposition 8 fails, religious liberties and freedom of speech may be curtailed. Included are the rights of religious organizations to speak out against positions they view as harmful and the rights of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

This is completely false. They offer no evidence to support the claim, and all of the evidence that exists refutes it. Interracial marriage has been legal for many decades now and churches are still allowed to be racist, if they choose to be. There are still churches who teach racism, and they are allowed to do so because of the protection guaranteed by the Constitution. In some places, gay marriage has been legal for some time now and not one single right of religion has been infringed because of it. No church has been asked or forced to perform gay marriages. No parent has been told that they cannot teach their own children whatever values or beliefs they wish to teach them, nor does it even seem reasonable that such a time would ever come. A claim such as that is so ridiculous as to beg the question, "Can I really trust anything that the church says concerning this matter?"

Think about it. The best arguments given by opponents of gay marriage are based on lies. The only leg they have to stand on is the belief that homosexuality is immoral, which is only a belief. It is based in no fact of which I am aware, nor is there any evidence I have seen to support any of the claims I have heard in opposition of gay marriage.

Survival instincts

2011-10-26T09:49:00.003-04:00

I just ran across this article that was written in 2000 by a psychologist at University of St. Thomas. It was definitely an eye-opening read, and I recommend it to all--religious or otherwise. I'll paraphrase its content here, in very brief summary. Basically, the brain has two ways of perceiving the world--through sensory data and through beliefs (about things which cannot be perceived). Both of these work together as survival instincts in the brain. Therefore, when one is challenged (eg, one's belief system) then that person switches into survival mode, viscously defending what their brain perceives as an attack on its survival.

Survival instincts are very strong. In fact, just the other day I watched an episode of Doctor Who where one of the major points in the plot is that survival instincts in humans are too strong for them to commit suicide under hypnosis. When the brain perceives a threat to survival, there are many defense mechanisms that it engages. Sometimes, it pours a rush of adrenaline into the blood stream and initiates the "fight or flight" mechanism. Sometimes it puts the body into a coma, not having the energy to sustain both consciousness and a heartbeat simultaneously.

So, I found it very interesting to read this article and find out that when one perceives his beliefs being attacked, survival instincts kick in. So much of what I have observed and blogged about is now coming together and makes much more sense.

In my post Don't teach my children, I point out that one of the main arguments given by opponents of same-sex marriage is that they don't want their children to learn that homosexuality is okay. Why is this? Because their survival instincts tell them that in order for their children to survive, they must pass on their survival instincts to their children, which include teaching them that homosexual behavior is immoral.
In my post Mormons aren't Christian?, I point out that many non-Mormon religions accuse Mormons of not being Christian and feel a need to point this out. Why? Because they feel that their own beliefs are being attacked by Mormon teachings (which disagree in many points), especially when they see the possibility of having a Mormon president elected.
In my post Leaving a religion is hard, I note that my attempts to prove Mormonism wrong have only been met with anger and haven't accomplished any good. Why? Because these attempts, as honest and sincere as they might have been, are interpreted as dangers to survival. The Mormon friends I have that would read such statements would kick into survival mode and start defending themselves.
In my post Do unto others, I listed several ways in which I felt that Mormons could better treat their own members--in particular, those who are homosexual and those who do not believe the entirety of Mormon doctrine. Why would people treat me the way that I depicted them treating me? Because their beliefs are being questioned. They go into survival mode. If they accept me or acknowledge that I have a place in their church, then that goes against their beliefs, which challenges their survival.
In my most recent post, Peer pressure, I point out that the most intense amount of pressure I've ever felt was the myriad responses I got from my friends and family when I came out of the closet. Why did they exhibit such intense expressions of pressure at this particular time? Because my status as a homosexual man was a threat to their beliefs. They always pictured me as a man of high morals, and to see me make such an announcement was perceived as an attack of their belief that homosexuality is immoral.

I could list several more examples, but I feel that I have sufficiently covered my bases. I have a better understanding for why my religious friends have reacted the way that they have. I also have a better understanding for the way I was prior to my departure from the dogma of Mormonism. Now that I look back on my life as a Mormon, I can think of specific instances where my survival mode kicked in and I began doing things that I wouldn't otherwise do, simply because my beliefs were being attacked.

Having had this epiphany, I am better equipped to exhibit compassion and to feel empathy. If ever I did assert or imply that I blame anyone for the actions they have taken in response to any of the things I have said which could be interpreted as attacks on anyone's beliefs, I do apologize for it and I would retract any such statements.

I appreciate the importance of your survival instincts and acknowledge that they are a vital part of your well-being. I do not wish to trigger any survival instincts by questioning your beliefs. I seek only to establish truth wherever it is to be found. I invite anyone who is willing to come along with me on my journey to seek out truth anywhere it can be found and to expose falsehood wherever it may occur. In doing so, I wish to establish falsehood as my enemy, not any particular person or their beliefs. If we work on the same side, rather than in opposition of each other, then together we can combat that which is false and discover that which is true.

Peer Pressure

2011-10-25T20:20:00.001-04:00

I was always taught about the evils of peer pressure--that I should steel myself against times in my life when the peers I surrounded myself with would invariably attempt to entice me to do something that was immoral. I was taught that I should surround myself with good friends and that I should make strong resolutions well in advance so that when the time came when my less-than righteous friends tried to get me to do something bad, I'd have the strength and resolve to say no. This is taught in church all the time, especially to the youth.

I always had a problem with the "don't be friends with bad people" teaching. I'm pretty sure the Jesus described in the New Testament hung out with prostitutes, dishonest tax collectors, and all sorts of other kinds of "sinners". As he said, the whole need no physician, but it is the sick who need a physician. Anyway, setting that aside, I want to focus merely on the topic of peer pressure.

In my own life, I have seen peer pressure exist in many different settings and situations. And, honestly, I'm going to branch out and include all types of pressure, not just by peers--so, that would include familial pressures, authority figure/subservient pressures, etc. Of all the pressures I've seen, I'd say that societal/religious pressures are probably the most intense. Peer pressure is easily avoided because it happens in isolated situations. Familial pressure plays a bigger role in other cultures, such as China where it's basically a crime to disobey your parents. But, societal pressures are everyday before us. They are very difficult to avoid. And many times they are subliminal or subconscious.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out a few examples of pressure (or the lack thereof) in my own life. When it was time for me to serve a mission--when I was 18 almost 19--I felt very little pressure from my parents. I knew that they'd be proud of me for going, but I have an older brother who didn't serve and they still treated him very much like a son, so there weren't any worries there. I did feel a bit of pressure from friends, but it didn't really feel like pressure because I actually wanted to serve a mission.

A while back, when I went to the bar with some new friends, I told them that I had never had a drink before. They let me know that it was perfectly cool if I didn't want to drink. They didn't even apply the smallest bit of pressure to get me to drink with them. In fact, I cannot recall one single time in my life where I had any friend pressure me to do something that was against my convictions. I don't doubt that it does happen, and that friends are often pressured into doing something that they would otherwise avoid, believing it to be immoral. But, I don't think it has ever happened to me.

At any rate, the point is that when I came out to my family and to my friends on Facebook, I received a litany of emails from my friends all pressuring me into obeying church policy and recanting my announcement of my sexual orientation. I have never experienced such pressure in my life. I was hearing from friends that I hadn't heard from in years who felt that it was their place to tell me what to do with my life. Many tactics were employed in these emails to attempt to get me to return to the LDS way of thinking. I had people remind me of wonderful spiritual experiences I'd had in the past--I'm assuming with the implied false dilemma that I had to reject those experiences in order to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. Anyway, I received many many messages all with the intent of pressuring me to remain faithful to the LDS church. It was the most intense outburst I have ever experienced. In my opinion, the kind of peer pressure that I was warned about in Sunday school pales in comparison with this kind of pressure. I suppose that this is peer pressure, since fellow members of the church would be my peers.

So, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I think it's rather hypocritical of the church/church members to warn against the dangers of peer pressure and then turn around and employ those very tactics of pressure to get other people to do what the church says to do.

Personally, I think that pressure has its place, but that the general rule of thumb is that it should not be employed. I think that it's best to let people do what they want or what they're comfortable doing. If they want to participate in your church or drink what you're drinking or have extra-curricular relations with you, then let them do it on their own terms. I don't see the benefit of guilting someone into something like that, or attempting to manipulate them or pressure them into doing what you think they should. I've never been much of one to let people push me around, so all of this pressure I've experienced hasn't swayed me much in my decisions. But some people are more susceptible to peer pressure. When you're pressuring someone, just ask yourself--do you want them to do what you think is right because it's the right thing or because you think they should do it? That is, do you want them to do it because you pressured them into it, or do you want them to do it because they believe that they should?

I too must give

2011-10-24T10:07:00.000-04:00

This is something that I've thought about every year around Christmas time for the last few years. I have refrained from saying anything because I don't want to come across as a spoil-sport, a wet blanket, self-righteous, insincere, ungrateful, or anything like that. I love Christmas. I love being with family (although, we may not be able to be with family this year--sad day). I love present exchange time. But every year since about 2005, I have felt a strange guilt with the opening of every present addressed to me, and that guilt has grown steadily more intense each year.

I have everything that I need. I have a wonderful family. I have a loving fiancé. I have all of the comforts of life--food, shelter, entertainment, clothing, etc. I can go to the store any day that I want and buy any food that I have a craving for. I can drive up to a building and, without ever leaving my car, order any meal on the menu that I like. I am so blessed. I have such an abundance of love and material possessions in my life. (I am by no means wealthy, but I undoubtedly have sufficient for my needs and my wants.) I'm not going to lie--I enjoy getting presents. It makes me happy, and it's nice to have new things. And I'm always very grateful to the person who gives me the gift. That will never change.

Obviously, I'm not expecting a Christmas present from very many of my blog readers. I only ever expect presents from my immediate family--but even then, it's just because I know they'll get me a present, it's not because I feel like I deserve one from them. But, to anyone who might be thinking about getting me a present this year, this is the present that I want. I need nothing, but there are so many people in the world that have none of the amenities that I have. There are those without homes. There are those without food. There are those without clothing. There are those who don't even know how to provide for these things for themselves, or lack the means necessary to do so. This is the present I ask for: give to those who have not.

Volunteer in your local soup kitchen. Donate some money to your favorite charity. Maybe find a new charity to make your favorite. Just searching the Internet very briefly this morning, I came across a site called "Charity Navigator" that seems to have a rather extensive list of charities, and it gives ratings for each of them based on criteria such as effectiveness and overhead. Browse through the list, find one that you think is good, and donate money to it. Put together hygiene packets or crochet blankets for the LDS church's humanitarian effort. You can send me a note letting me know that you have donated money or time to a charity, and that will be the best Christmas present I have ever received. You don't even have to tell me how much you donated, just that you did it. Even if you don't want to do it for me, as a Christmas present to me, do it as a present to yourself or to the people you don't know whom you are helping out.

If you know of any institutions that you have found to be good, honest, altruistic institutions, please let me know. I would very much like to put together my own list of charities that can be trusted. I would hate to donate or ask others to donate to an institution that merely exists to make its founders wealthy, and I'm sure you share that sentiment.

Last year while I was in Utah for Christmas break, I met with a group of gay people who did an LGBT sub for Santa project. We went to the store, bought all the clothes and things that were on the list of the needs for the families that we had, and then we went back and wrapped them. It was a great time, and I felt so good doing it afterward. Every year at the Wal-Mart where I go shopping, they put up an angel tree. Its ornaments are just simple items--clothes or toys--that some family is in need of. I always like picking something off of the tree and buying it while I'm shopping. But, I really want to branch out. There are those whose situation in life is much worse than mine, who do not appear on sub for Santa lists and do not have a place on the angel tree at my Wal-Mart. I don't want to do this convenience-charity anymore. It's not enough. I want to actually step out of my comfort zone and go do something good.

Double double standard standard

2011-10-20T19:36:00.000-04:00

This post was inspired by a conversation that I overheard at school today. These two guys were chatting with each other (no women were present) and one remarked that he enjoyed walking up a staircase behind a woman with an attractive tail end (I'm paraphrasing to keep the post at least PG). The other guy voiced his assent. The conversation varied through many topics completely unrelated to women and their attractiveness, but multiple times throughout the one man would make interjections concerning his obsession with viewing attractive females.

This is not the first time I have witnessed/been involved in such a conversation. It really is what straight men think about for a great portion of their time. It's not even just the "vulgar", "profane", or "ungodly" men either. When I was in the MTC, the 7 other missionaries in my district (that I was with nearly every waking hour of the day every day) also frequently discussed the topic as well. They would rate women (since it'st he MTC, that would mean mostly just sister missionaries) as they walked past. They'd do so in Japanese--possibly to avoid being overheard, who knows. At any rate, I have heard religious men and men who do not actively participate in any religion discuss women's bodies--sometimes as if they are just objects to satisfy the man's own desires.

Our society not only supports such actions and discussions, but it encourages them. Television and Internet commercials will use attractive women to sell their products, knowing that straight men will be enticed by such visuals. We have game shows where a man will pick which woman he wants to date/marry based on her looks. I won't even go into pornography, but that's another example. Anyway, expressions of attraction toward the female body are encouraged and exploited in so many ways.

What I wish to point out is the striking double standard that exists in our society. Men speak about women in such ways, and some women even tolerate it, but any hint of homosexuality is not only discouraged but also insulted and mocked. I was watching a movie with some friends and at one point one man kissed another. One of the people watching with me expressed his disgust at having to be exposed to this. Well, I feel the same way when I hear men talking about women the way they do. I feel the same way when I'm surfing the web reading a news article and I have to see some woman with enlarged breasts trying to sell me something.

Why is it that we tolerate such objectification of the female body but as soon as a man gives even the slightest hint that he likes another man, horror and disgust are the response? I mean, consider what would have happened in the situation I described above if I had voiced my feelings. That man who was talking about how fun it was to stare at particular parts of a woman's body, what would he have said or done if I told him that I liked staring at parts of his body? He probably would have punched me in the face, called me names, or at the very least been disgusted. My first question is, if you don't like people talking about your body, then why do you talk about other people's bodies? My second question is, why am I--as a gay man--not even allowed to hold hands with the man I love without making people upset when all of the straight couples are allowed to do much much more in public? A straight couple can make out on TV or a movie and no one complains. But as soon as it's a gay couple, all the straight people in the room feel like vomiting.

I think there should be one standard for all people. If holding hands is an acceptable public display of affection, then it should be appropriate for gay couples and straight couples alike. If making out in a movie is appropriate for straight couples, then it should be equally appropriate for gay couples to make out in a movie. Also, if you want to make comments about how you think certain parts of other people's bodies are attractive, then you shouldn't be uncomfortable with other people doing the same thing to you--whether they're of the same or the opposite sex. I don't think it's ever a good idea to objectify people--whether they're male or female--but I don't see anything wrong with admiring someone whom you feel is attractive. Yes, I understand that it's inappropriate to make explicit comments to a person about their body, since such attention is rarely wanted. But, I'm not talking about that. If I were even to say something as innocent as "I think you're cute" (which would be very appropriate for a guy to say to a girl) to another guy, the chances are that he would not take it as a compliment and would be offended.

So, basically, I think there are two groups of people that are being oppressed by the way our society has developed. The first group is women, since they are made to be sexual objects to cater to the desires of men--selling things on commercials and selling their bodies as pornography or prostitutes. Yes, it's true that when a woman decides to sell her body in one of these ways, she's doing it of her own will and if she really didn't want to do it she could do something else. But the problem is that when she appears on TV and sells that beer using her attractive body in very little clothing, she's projecting that image onto all women in society, encouraging men to continue to believe their natural instinct, which is that women should exist for men to look at them.

The second group is gay people--male and female alike--since we are not allowed to express our emotions or their affections with each other or to straight people. I know several gay people who afraid to show any affection at all in public, unless it's in a gay club or only gay people are around. I know of other stories where gay couples have shown affection in public and have been mocked or harassed. This is completely unacceptable. Certainly, there is a line of decency--people should not be engaging in intercourse in public--but, holding hands and kissing are widely accepted as appropriate public displays of affection for straight couples, so I think they should be acceptable for gay couples as well.

Don't teach my children

2011-10-19T09:40:00.001-04:00

So, another one of the main arguments I've heard in opposition of gay marriage/homosexuality in general is "I don't want you to teach my children that that's ok." or something along those lines. I've had many people in my own family express this sentiment to me, and others that have expressed it, but not to me personally. I honestly have no problem complying with that request. It is your responsibility to teach your own children. But, that having been said, I have a request for you: please don't teach my children (or other people's children--especially children of gay couples) that homosexuality is wrong.

Is this an unfair request? I ask no more of you than what you ask of me. You don't want me to teach in your public schools that it's ok, so don't teach in my public schools that it's wrong. Teach it in your church, that's a private organization and I don't need to send my children there.

I've had people tell me that it's inappropriate for me to teach that homosexuality is ok in public settings, such as here on my blog and on my Facebook account. If you want to enforce that standard on me, then I see no unreasonableness in asking you to do the same with your views on homosexuality. If you don't want me to put my views somewhere public, like my wall, where your children may have access to it, then don't teach your views--that homosexuality is immoral--on those same forums. This, I do not believe is reasonable. In public settings, all people should have a voice. Everyone should be able to voice their own opinion. If you want your children to know what yours is, and you're worried about what they may have found on the Internet or elsewhere, then you should talk to them personally about it and let them know how you feel.

What's the difference? In the privacy of your own home, you are king and queen, you decide what you want to invite in and what is unacceptable. Therefore, I feel no qualms in respecting your wishes by not indoctrinating your children in things contrary to what you yourself would teach them. In the public sphere, I feel no qualms in speaking my mind and letting my opinion be available to all who wish to read it. I do not believe I am being unreasonable in asking you to play by the same rules that you wish to impose on me.

At any rate, you can't possibly hope to control all of the things that people will ever say in public, so hoping that the world will only teach the things that you personally believe is a bit unrealistic. If you want your children to believe something--eg, something you believe in strongly--then you should teach it to them. They'll understand that other people have different views. They'll figure out that not everyone agrees with you, so trying to shield them from every possible argument that is contrary to the ones you teach them is a rather unwieldy task. Personally, I think one of the best things parents can do for their children is to teach them what they know/believe and then let the children learn for themselves by experiencing life, making their own choices, and feeling the consequences of those choices. I have seen parents who tried to shelter their children with their over-protectiveness and it has rarely done good in the child's life.

The last point I want to make is that "I don't want my children learning that" is a very poor reason to outlaw something. You may not want your children to get a tattoo, but that doesn't mean you have to put all tattoo artists out of business. You may not want your children to wear short shorts or sleeveless tops, but that doesn't mean you have to put a national ban on such articles of clothing. I don't want my children to grow up learning that discrimination is okay, but I'm not going to try to change the law to make it so you can't teach whatever you believe in your churches.

Memories

2011-10-18T02:30:00.001-04:00

I have photographs all over my house. I think most people do. As I was looking at them, I started thinking about why we have photographs. We say things such as "a picture says a thousand words", and it's so true. For me, I think the main reason why I like pictures is because of all of the memories that they cause me to recall when I look at them. In a way, it's even as if the memories are stored in the picture and viewing the picture brings them all flooding back. I look at the wedding picture I have on my wall and I recall the day that I married Karen. Such a happy day, so many mixed emotions. I was scared, I was elated, I was angry (at really minor things, to be quite honest), I felt so many things. I even remember feeling as though everything were surreal "Am I really married now? I really do have a wife?"

I look at photos of Karen playing with her nieces and nephews, of the whole family altogether, of many different things, and I have all these memories rush back in. It feels wonderful. So, I wanted to dedicate a post to the memory of dear, late wife.

Those of you who knew Karen loved her very much. I am unaware of one single person who knew her and didn't like her. I can't say I even ever heard anyone complain about her or gossip about her (even before we got married). Those of you who did not know her probably think I'm making all of this up, and that it's too much like a fairy tale to be true. But, if you want verification, just go ahead and ask anyone that ever met her.

She was the sweetest woman I have ever met. She never said any unkind toward or about another person. I never heard her gossip, backbite, or betray anyone. On the contrary, anytime she was around someone who was gossipping, she would have something nice to say about the person being discussed, and she said it in such a way that it usually ended the gossip.

She was the hardest working person--male or female--that I've ever met. While she was attending college, she invariably took over 20 credit hours per semester, including countless hours of trombone lessons and individual practice. When she graduated, she always had a full-time job and when she came home from work, she'd get right to household chores, including all of the many remodeling projects we did on our own home. The thing that you need to realize is that this whole time she's fighting a battle with cancer. I have known many cancer patients over the years, and the cancer itself and all of the treatment that those patients have to undergo is quite taxing on their bodies. In most cases, when it is a rigorous treatment (such as those Karen underwent), the patient is bedridden for some time--or at least unable to leave home or the hospital. There were only a few short periods of time when Karen would stay home, though. She made it a point to attend every week of church, to go to work unless she literally couldn't stand up, etc. I remember at least a couple occasions when she would go to work and someone at work would tell her that she had to go home because she was too sick to be there. She was definitely a worker bee. I had a difficult time keeping up with her. She'd be willing to stay up until late hours at night sanding the floor, painting the walls, scrubbing the paint off the floor, washing dishes, doing laundry, etc just because the work had to be done and she didn't want to go to bed until it was done.

She was a very educated woman. She always wanted to learn. She would check out scores from the music library at my college so that she could practice conducting, since it was always her dream to be a band director. She attended summer workshops aimed at helping her improve her teaching methods. The last workshop she attended was only a couple weeks before she passed away. Even though she was confined to a wheelchair, unable to walk long distances on her own, she was dedicated to attending. I went with her to this workshop, to push her around in her wheelchair. It was a lot of work. It was about 8 hours every day for two weeks, and lots of homework was assigned every night. I could barely keep up and I wasn't even participating in any of the learning.

She was always trying to improve herself in every way. She was humble. She never assumed herself better or smarter than anyone else. She was full of compassion, that she showered on everyone she knew.

Now that I've made it seem as though such an amazing woman could never really exist (although I'm guilty of hyperbole, this is one time that I'm 100% accurate), let me return to my original topic of memories. Why are memories so important to us? Why is it that we hold on to memories so much, build scrapbooks, write journals and biographies? A memory is something that can last long beyond the time of the event, thing, or person contained in it. In a sense, it lends immortality to a person by remembering them forever.

Whether Karen still lives on in some form or another, the important thing is that we remember her. She lives in the memories of those who knew her, those whose lives she touched. We can all be better people for having known her, and we can teach those who come after us about the wonderful person that she was and how we can try to be more like that.

I think this is one of the reasons why the concept of an afterlife is so appealing to us. We see that immortality is virtually possible by living on in the memories of those we leave behind. But, perhaps we want something more tangible. We want to be assured that we will continue to exist, that we will ourselves be immortal. This is a very enticing thought indeed.

Go out and make some happy memories. Be alive, be vibrant, live while the day lasts. Live so that those who do remember you will enjoy those memories and hold on to them dearly, as I hold on to the memories of my lovely bride.

I love you, but

2011-10-17T03:54:00.000-04:00

This isn't directed at anyone, nor is it a complaint. Take it as food for thought. I don't know how many times in the last several months I've heard the phrase "I love you, but...". In my post "What's a Mormon?" a few months ago, I briefly mentioned what I thought about this phrase. Here I'll expound a bit more.

Of course, the most common situation where someone uses this phraseology is when they're talking to someone who's gay. "I love you, but I just don't agree with your lifestyle choices." or "I love you, but I don't like the decisions you're making." Yes, it happens in all sorts of scenarios, usually when someone doesn't live up to someone else's expectations (including the case of a friend or parent expecting a child to be straight and being disappointed when this is not the case).

So, first I want to ask the question, why is this necessary? Is the need to express your disapproval of someone's choices/lifestyle/etc so compelling that you do so in the same breath as your expression of love? Is your love for that person directly linked with your approval or disapproval of their choices? Is it linked to their sexual orientation? Do you mean to express conditional love or unconditional love? If unconditional, then why do you feel any need to make an addendum to the quite simple sentence "I love you."?

When my family gets together, my older brothers (including my brother-in-law) invariably discuss sports--whatever sport is in season, or just sports in general. I don't like sports. I've never been interested in sports. Many of the people in my family would watch sports games, including the olympics and everything, and I would watch as well, but it never piqued my interest. So, when my brothers talk about sports, I have no clue what they're talking about. They rattle off names as if they went to high school with these guys, and they rattle off stats and anecdotes and everything. I feel completely lost whenever I try to listen or participate in the conversation. But, when I tell them that I love them, I feel no need to say "I love you, but I just can't appreciate your interest in sports." or "I love you, but I don't agree with your jock-brain." because my love for them is in no way connected with their interest in sports. Whether they like sports or not, they're my brothers and I love them. I don't love them because they like sports, nor do I love them in spite of them liking sports. They're just completely unrelated events.

Imagine how long an expression for love would be if you had the need to list everything that you disagree with someone on in it? "I love you, but I disagree with your political views, I don't like your favorite color, I think you've arranged your front room with really strange furniture, I don't agree with the way you homeschool your children rather than sending them to public school, etc. etc." Such things seem completely absurd when you say them. And yet, for some reason people feel this propensity to say "I love you, but I don't agree with your choices" whenever they're talking to someone who's gay. Why is this? Is there some innate characteristic of love that people expect everyone who loves them agrees with them on everything? Did I ever mention at any point in time that I assume people don't love me unless they believe homosexual behavior is moral and gay marriage should be legalized?

I love you. That's all. There's no qualification, you don't have to measure up to this expectation or that. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you. That's what love is. If you say you love me, I don't assume that all of my opinions are yours as well. If I say I love you, I certainly don't mean that I agree with you on everything. But whether I agree with you, your choices, your interests, your goals, your sexual orientation, your political ideas, etc, is completely irrelevant to my love for you. To me, "I love you" means "I care about you. I rejoice when you are happy, I mourn when you mourn, I am angered by the things that upset you, I want to comfort you when I see that you are down." It doesn't mean that I accept all of your ideologies, or your views. It doesn't mean that I think everything you do is moral, good, wonderful, etc. So, I don't need to explicitly state that when I express my love for you. I can just say "I love you" and leave it at that.

Most of my friends are religious--in fact, most are Mormon. I love them, even though I disagree with their religious views. Most of my friends go to football games regularly. I love them, even though I can't stand football (more specifically, the crowd mentality that prevails at the stadium). Most of my friends are republican, and nearly all the rest are democrats. I love them, even though I can't say that I subscribe to the platforms of either party, nor do I believe there are many politicians in either party whom I could--in good conscience--vote for. Many of my (male) friends like action movies. I watch these movies with them out of friendship, but I do not enjoy violence, blood, or gore. I love these people even though I do not like these movies. In each of these cases, I have never felt any need to add anything to the phrase "I love you" when expressing this love for anyone in any of these categories. "I love you, but you're a republican." seems a bit unnecessary.

Perhaps it is that you aren't saying this statement of "I love you, but I don't agree with your choices." because you want to express love, but because you really want to say that you disagree with that person being/doing whatever it is you're saying you disagree with. If this is the case, why not leave the love out of it? Why not just be honest and say "I think homosexuality is immoral." or whatever's on your mind? Does saying "I love you" at the beginning somehow soften the blow? Do you think that the person you're talking to will think that you hate them because of what you're about to say? Of all the people who have told me that they support the Christian tradition of homosexuality being immoral, I have never felt that their declaration of belief to me was an expression of hatred. I have never felt hate from anyone who has told me their personal feelings. The fact that they want to share their feelings with me is touching, and makes me think that they care about me. The fact that they want me to do what is right, to be moral and upstanding, is a touching sentiment. When I grade my students' papers and mark all of the answers that they got wrong, I don't add "I love you, but you missed some points on this test.". (If I did, I'd probably have a lawsuit on my hands.)

Maybe what you mean to say instead of "I love you, but..." is "Because I love you...". Maybe you want to say "Because I love you, I want you to be happy, so I'm going to share with you one way that I think that can happen." Or "Because I love you, I want you to always do what is right. I think you're doing something wrong, so here's what I think you should do to fix it." This way, you're not making your love and your advice work against each other, you're making them work together. Your love is the motive for helping a friend out.

Santa Claus

2011-10-14T13:48:00.001-04:00

Santa Claus is a cute little fairy tale for children to believe in. It's a good way for parents to persuade their children to behave, at least around Christmas time (although, I have to admit I've pulled the Santa card on some kids even in June and it worked). I have some siblings who do the whole Santa thing and their kids get so much into it, it's adorable to watch. I have some other siblings who believe in being honest with their children, so they tell them that Santa is just a symbol of kindness and selfless giving, but doesn't really exist. They also tell their children that some children do believe in Santa and that they shouldn't try to persuade them otherwise--that it should be up to their parents to break the news to them.

My sister tells a story about one of her friends still believing in Santa in middle school. It was a rather embarrassing situation. The girl got angry and said "my dad wouldn't lie to me" and refused to believe the truth. Quite honestly, I think that middle school is probably a bit too old for people to believe in Santa. (I would also think that they'd have figured it out somehow by that time, even if no one told them.) Be that as it may, the point is that some learn sooner than others about this sad truth.

For some, the news of Santa's non-existence is inconsequential. They realize that the presents come from their parents rather than the North Pole, but they still get presents. For others, the news can be a bit sad, but they eventually move on. And for some, this news can be rather disheartening or even traumatic. I know I have seen more than one Christmas movie where there was a "bad guy" who was really just hurt because some time when they were really young Santa didn't bring them what they wanted for Christmas, so they stopped believing. I hope that there really aren't any adults out there who hold such a grudge against Santa, but I can see that some people would begin to be skeptic after having made such a realization. I can also see how it would be difficult for a child to trust his/her parents after realizing that they were dishonest about something such as Santa.

And so, if you haven't already guessed, it is time for me to say that this post isn't really about Santa Claus. It is about the Santa-for-grownups that we call God. Unlike Santa, many believe in him their whole lives. Many dedicate their lives to him. People believe in varying degrees of sincerity and devotion--some only tangentially believe, some believe whole-heartedly. Some people call God by different names, or they have different manifestations. The Greeks and Romans believed in many different gods, as did other cultures. Many times, these gods were endowed with human-like traits in either appearance or personality, and other times they were slightly modified, maybe with the head of some animal. Some cultures worshipped natural phenomena, such as the Sun or mountains. There have been many different deific creations by men. Strangely enough, the human tendency to assume that oneself is right and others are wrong seems to be amplified by religious belief. The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are examples of this. The Framers of the US Constitution had grown so weary of having their religion dictated to them that they made certain a stipulation was put in that august document explicitly forbidding the federal government from engaging in similar behavior. People were to be allowed to believe as they wish, not have their beliefs dictated to them.

Since virtually every child eventually learns the truth about Santa, but not every adult learns the truth about God, it is difficult to describe the parallels in reaction. However, from what I have seen, the reactions have been just as varied with adults as with children. There are some people who refuse to believe the information, even when confronted with it. There are others who simply find the news inconsequential and move on with their lives. And there are those who become bitter and feel betrayed by those they trusted who taught them that God was in fact real.

Now, I perceive that some people will challenge me and say that I cannot assert that there is no God since I cannot prove his non-existence. That I cannot prove incontrovertibly that he doesn't exist, I do not refute. However, I reject the premise that the burden of proof lies on me. Rather, if you are to assert that God does exist, the burden of proof lies on you. You must come up with evidence that, beyond reasonable doubt, proves that there is such a being. If you have no such evidence and tell me that I must simply accept such a thing on faith, then I submit to you that your assertion should not be that God exists, but only that you believe that God exists, since that is what faith is.

I could pose to you the same argument concerning Santa Claus: you cannot assert that he doesn't exist because you have no proof that he doesn't. You may say, well people have been to the North Pole and have seen no signs of Santa's workshop. To which I would reply that Santa might have a magical enchantment cast over his workshop that makes it invisible to the human eye. You might tell me that it would be physically impossible for Santa to visit the house of each child and climb down their chimney (even though most people don't even have chimneys anymore). I believe I saw a document on this somewhere, written by some physics student no doubt, that said that Santa would literally burn to a crisp if he traveled fast enough to visit each Christian household all in one 48-hour period (he technically has two days, because of time zones). To which I would reply that he might have some kind of magic to slow time down, so he really has years to deliver all the toys, even though to us it seems as though it only takes one night. And the arguments go on and on. So, to each of your attempts to prove Santa's non-existence, I could offer some "believer's rebuttal" and tell you that you just need to have more faith in Santa (otherwise you may not get any toys this year). I find the argument against atheism equally unconvincing.

I also find the parallels of behavior control to be amusing. Parents tell children that if they misbehave then Santa will not bring any toys for them. Church leaders tell their congregations that if they misbehave they won't be able to make it into heaven (or, if you're Mormon, then you have multiple heavens, so you'll just not make it into the highest one). Rewards are offered for those who do desired behaviors (if you are a "good boy" or "good girl" then you get toys, or if you pay your tithing, then God will bless you) and punishments are offered for those who do undesired behaviors (you get a lump of coal if you're "naughty", or you go to hell if you sin).

So, you may ask, do I have any morals at all? I don't need to believe in God in order to believe in right and wrong. I can believe in good and evil without believing in a supreme being who watches the actions of all people and will at some undetermined point in the future exact justice upon all based on those actions. I believe that there is much truth to be found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the words of church leaders worldwide of all kinds of religions, but also in secular books--science, math, psychology, literature, and even fiction (of course, I would lump scripture in with works of fiction). I believe that it is good to love others, to treat them well, and be kind. I believe it is good to serve others, to do random acts that will lift another person's spirits. I believe that it is bad to kill, to steal, to lie, to cheat, to bully. I believe that our system of government should reflect these morals--that each citizen has the right (and the obligation) to effect change in the government whenever corruption is found or justice is lacking.

From what I have experienced, there are more genuinely kind people among atheists than among religious people. Yes, there are Christians who do good simply to do good, but there are also those who do good because they are enticed by the rewards their religion teaches them are available. An atheist has no such motivation, since they are not superstitious. They do good because they are intrinsically motivated by their conscience to do so. Again, I'm speaking in generalities no absolutes. There are cruel, vindictive and hateful atheists, just as there are Mother Theresa--saintlike religious people (of all religions). But the point is that you don't have to believe in God to be good. Everyone has a conscience (call it the light of Christ, if you like) to tell them right from wrong, whether they believe in a mysterious supernatural being or not.

If you choose to believe in God, that's fine. As I said before, I feel no need to dispute your belief nor attempt to prove that God does not exist. I have no motivation to recruit people to my philosophy, other than the built-in human instinct to want others to agree with me. I present my beliefs for the world to see. I made a decision this year that has greatly benefited me. I finally decided that I would no longer hide anything. I will no longer hide the fact that I am attracted to men, as I have done my whole life. I will no longer hide my feelings. If it offends other people, I am truly sorry for the offense, but not for the authenticity exhibited by my expression of those emotions.

Mormons aren't Christian?

2011-10-13T14:32:00.003-04:00

I have to be honest, all of this hubbub about Mormons not being Christian makes me think people can be awfully silly sometimes. I mean, yes, I had heard many times before that other Christian sects don't accept Mormons as Christian, and I've even heard the silly reasons for this claim. But, what does it all boil down to? "They're not Christian because they disagree with us." It seems that all so often religious people are over-zealously concerned with making sure that everyone else believes exactly the same thing they do.

Why do so many churches send missionaries all over the world? (It was, I believe, much more common a few centuries ago than it is now.) Why do people of different sects Bible bash each other? Why do sermons on Sunday often include "such-and-such church is wrong because they believe..." I'm just imagining a playground full of children all arguing things like "My dad's faster than yours." "Well, my dad's stronger." blah blah blah.

So, what's the definition of a Christian? As far as I'm concerned, it someone who believes in Christ--that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (and, sometimes also God Himself) and the Savior of the World. Certainly, whatever definition you choose to use (perhaps you're an evangelical who wants to teach that Christians are only people who believe that the heavens are closed and God no longer speaks), it is quite obvious that Mormons talk of Christ often, and worship him in their services. Having been Mormon for 28 years, I would have to say that of all the things Mormons are obsessed about (Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, not viewing pornography, etc), Christ is definitely the main one. Whether you think it's good or bad to be Christian, I would have to say that in my honest opinion, Mormons fit the mold.

But, I suppose the question I have is, why does it really matter? They believe what they believe. If you don't like what they believe (I know I don't), that's fine. If you do like what they believe, that's fine too. If you want to think of yourself as a Mormon who isn't a Christian, that's cool. If you want to think of yourself as a Mormon who is, that's cool too. If you want to think of yourself as a Christian who's not Mormon, good for you. But, why do you feel the overwhelming need to prove to the world that Mormons aren't Christian? So, they believe a few things that are different than what you believe, so what? Each sect has its own different beliefs, that's why there are myriad Christian denominations all over--including those who claim to be "non-denominational" (isn't that a denomination?). Ok, so let's just hypothetically suppose that you've proven unequivocally that Mormons aren't Christian, and now everyone believes it, including the Mormons. Now what? They're still the same people they were before you proved that, so what have you accomplished? I mean, if you have a personal problem with them--you don't like the way they dress or the fact that they broadcast a conference worldwide twice a year--why not just address that problem directly? Why do you have to claim to know their religion better than they do?

I've heard a few people say that they left the LDS church and "found Christ". (That's always been a funny phrase to me. What do you mean you "found Christ"? Was he under a rock? Did you stumble upon him as you were cleaning out your back yard?) That's cool that you feel that way. But that doesn't mean that you have to conclude that no one else can "find Christ" while remaining in the LDS church. It doesn't mean that its members are lost to Christ.

As for me personally, I would say that I am not Christian. There are many beliefs in Christianity that I believe do little more than induce unnecessary guilt, and some other negative side-effects. I believe in loving other people, no matter who they are or what they have done with their lives. I believe in "live and let live". I don't mind my Mormon friends being Mormon, and I expect them to not mind me being otherwise. Yes, certainly, I have said some negative things about the church. But its members, as far as I have been able to discern, are good people. They are kind. They care about others. They want to help out in their communities. They donate their money to charitable causes. They participate in service projects. They give everyone on their block a can of homemade jam for Christmas. So, if one of them wants to run for president, let him. What's he going to do? Jell-o attack all of the people who voted for his opponent? And, so what if the Christ that he believes in is slightly different than the one you believe in? When he's elected, he's not going to oppress your religion by saying you have to accept his definition of Christ. Mormons believe in freedom of religion just as much as anyone else. (In fact, more than some other people. I saw a YouTube video the other day of a man who claimed that the freedom of religion expressed in the First Amendment only applied to Christianity, not to all religions.)

Anyway with the sate our country's in--with thousands of people lining the streets of New York protesting--can't we find something more worthwhile to argue about than whether Mormons are Christian? Like, for example, how to avoid situations that make it seem like giving $800 billion dollars to the richest people in America is actually a good idea and will somehow stimulate (or preserve) our economy?

Do unto others

2011-10-13T09:04:00.000-04:00

This post is directed at my Mormon reader base. But first, a disclaimer. This post is meant first as an exposition on my personal experiences, secondly as a commentary on my observations, and third as constructive criticism for any who wish to receive it. It is not meant to blame anyone nor condemn any act. It isn't meant to justify or absolve guilt of any of my own actions. It also isn't meant as a pity party for myself. I only want to communicate the way in which certain actions have caused me to become disaffected with the church and other actions have helped me to continue to love the church, and by so doing encourage actions of the latter category.

My immediate family (counting Karen's and Conrad's, all of whom I consider to be family) has reacted as best as can be expected to the events that have unfolded over the course of this year. There are those whose behavior has been so exemplary that I only wish I could ever be as understanding and compassionate as they are. I say this because they are also the ones most likely to take my words here to heart and to feel that they have been less than adequate in showing me love, which is not the case.

Having grown up in the LDS church, in a devout family, I grew to love the church very much. As recently as the time I informed my bishop that I am gay, I still loved the church, and I loved my calling as ward mission leader. I loved helping the missionaries. When the bishop took my calling, even though I had done no wrong, I was surprised. I felt the action was unjust--especially since the Handbook of Instruction clearly states that gay people who aren't engaging in homosexual activity are worthy of holding the priesthood (if they're male) and any calling in the church that a heterosexual person would be able to hold. Later on, when he took my temple recommend, I had no more motivation to remain a member of the church, feeling completely abandoned by that church and stripped of any privilege in it. Therefore, I handed my letter of resignation to my bishop, respectfully rescinding my membership in the church. At this point in time, I still believed that the church taught true principles, that it was led by a prophet and that it was merely incorrect concerning the morality of homosexual activity. So, it was for a period of about 2 or 3 months after this point in time that I continued to attend LDS services.

In fact, I was basically told that my participation in the church was wholly unwanted. I was not allowed to have a calling and that I could no longer volunteer at the family history center (which I had been doing pretty much weekly since Karen and I first moved to Tennessee) even though half of the staff at the center is non-Mormon. One week my roommate, who was Sunday school president in the YSA branch, asked me to teach a Sunday school class, which I willingly did. The branch president acted as though I was trying to sabotage his branch. Immediately following the class, he asked to speak with me. He told me that there were several people who were concerned about me teaching and that in the interest of protecting his branch, I should not do so in the future. Ironically, he was sitting in the class while I was teaching and by his own admission said that there was nothing objectionable in what I taught, that it was all according to the handbook. But, I could tell that he was right about people not wanting me to teach because there were some people (a small minority, to be sure) that didn't even want me at church. People who just a few short months prior would ask me how I was doing and act friendlily were pretending as though I didn't even exist. The branch president's own wife, who is normally a very sweet woman, wouldn't even make eye-contact with me and rarely spoke to me.

During the course of these months, I started researching more into the bits and pieces of "anti-Mormon" literature that I had encountered over the years, but had always ignored or avoided in the interest of protecting my testimony. (I find this ironic because Mormons teach that knowledge obtained by the Spirit is stronger than any other way of obtaining knowledge, that when a spirit speaks to a person's spirit, it leaves an indelible imprint, and at the same time a testimony is so fragile that one should avoid reading anything or listening to anyone who disagrees with the church.) At any rate, as I started researching these claims that I had heard, I found out that the truth lied not with the sterile history that the church currently presents, but in the actual histories of the church--the Journal of Discourses and the History of the Church. Also, more truth can be found in recent scientific discoveries than in the church. For example, it is true that DNA evidence indicates that Native Americans are related to Asians, not to Jews, as the Book of Mormon claims. And, there really is basically no archaeological evidence to support many of the things mentioned in the Book of Mormon--including flora, fauna, and man-made objects such as chariots. Having made all of these discoveries, and realizing that I could not trust the church to give me accurate information, I finally relinquished my belief in it.

When I made this post about leaving the church, it included much of the difficulty in the matter. It was a hard thing to do, and it felt very much like severing a limb and leaving it behind, knowing that amputation was the only way to save my life. In this vulnerable state, I looked for ways to express the feelings I was having. I wanted people to talk to about the matter. Luckily, I had a friend who was willing to discuss the matter with me and he introduced me to a Facebook group designed for people questioning Mormon beliefs, in transition out of the church, or having left completely. I have found this group to be a great support to me. More recently, I have found the Ex-Mormon forums and have begun active participation there.

As I began sharing my doubts about Mormonism, expressing that I believe that the church is a hoax, and that its doctrine is false, many people were understandably offended by this. Many people have unfriended me on Facebook, quite possibly because they don't wish to see my posts that question their faith pop up in their newsfeed. This, I can understand. Some people felt it necessary to send a message informing me that they have unfriended me. This, I felt was unnecessary and more damaging than simply unfriending me. However, some people felt it necessary to contend with me on my wall about the things that I would post. Some claimed that the issues I was raising have been "debunked" by the church, which is not the case. However, they would contend with me angrily, in the defense of their church. Again, this is quite understandable. Having been a devout Mormon for the first 28 years of my life, I know why someone would do that. I didn't like having my beliefs questioned while I was a believing Mormon. But, anger is most often met with more anger. Finally, there were those who would become downright rude to me. I have been called names and received all sorts of derisive and condescending comments from people who were defending the church. This behavior is never acceptable.

I found myself starting to really dislike the church. Part of this was because I found more about the church, for example that its for-business ventures far outweigh its charitable contributions, and part of this (possibly a larger part) was because of the way people were treating me. As I attempt to express my thoughts and feelings, I am met with contention and anger. I ask, quite sincerely and without any attempt at accusation or blame, what is the purpose of reacting this way? What do you wish to accomplish by arguing with me about your church? If you want me to "return to the fold" or "regain my testimony" or something like that, do you think this is the best way to do so? If you want me to believe that your church is a loving and a true church, would it not be better to express love and merely let the church defend itself, since it is true?

I'll say what effect these confrontations did have on me. At the time I first announced my sexual orientation, I received many emails from people that were extremely out-of-character for them. People that have always been very peaceful, loving, and unassuming suddenly became hostile, accusatory, and presumptuous. To me, this was an indication of brainwashing. Of course, I wasn't ready to honestly believe that they were brainwashed, since I still believed in the church, more or less, and therefore this assumption seemed absurd. However, as I saw people contend with me angrily on my Facebook wall and in private concerning the truth of the LDS church, I started leaning more in the direction of believing that this could be the case. Now, I don't want to be as bold as to say that the church brainwashes people. Certainly there are those who make this claim, and there is some validity to their arguments. Whether it is true or false, I could not say with any real certainty, and I don't mean to say that here. What I'm saying is that when I get reactions like this from my Mormon friends, it makes it easier for me to believe that they are brainwashed. Why? When a brainwashed person's brainwashing is questioned, this creates a significant amount of cognitive dissonance and can often result in unusually aggressive or violent behavior. Obviously, I would be foolish to think that these people arguing with me is a sign of them being brainwashed, especially since the people who have argued with me would do so just as vehemently if I were to challenge their political views or any other topic in which they have a vested emotional interest. But, the thing I'm relating here is my feelings, not my thoughts, and feelings aren't often rational.

Consider, just for a moment, consider the two reactions you might have to someone in the scenario I am currently in. So, you have a friend that was once upon a time a devout Mormon. Now they are having a crisis of faith and are sharing with you all of the information they have found about the LDS church. One reaction you might give is the reaction I have laid out above--you can argue with them and try to defend the church or prove that it is true. You can also just bear your testimony, not feeling any particular need to debate the points being presented by your friend. Or you could, as instructed in the Bible, turn the other cheek, love those who you feel are persecuting you and pray for this friend. What is the difference between these two reactions? I must say that for each of these two options, I have had many friends choose that route. I also must say that if all of my Mormon friends had chosen the former rather than the latter, I would find it very difficult to muster any positive feelings for the church any longer. It is only because I have had friends that have shown me great sympathy that I still view the church in a positive light. In fact, I have even had one friend, who is active in the church, who has shown me more empathy than I ever would have expected from someone in his position.

So, when you have interactions with such people, think about what kind of image you want the church to have. Do you want those who leave the church to think that its members are simply vindictive, angry people who persecute anyone who decides to leave? Or do you want them to keep a positive view on the members of the church, seeing that they are truly loving and caring people?

I have had people--who at least in the past I would have considered dear friends--who have called me names, have accused me of great sins and other unspeakable acts. They have said to me things that I would never consider saying to something that I sincerely considered to be a friend. The fact that these are people that I do consider or used to consider to be dear friends makes the pain all that more poignant. If it were merely acquaintances or people that I didn't know, I could brush it aside, knowing that they don't know my character. But, when it is people that I felt could see who I am, people who I believed understood me, that is when it hurts. That is when I feel betrayed.

Having used the dramatic verbology that I have, I feel that I need to make a disclaimer here. I would say that the majority of my friends (including family) have merely said nothing to me concerning the matter. This is a neutral approach. It neither hurts me nor comforts me. This is probably a very safe and wise course to take. A small percentage of friends have treated me poorly, as described above. This behavior I have no choice but to forgive, since I cannot claim to have avoided provoking it. An equally small percentage are the ones who have reached out in love and shown sympathy or empathy for what I am going through. These people are the ones whom I admire, those that I believe have truly captured the essence of Christlike love. As Christ said, it is easy to love people who are kind to us, but it is much more difficult to love those that we do not perceive as kind, those whom we might esteem to be our enemy. It is the test of whether we can love people like that that proves true love.

Spirit children of God

2011-10-12T09:24:00.000-04:00

As one of the (many) reasons that gay marriage should not be sanctioned, I have heard the following argument. "There are many of our Heavenly Father's spirit children waiting to come down to this Earth to receive a body. I want to help them in this wonderful plan that God has made for us. I can do that by providing bodies for them (ie, having children of my own). Gay couples cannot reproduce, so they cannot contribute to this wonderful part of God's plan of bringing spirit children down here to Earth to get a physical body." This post is my reply to that argument.

First, I ask a question to one who would propose this argument. I ask, what is your motivation in providing physical bodies for these spirit children? Is it greed, because you expect to receive some reward from God for doing His will? As far as I can tell, the answer most would give to this question is "no". Then, is it out of a sense of duty? (You feel that you owe it to God to do what He says.) I would say that perhaps some would reply affirmatively here, but still most would say "no". Is it, then, a truly altruistic motive? Are you truly concerned with the welfare of the spirit children of your Heavenly Father? I will continue with my argument under the assumption that your answer to this question is "yes". I will assume that you truly just want to help His children along their path back to live with Him in the Celestial Kingdom.

Now, you have posed to me that one of the ways you can help these spirit children is by bringing them down to this Earth and giving them physical bodies (via copulation). I will not contend the point that, according to the Plan of Salvation as presented by the LDS church, each spirit child of God needs a physical body, nor will I contend the veracity of this doctrine. For the sake of the argument, I will assume that the Plan of Salvation is true and therefore each spirit does need a body (except the 1/3 who were cast out). But, the question I will now ask you is this: Why do you need to be the one who will provide a body for those spirits? That is, why does it have to be your own biological child? There are so many spirit children of your Heavenly Father who are here on this Earth who already have a physical body (so that part of their progression back to God is complete) but who do not have homes or parents. Our orphanages have so many children in them, children who need a loving mother and father. If you really, truly cared about all of Heavenly Father's spirit children, then why do you not care about these children? Will you turn your face away from them, pretending that they do not exist and that you have no place in helping them, in providing a loving, caring home for them? If you have your own biological children, then you need not concern yourself with the welfare of those who are parentless? These seems more stoic and unfeeling than altruistic, as you have presented yourself to be.

So, here, finally, is my rebuttal to your argument. You are straight. You can marry the person you love and copulate with them. You can have your own biological children. If that's really what you want, I honestly have no problem with that in the slightest. But, I am gay. If I marry a person with whom I can copulate, then it will be someone to whom I am not sexually attracted, and therefore I believe my marriage to that person (woman) will be less than what a marriage should be. Why not let me marry the man that I love and let the two of us (as husbands) adopt one or more of these children who are in an orphanage, children who already have a physical body but need a loving home in which to be nurtured, so they can have a bright future? If you really, truly cared about all of God's spirit children, would you not want to provide more ways of allowing loving parents to adopt, rather than trying to limit the possibilities? Do you really want to increase the number of children in orphanages? Or do you want to decrease that number? Do you disagree with me that allowing gay couples to adopt would help decrease this burden that our world has in orphanages? This is my rebuttal. And, I really do want honest answers to any and all of the questions I have asked in this post.

Coming out day

2011-10-11T08:24:00.002-04:00

So, since 1988 October 11th has been National Coming Out Day. This is a day to celebrate who you are by being honest about it. It is a day to become more authentically you, a day to show off the beauty that God created in you.

What is "coming out"? To me, it means much more than just announcing a non-heterosexual orientation. There have been many things in my life that I have kept hidden from the people around me out of fear. And, no, I'm not talking about just simple secrets. I'm talking about characteristics of yourself that you cannot or do not want to change. I used to pretend that I was straight because that is what my church wanted me to do, and what I believed my God, my family, and my friends wanted as well. While many LGBT people have expressed that this feels quite repressive, for me it wasn't. It was more like eating American ramen noodles my whole life and then finally going to Japan and having a bowl of real Japanese ramen noodle soup. I enjoyed the ramen I had as a kid because I didn't know any better. But Japanese ramen is so much better than the instant ramen we have here in America. It's full of flavor and has meat and veggies in it, it's wonderful. That's how it felt for me when I came out.

Why do we keep secrets from people? I believe that the most common reason is fear. As a teenager, you might sneak out of the house at night to go hang out with some friends--maybe vandalize something, pull a prank, or just make out with your boyfriend/girlfriend. Obviously you want to keep this secret from your parents out of fear that they will discipline you for your misbehavior. But, sometimes the secret you're keeping isn't in itself a bad thing, but you fear how people might react if they knew. Maybe you have over-protective parents and they don't want you to date someone seriously until you're out of high school. Having a boyfriend/girlfriend isn't necessarily bad, but you don't want your parents to know because they don't want you to have one. Maybe you're a nerd but you don't want your friends to know because you want to be perceived as "cool", and to fit in with your friends you can't be nerdy. Being a nerd isn't bad, but you just don't want your friends to know that you are one.

So, I say, let the cat out of the bag. Open up your closet and display your skeletons in there for all the world to see. Be proud of who you are. If you believe in God, then believe that God made you the way you are and wouldn't want you to be any other way. If you drool when you hear the new tech specs of the latest AMD processor that's come out, let people know you're an über-nerd. If your body wants to express itself when you hear that irresistible beat, then dance to that music, let people laugh if they want to. Show off who you are. Apply for that lead role in Peter Pan or Newsies. Join the school choir. Be in a talent show. People who will mock you for showing your true colors are simply expressing their own fears of showing who they are inside. Maybe you can help them overcome their fears and be authentic too.

I have to say that coming out of the closet has been one of the best choices I have made in my entire life. I feel free to express myself, free to show who I am. I let other people make the decision to accept me for who I am or to turn away from me. I no longer try to make that choice for other people by showing them what I think they want to see. Now the decision is in their hands because I'm going to be me and they can decide for themselves whether they want to like me. I would encourage anyone to come out. Share who you are with those that you love. Those who love you will still love you. They may react in ways that make it hard for you to feel their love, but it doesn't mean that they don't love you anymore. It only means that they need to work through all the new information for a while. Remember, love conquers hate.

Love and acceptance

2011-10-09T03:14:00.001-04:00

Social interaction is very important to humans. We form social clubs, fraternities, sororities, organizations, churches, and special interest groups. We want to connect with other people in meaningful ways. We want to know that there are others "like us" out there somewhere. What is so dreadful about the thought of loneliness? What is so fearful about the idea that perhaps one is alone in the world. "Am I the only one that feels this way?", "No one knows what I'm going through.", "How could anyone be as ______ as me?", "What if I'm just different?" are some of the questions that float through people's minds--perhaps subconsciously.

What is the purpose of blogging--more specifically, of this blog? Why do I share my feelings? Because I want to know that someone out there hears what I'm saying, understands it, and can express that empathy to me. I want to know that I'm not alone in my thoughts and feelings. Why is this so important to me? Why does it matter whether anyone else understands me? If a person adopts this mentality--that they do not need to concern themselves with the thoughts of others--then they are perceived as cold and unfeeling and this is a negative thing. Being a hermit--disconnected from society--is usually viewed in a dim light. Why is this?

There are many appetites of these bodies that we inhabit. There is the appetite for food. We satiate this appetite by eating. Failure to do so would result in starvation, eventually causing death. Therefore, the benefits of satisfying this appetite are immediately apparent. We eat to stay alive (and for many other reasons, including the joy of good-tasting food and also social reasons--oh, there's that word again). We have appetites for engaging in sexual activities with others or solitarily. Failure to satiate these appetites may not cause death, as in the case of hunger, but they have been to shown, in at least some cases, to cause psychological complications. Just as the digestive system complains when it does not receive food at regular intervals, the psyche complains when its appetites are not met. It would appear that the need to connect with other people (to socialize) is one of these appetites. And I believe that failure to satiate this appetite has, in many cases, led to insanity.

So, is it merely a host of chemicals coursing through the space in our heads that causes this need to interact with other people? Perhaps. But, it is quite apparent that the need is there. Why, then, do people form exclusive clubs, casting out a certain class of people or perhaps all but one specific class or group of people? I suppose, the question could also be asked, why does a child--out of a desire for attention from his parents--act out in ways that he knows the parent will respond to negatively? I suppose the child figures that even negative attention is better than no attention at all. To be ignored is perhaps to be perceived as non-existent altogether, and the concept of non-existence (or, similarly, the thought that death is the end of existence) seems to be a rather fearsome one. So, to have his existence acknowledged, the child will misbehave to get attention. So, why will a person refuse social interaction with another person? Perhaps because that which is unattainable is more desirable, so that in refusing membership of some club to a person, the amount of social interaction with that person increases, as they attempt to become a member of this club.

Many are the reasons for this exclusivity. Perhaps fear of the unknown. Maybe the drive to find other people like oneself is so strong that one will build up walls casting out any who he perceives to be different in some particular way. This has been seen in the instance of racism. One race perceives another as different--a difference significant enough to merit an actual ban on certain kinds of interactions between those two races. Perhaps it is just tradition. One race has disliked another for so long that the actual cause of the dislike/disdain is unknown, but each generation is taught by its predecessors that they are to refrain from mingling with the other race--Dr. Seuss' famous butter battle.

To avoid getting too far off on that tangent, let me return to the topic at hand. There is so much evidence of people wanting to "fit in"; be accepted; be perceived as "normal", of worth, and valid. The PR department of the LDS church launched a campaign a while back in the effort of helping people realize that Mormons are just everyday, normal people, not the extreme, fanatical cultist people that some rumors might suggest. Homosexual people lobby for the right to marry--to use the word "marriage", not just "civil union" or "domestic partnership"--partly in the attempt to achieve equal social recognition. Women are not oppressed nearly as much as they have been in the past, but they are still on the campaign of proving to employers that they can be just as valuable as men in many positions, and in some cases much more valuable than men. So, it seems that there is a continual battle between all these prejudices--racism, sexism, heterosexism, religious intolerance, etc--and the desire to be loved and accepted. I don't suppose I'll live to see the day when, at least as a society, we get this right and just love and accept people rather than cast them aside, but I do have hope that such a day will come. Eventually humans will evolve past the stage of jealousy and prejudice.

I love loving people. I love accepting people, and not merely overlooking differences, but celebrating them. I don't do this nearly as well nor as often as I would like, but the few times when I am successful at doing so, it makes me truly happy. I love my family. I love my friends. I love people with differing religious beliefs. I love people with different moral compasses. I do find it very difficult to love people that spread hate, but such people are the extreme exception, so they are, for the most part, very easy to avoid.

Leaving a religion is hard

2011-10-05T02:06:00.001-04:00

Believe it or not, I'm actually going to apologize. (As I've done recently, I'm going to lump my blog posts and my Facebook wall posts together, just using the word "post" to mean either one.) I have made many posts recently that have, understandably, been interpreted as anti-Mormon. Of course, I've been aware of this--in fact, in nearly every case I was aware of the fact prior to making the post. So, I sincerely apologize for the feelings that have been hurt because of this. I also wish to make an explanation for this action.

As I stated in this post, I do not regret having said the things I have said because I was doing so out of authenticity, which is something I strive for every day. I regret all of the occasions when I have been confrontational. I don't like confrontation at all. In fact, the electronic world is the only place where I actually have the courage to be confrontational at all. In person, I am very quick to let someone walk right over me, in the interest of maintaining harmony. I am defenseless against phone solicitors.

Anyway, there have been three major reasons why I have made the posts I have made recently about the LDS church. The first and most important reason is that I want to share my feelings with everyone. I want to express what it feels like to have your world come crashing down on you when you realize that the religion you have been brought up in and taught your entire life is actually not true. (Now, here I'll interject that you don't have to agree with me that the LDS church is false, just keep in mind that I do feel that way, and I'm entitled to that belief just as much as you're entitled to the belief that it's true.) I want desperately for someone to understand me and to express sympathy or empathy for me. I want to feel validated--that I am allowed to have my own opinions, even if those opinions are vastly different from what yours are, and also vastly different from what I believed just a year ago.

The second reason is that I have been trained all my life, being raised LDS, to be a truth crusader--to value the importance of seeking, defending, and proclaiming the truth wherever it is to be found. So, when I find something that I think is true (eg, Joseph Smith marrying women who already had husbands), I feel a need to share it with other people, in the name of truth. I strongly believe the teaching that the truth will make you free. Knowledge is power. I believe that the more educated a person is, the more capable they are of making wise and beneficial choices in their own life, and the better equipped they are for helping others as well. So, I wish to share all of the recent research I have done into the history of Mormonism and its doctrine because I feel there is benefit in knowing truth.

The third reason is that I honestly believe that the church is a threat and I wish to save my loved ones from that threat. Don't get me wrong--I couldn't possibly make the sweeping generalization that it is all evil. No, the church does much good and helps people be good too. But, I do believe that the church has made and does make people do things that are bad. For example, in the past the church taught and promoted racism. Currently, the church teaches and promotes homophobia. I believe this to be harmful. I also believe that the church takes advantage of people by spending their tithing money on for-profit ventures, such as the City Creek Mall in SLC. I believe this is taking advantage of people and deceiving them. I love my friends and my family and don't want to see them being taken advantage of like this. Also, I resent the church using its membership to fight political battles, such as the current one over same-sex marriage, which is nothing more than oppression of people who are different and have different beliefs.

Now that I have explained the motives that I have had for making all of my posts, I wish to give my apology. I have too often strayed from these three goals that I have had. I have become argumentative and confrontational. I have made personal attacks, leaving the sphere of objectivism. I have stepped over the line of "this is how I feel" into "this is why you are wrong". I should not have done this. This is inappropriate behavior. All of you are entitled to have your own opinions, including the opinion that the LDS church is true, and I have tried to coerce people into forgoing the right to hold that opinion, thinking that my own logic was superior. Certainly, you may believe as you wish and your beliefs are no threat to my own, nor to me personally.

I will continue to post things about the church, because it is such a large part of me. If you find this wholly unacceptable, I am truly sorry. Perhaps your only recourse will be to do what many of my friends and family have done, which is to hide my Facebook posts, unfriend me, or block me altogether. Know that I hold no grudge toward any who have done this, nor toward any who will in the future. I'd much rather be friends with you in person than on Facebook. That having been said, I will make a concerted effort to keep to the first of the three main goals I listed above. People can argue truth--especially that regarding religion--all day long til they're blue in the face, and therefore I see little value in goal #2. Also, since the majority of my friends and family are LDS who believe that the church is not a threat to them, but a bulwark--a source of strength and happiness--I see little value in goal #3, which is effectively to convince them that they are not happy when they feel that they are. While I still believe these two forms of motivation to be worthwhile, I believe that taking a more passive and personal approach with them will be wiser.

Goal #1, of course, is a very personal goal, since it is merely the desire to express my own feelings. Since this will be my primary reason for posting, I will do my best to word things more in the first person and in the phraseology of opinion or belief rather than fact. (eg, "I get really frustrated when I see so many of my family members fighting against my right to marry due to their religious convictions.")

Because I have been so vocal throughout this year about homosexuality and about the church, many people have chosen to distance themselves from me. Whatever their reason or motivation, I cannot blame them for what they have done. I do feel abandoned when this happens, I must admit that if I am to be honest. However, I feel that the number of cases where their intent was to make me feel that way is very small if any at all.

I believe one major cause of consternation and frustration is on a differing view of what the nature of Facebook is. I view my wall as my own personal space, where I am allowed to share anything that comes to my mind. If people want to participate in my brainstorming, they are welcome to do so by commenting and posting on my wall. I treat other people's walls the same way. So, if they post something that I disagree with, I try to do so politely or just not comment at all, acknowledging their right to believe as they wish but feeling no need to contradict them. Also, I tend to be supportive of people even if I cannot personally agree with their motives or reasoning. (For example, I congratulate people on mission calls, even though I feel like increasing church membership is a bad thing.) So, I believe that a wall belongs completely to the person whose account it is attached to and it is theirs to do as they wish (ie, it is private). Other people may feel like a wall is not private but that it is in fact public. I can understand this reasoning, which is (as best I can surmise) as follows. When a post is made on someone's wall, that post is fed through to the newsfeed of everyone on that person's friends list (or whatever subset of that list they choose to share the post with). Therefore, since it is available for all to read, it is a public post and therefore is treated more like public property than private property.

How is this an issue? When I make a post on my wall, it is something that I personally feel or want to share with people. It is not necessarily something that I would say in a public setting or something that I feel automatically becomes public property. So, I post things about my personal findings in the research I have been doing in Mormon history, for example, because it's part of my personal life at the moment. Other people may see that (in their newsfeed) and interpret it as a public thing. Therefore, it become a violation of their right to believe as they choose. I am challenging their beliefs, so they feel hurt, angry, or a need to prove me wrong or contend the point that I am trying to make. I wish I could say that I have never posted anything with the intent of causing contention, but that would be a lie. Unfortunately, there have been times when this has been my intent, and I am truly sorry for that. I do wish to keep my posts in the category I described above.

The final point I want to share is that I'm just trying to figure everything out. All of this posting I've been doing is part of my journey into learning who I am, what I believe, and where I want to go from here. I've been trying to figure out where the line is between sharing my thoughts and opinions and stepping on the toes of those who have differing views. When should I post something and when should I refrain? Sometimes I lean more heavily toward one side and other times toward the other. I know that one reason why this always weighs heavily in my mind is because I truly care about people, very deeply. I care about my friends and my family. I care about practically everyone I meet. I have never in my life been able to be truly apathetic toward someone. I want what is best for everyone, and that is what I try to do. At times I become selfish, only thinking of my own feelings, but it breaks my heart when I realize that. I don't mean to sound noble, only to show what is in my heart. The purpose of all of this is to achieve authenticity--to be truly me.

Misery loves company

2011-10-01T03:16:00.001-04:00

I've noticed, particularly over the past month or so, that people are much more eager and willing to share an opinion when it is opposite of those voiced by other people. I find this an intriguing feature of human nature. Why is it that we rush to tell someone "I think you're wrong." and we refrain from saying "I think you're right."? To illustrate what I mean by this, I'll summarize several of my Facebook wall posts, with the number of comments for each. I'll split them into two categories: those that I feel are controversial in nature (that invite argument) and those that are peaceful, or that are meant to inspire happy feelings.

Controversial posts:

Mormon doctrine on interracial marriage: 56 comments
Homosexuality is natural: 59 comments
Ron Paul on the Daily Show: 0 comments (an outlier)
Dallin Oaks' relationship with John Eastman (newly appointed chair of NOM): 10 comments
Psychology of belief: 9 comments
God says homosexuality isn't sin: 10 comments
Mormon bishop resigns his membership: 72 comments

Average for this category: 31 comments, without outlier: 36 comments

Happy/peaceful posts:

Think for yourself: 0 comments
Memoriam for fallen LGBT people: 0 comments
Commentary on traffic court: 8 comments
Christian nations should take care of their citizens: 2 comments
You Can Make the Pathway Bright: 1 comment
Vigil for Jaymey Rodemeyer: 1 comment
A man seeking validation from his father: 3 comments
DADT repealed: 19 comments (outlier)
Bryan Regan comedy sketch: 3 comments
Comic interpretation of Lady Gaga's song Hair: 0 comments
Japanese expression of happiness: 4 comments
Come Thou Fount: 5 comments
Plea for compassion: 3 comments
Mitt Romney jokes: 6 comments
"There is beauty all around": 4 comments

Average for this category: 4 comments, without outlier: 3 comments

Obviously I didn't include every post on my wall. I only counted posts that I made, and only those that I felt were clearly controversial or peaceful/happy. Those that I felt were neutral I excluded. But, the data is staggering. From this sample, people are 12 times more likely to disagree with someone than to agree with them. Why is that? What makes us so eager to disagree and so slow to agree?

Personally, I know that I like being right. So if someone says something contrary to what I think is right I feel like I have an obligation to disagree. Sometimes this is because I want to show off my superior knowledge. (Fortunately, I've outgrown most of that childish tendency.) Sometimes I sincerely feel like the information will benefit the person I feel needs the correction. I try to keep my corrections to those that I feel will benefit the hearer of said correction. Sometimes I just can't see how anyone would disagree with my opinion and that if I just say it right then surely people will come around to my way of thinking. At any rate, there are lots of reasons that I argue with people, lots of reasons that I feel a need to contradict people or to debate an issue.

On the other hand, I have often felt a desire to say something like "You know, you're right." or "That's an excellent idea." to someone and have felt strange inhibitions in doing so. For example, I might think that saying something like that would be too sappy and don't want to come across as insincere. Sometimes it requires too much humility. Many times I figure "What's the point of saying anything--they already agree with me." (Or, alternatively, that they already know the "right" answer.)

So, what's the best thing to do? I'm an optimist. I am a positive person. I like being positive. I like having a smile on my face and a bright outlook on life. I like thinking the best of people rather than seeing their faults. I like making people happy. As you can see, the number of posts on my wall of a pleasant (or at least diplomatic) nature outweighs the number of critical/controversial posts at least 2-to-1. (I took the same exact time frame for both categories in this sample.) Also, if I were to go through all of the comments I have made on other people's posts, I would be surprised if more than one in five was a non-positive comment. I sincerely do like spreading cheer. So why don't I do it more often? I don't know. I'm not sure what holds me back, but I've been working on that for several years now. I used to find it extremely difficult to compliment people. I used to have all sorts of excuses to keep me from saying all of the happy thoughts that would pop up in my head. "It's not normal to be happy" or "They'll think you're mocking them" etc. I'm doing much better at ignoring these silly voices.

I've also noticed that negative things tend to stand out far more than positive things. For example, as seen above, less than one third of my posts have been of a negative nature over the last month, and yet I have people who tell me that all I ever post is negative things. I also had someone recently make a comment to that effect on my blog. Just a week or so ago, I had a cousin email me with a very kind and loving (and long) message. Rather than focusing on the many happy, wonderful things that she said, I picked out the one thing in the message that I found affronting and I focused on that, giving her a very negative reply. Why is it that we tend to notice these negative things more than the positive ones? Are we really so eager to have other people disagree with or offend us that we actually look for excuses to disagree or be offended? Do we all walk around with a chip on our shoulders? And how to we break free from this seemingly compulsive tendency that we have to argue and focus on negative things?

Stript, wounded, beaten nigh to death,
I found him by the highway side.
I roused his pulse, brought back his breath,
Revived his spirit, and supplied
Wine, oil, refreshment—he was healed.
I had myself a wound concealed,
But from that hour forgot the smart,
And peace bound up my broken heart.
-"A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief", LDS Hymn #29 words by James Montgomery

Abomination

2011-10-01T01:33:00.000-04:00

I just found this on Facebook. The story I encountered said that this letter was written to Dr. Laura Schlessinger after she stated on her talk show that homosexuality is an abomination, according to the Bible. You can read more about the backstory here. Whether someone actually sent this as a letter to Dr. Laura or not, I do think these are very valid points to bring up. It raises the very valid question of what parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally and which ones should be interpreted more loosely.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination .... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan, James M Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)

Homosexuality vs Religion: A false dichotomy

2011-09-29T11:51:00.001-04:00

All too often, the debate concerning homosexuality (homosexual orientation, homosexual behavior, gay marriage, etc) is seen as that of being religion vs homosexuality. This is in fact a false dichotomy. Yes, there are several major religions who have waged war on homosexuality for some time now. However, in many cases this is a one-way battle: there are gay people who are not only unwilling to fight against religion, but in fact are very religious themselves. There are many churches now that are "gay-friendly" churches, who openly accept gay people. (And I don't mean in the way the LDS church "accepts" gay people, which is that they accept them but tell them they need to refrain from homosexual conduct. I mean, they allow gay people to be themselves--to have relationships and express love.) There are also churches which market to gay people, that have gay clergy and preach gay sermons.

Why is this significant? There are altogether too many people who believe that homosexual people have no morals, are unrepentant sinners, and don't feel any desire to be close to God. This is simply not true. While some gay people do feel that way, not all gay people do. Just like straight people, there are gays who like religion and there are gays that are also atheists.

Another reason this is significant is because one of the arguments used to fight against civil rights for gay people is that of religious freedom. Churches, such as the LDS church, claim that their religious freedoms are being violated when society accepts homosexuals and homosexuality. They also make the extremely false claim that if gay marriage was legalized then all churches would be required to perform them. At any rate, the point is that these churches do not speak for all churches in America. While there are several large churches who oppose gay marriage, there are also churches that wish to be able to perform gay marriages in their church. Therefore, banning gay marriage infringes on the religious rights of these churches. So, the people who are claiming to fight for religious freedom are in fact merely oppressing it.

I do not wish to belong to any particular religion, since I do not believe any of them are correct. However, I have no ire toward religion. I have no motive to call for a nation-wide ban on religion (as some churches have called for in regards to gay marriage). I do not feel as though I am at odds with religion in general or with any particular religion. I feel perfectly comfortable co-existing with religious people. And the main point is that there are religions who fully embrace homosexuality and there are homosexuals that fully embrace religion. So, I don't think the debate on gay rights should be about "religion vs homosexuality". Let's get down to the real issue at hand.

Do you still love me?

2011-09-21T09:25:00.002-04:00

This is the most recent in a series of videos where this innocent, loving man comes out of the closet. Since he is actively serving in the military, he couldn't come out completely until yesterday, when DADT was finally repealed. So, all of his previous videos show nothing above his chin, nor does he disclose his identity. But, as you watch the videos, you can tell how much he really wants to be out--to be honest with people (especially his family, as seen in this video) about these beautiful feelings that he's been having his whole life.

When I watched this video, I couldn't help but cry, seeing how dearly this son loves his father and needs to know that his father loves him too, regardless of his sexual orientation. You can tell that it's very difficult for him to disclose this information to a man that means so much in his life. You can see the fear in his eyes, his demeanor, and his voice--the fear of being misunderstood or causing his father to be disappointed in him. What tender emotions this man feels, and how brave of him to share it with the world.

This is the very reason why I so detest all of the sentiment going around about homosexual behavior (or even homosexual people themselves) being evil. How can something so beautiful and innocent be evil? How can something so natural and fulfilling be a bad thing? And how can people who spread such falsehoods claim to be doing so out of love, and in the name of God? It is beyond me.

I am so proud of this dad--how gently he handled the situation. You can tell that this father truly loves his son--not just because he said that his son's sexual orientation had no effect on their relationship, but because he showed that he actually cares about his son's feelings. He could tell that it was hard for his son to bring this topic up. He was able to reassure his son that he really does love him, even though he's gay. It's obvious that what this son really needed was a hug from his father, and it's equally obvious that if the conversation had been done in person rather than over the phone, the hug would have been given and that it would have been sincere and heartfelt.

When you have a friend, son, cousin, neighbor, sister, etc tell you that they are gay and ask for validation that you still love them the same, be like this man's loving father. Understand the fear and angst in their heart. Understand their need to be loved and validated. You don't have to recite to them your religious convictions. You don't have to express disappointment in them. Know that they are just being honest with you and want you to know what is in their heart. Be gentle and loving in all that you do.