posted by Curt, on November 7, 2008 08:09 pm

Apparently a thousand or so people gathered outside of Temple Square this evening to protest the LDS Church's involvement in Proposition 8 in California. For those who may not be familiar with it, Proposition 8 was the referendum to amend the California constitution and define marriage as the union between one man and one woman, in the wake of the California Supreme Court's invalidation of the state's Defense of Marriage Act. The LDS Church urged its members to support the amendment, and support it they did--to the tune of countless hours donated labor and $20 million dollars donations. Against all initial expectations, Proposition 8 passed; the gay community in California and the United States was stunned by its failure. And they were plenty angry at the LDS Church.

Now they are preparing another legal challenge (to invalidate the amendment on procedural grounds) and protesting outside of LDS Temples (so far in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City). Objections to the LDS Church's involvement run the gamut from pure disagreement on the merits to concerns about church-state relations, tax exempt status, and downright hypocrisy (given the Church's history of persecution and alternative marriage practice).

And now the Proposition 8 opponents are trying to . . . what, exactly? Make the Church pay with bad publicity for its support of Proposition 8? I really don't get the idea of these protests. And I don't get the reason they are targeted specifically at the LDS Church. What exactly is accomplished by standing outside with signs and yelling, besides interfering with people who want to go on with their normal lives. Perhaps it's therapeutic, but certainly no more so than a gay pride parade. In cases where the organization is likely to be swayed by a display of popular uprising against their position, a protest may also make sense as a means of persuasion on the merits--but clearly that not what these protesters are driving at here.

The only think I can think is that they are mad at the church and they are trying to shame or embarrass it in the eyes of everyone else--either that or trying to threaten it in an attempt to prevent it from "sticking its nose into other people's business" ever again.

The members of the church exercised their rights to vote and support a cause. Usually, when people do this, others on the losing side of a political issue don't line up outside their homes and protest. And that's a good thing. It shows respect for the opposing viewpoint and an acknowledgment that the democratic process has worked. I am almost certain, had Proposition 8 failed, that LDS Church members would not be protesting outside the offices of the ACLU or the "No on 8" campaign headquarters--despite the ridiculous so-called "Mormon Missionary" commercial. But, the issue came out the other way, and the LDS Church is being targeted for it.

Don't get me wrong. Everyone has the right to speak and protest. No person or organization who speaks out on an issue should expect to be immune from criticism of their position. But I'm calling this one as ridiculous. The opponents of Proposition 8 need to make their case to the California people not the LDS Church. And if the best way they can think of to do that is to trying and publicly shame the church, well . . . let's just say they that maybe they won't be as successful as soon as I thought they would.

posted by Curt, on July 13, 2008 04:30 pm

It's been a long time since I've posted one of these "influences" posts. This one was prompted by a paper written by a law school friend on Patrick Henry, national power, and the War Powers Resolution. His paper wasn't focused on Henry's well-known speech (which follows below). Instead, it focused on his arguments about the danger of consolidation of power, and suggested that they remained a good guide for us today. Essentially, he argued that the Anti-Federalists and their arguments shouldn't be consigned to history simply because they lost the battle over the ratification of the Constitution. I agree. But, this post is more about Henry's speech than the Anti-Federalists, because it has influenced me ever since I was a kid and my mom read to us about Patrick Henry in a bedtime story. That's how I fell asleep for quite a few years--to biographies of famous historical figures, and I'll be ever grateful for it.

In any event here's Patrick Henry's speech. My commentary follows:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them?

Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

With due respect to both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and even Lincoln, I doubt there is any other piece of American political rhetoric more inspiring. And it's been adopted as part of the American psyche.

But what does it really mean for America and Americans? Many look at our country today and would say that we have chosen life and peace over freedom and liberty. Granite countertops, big trucks, walk-in closets, fast food, and conspicuous consumption seem much more the vision and goals of the American future than does liberty. Perhaps, then, the words of Patrick Henry have become yet one more part of the vast list of contradictions between the way Americans view themselves and the way they actually are. Maybe there is little spirit left in our country, especially as compared to 1776, 1861, or 1941.

I actually don't think that is the case. If Americans of the past were always willing to make the difficult choice of liberty over security, why was there a need for Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine? The reality of our history seems to be that we always need a bit of prodding to take on the difficult tasks that must be completed to secure the liberty and unity of our nation. In other words, we don't like to make the choice between liberty and security until we're really forced to. That to me, seems to be the reality of the American experience. In 1776, 1861, and 1941, no less than today, Americans needed some prodding before they were willing to stand up and save the Union and preserve their liberties. And, in significant ways, it was rhetoric that called to memory America's vision of itself that moved Americans to action. It strikes me that one of the things that Patrick Henry's speech stands for is Americans' susceptibility to ideas--big ideas about the fact that they are still engaged in the cause for which their forefathers immigrated, fought, and worked. And when there is a combination of exigency and a person with the passion and skill to call those ideas to the forefront of America's mind and heart, we still respond in largely the same way that we did back in 1776. At such times, when we are forced to see the whole picture, to "know the worst," as Henry put it, we respond with our best. I have hope that it will continue. Simply because we're not convinced that it will doesn't mean that it won't. Not even Henry knew how those listening to him would respond to the challenge he issued. He couldn't know, and neither can we. But he had faith, as do I, that, when the challenged is issued in a way that Americans respond to, it will be met by the best that America can give.

So, Henry's speech is moving to me, both as a statement of what I believe and a statement about my country--about its virtues and faults. So much for my patriotic posting. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

posted by Curt, on March 25, 2008 05:42 am

Ever since first hearing a poem written by President Hinckley recited and sung at his funeral, it's been on my mind. Some recent events have made me think about it even more. It really is a beautiful sentiment. Here it is, titled, What is this thing that men call death:

What is this thing that men call death,
This quiet passing in the night?
'Tis not the end, but genesis
Of better worlds and greater light.

O God, touch thou my aching heart,
And calm my troubled, haunting fears.
Let hope and faith, transcendent, pure,
Give strength and peace beyond my tears.

There is no death, but only change,
With recompense for vict'ry won.
The gift of him who loved all men,
The Son of God, the Holy One.

As of March 25, you could still get a free download of the poem put to music by Janice Kapp Perry here. Please enjoy.

posted by Curt Bentley, on November 20, 2007 10:23 am

All the major news organizations are reporting on a stem cell research breakthrough the has the potential to ease the controversy over embryonic stem cell research. Although one should be cautious how much stock one puts in a CNN or MSNBC scientific report, it does provide some reason for optimism. Apparently, the breakthrough involves scientists being able to make ordinary human skin cells take on some of the properties of embryonic stem cells. This is good news for everyone.

I wonder whether or not this research would have ever been done without the opposition that religious leaders have advanced against the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. While those of us who have opposed the use have been accused of of being complicit in the deaths of thousands of suffering individuals, perhaps we have, in reality, been able to spur researchers to a solution that is more morally acceptable to both sides, and respects life at all levels. If the opposition had just rolled over and played dead, there's a good chance that we would have just gone on using embryonic stem cells without ever questioning as to whether there was another way.

Just something to think about.

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 16, 2007 08:10 am

Now, Mitt Romney has some problems as a presidential candidate -- foremost among them an inability to seem sincere about almost anything -- but I don't think any thinking person can say that his marriage is one of his liabilities. Among the Republican candidates, he is the only one who hasn't been divorced. That's why this article is so interesting. Apparently, in a poll of women ranking the candidates based on which is the most happily married, the Romney's came in 6th -- behind both the Giullianis and the Clintons. That just blows me away. While it's certainly reasonable, and likely realistic, to assume that the Romneys' marriage isn't as perfect as they make it seem, there's no reason to conclude that it's not very strong and happy.

I think people have generally been fair to Mitt Romney . . . questioning his religion is to be expected since he's not from one of the more mainstream American denominations (this coming from a Mormon), and certainly he has all the appearances of a flip-flopper. But questioning his marriage as "too perfect," when he's demonstrated his commitment and love for his wife by (1) remaining married to her, (2) being faithful to her, (3) helping her with her battle against MS, and (4) by always appearing very much in love with her seems to be a little ridiculous and somewhat unfair.

Then again, readers of the Ladies Home Journal can't be accused of being the most critical people in the world . . . .

posted by curt, on October 10, 2007 09:56 pm

I really enjoy listening to the song that is the background for the law school's recruiting video. The title of the song is actually My Home Beloved.

posted by Curt, on October 8, 2007 08:11 am

Another General Conference has come and gone. It seems like it happens faster every year. I really enjoyed Conference, of course (even though I must admit to falling asleep during the Sunday Morning Session). I really enjoyed the talks of my usual favorites--Elder Holland, Elder Eyring, Elder Bednar, and Elder Oaks. I also enjoyed Elder Cook's, Elder Scott's and Elder Hallstrom's talk. I thought that the most poignant moment in the conference was when Elder Wirthlin struggled to finish his talk and Elder Nelson came to help him through it. As far as themes are conerned, I noticed quite a bit of caution against procrastination--especially in Priesthood Session. I also remember feeling that there was quite a bit of focus on being born again. Of course, until I go back and read through the conference talks, I can never be sure whether my characterization of themes is accurate, or just based on the strength of my feelings relating to one particular message.

In any event, it was a great conference weekend and strengthened my resolve to be a little better. Now, it's back to the contention of the law :).

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 6, 2007 03:30 pm

Check out this site I found when performing a google search for BYU Devotional talks: http://ldsapostlesighting.com. Does this seem a little crazy to anyone but me? It reminds of the time when Elder Oaks visited my mission in Johannesburg, and our Mission President had to remind the missionary that Elder Oaks was not a celebrity appearing for a photo-op. I suppose it might be nice to know where the general authorities are speaking so you could travel around and here them . . . but isn't one reason we have a decentralized church leadership so individuals can take counsel from neighborhood leaders who are personally acquainted with them and their situation? A site like this seems to just undermine this goal.

posted by Curt, on October 4, 2007 09:47 pm

Apparently, the standings in the third-quarter fundraising race for Republican Presidential candidates went like this: Guilliani ($11 million), Romney ($10 million), Thompson ($9.3 million), and McCain ($6 million). Don't those seem like smaller numbers than what we were hearing before? I don't know if the prior numbers were computer over the same period, but I seem to recall numbers close to, or over, $20 million for pretty much all the major candidates that I had heard of before. It also doesn't seem to compare well with the numbers that I heard from the Clinton and Obama campaigns earlier this week.

Maybe people are getting tired of shelling out their money. Is this a general "donor fatigue," or just a Republican thing. Whenever I think about the current state of the Republican Party I feel fatigued as well. I'm not sure how much of my money I would spend on a sinking ship. Still, I think the Republican candidate has a slim chance this election . . . and that speaks volumes about the weakness of the Democratic field of candidates as well. As much as us social conservatives might not want to admit it, Guilliani might be our best bet, just like Hannity says (the even more painful admission is that Hannity is right correct).

posted by Curt Bentley, on September 20, 2007 08:53 pm

President Hinckley gave a great talk on Tuesday at a BYU Devotional. He used an image of an imploding building to describe what happens to the life of a person who indulges in sin. The best part about his image was that, just as an imploded building can be reconstructed or replaced, so can the life of an individual who has sinned to the point of destroying his or her life. Rather remakrable, really. Here is a brief quote:

We believe in being chaste. I observed a very interesting thing the other day. In Salt Lake City, early on a Saturday morning, the Key Bank building was brought down with a series of well-placed detonations. It all happened in three or four seconds, with a great cloud of dust that rolled to the northwest. The process is called an implosion, in contrast with an explosion.

The building was constructed nearly 30 years ago. I suppose construction extended over a period of at least a year, maybe two. Now it was gone in seconds.

That, my friends, is the story of so many lives. We nurture them ever so carefully over a period of years. Then we find ourselves in highly charged circumstances. Mistakes are made. Chastity is compromised. There is an implosion, and a ball of dust is all that is left.

I was reminded of this when I recalled a young man and a young woman who came to my office. He was a handsome boy and she was a beautiful girl. They were university students. Their future looked bright and beautiful. But they gave in to temptation. Now they were going to have a baby. Their dreams of the future literally collapsed. They would be married. He would work at a low-paying job with the meager skills that he had.

Tears filled their eyes as they talked with me. But there was no escape from the reality that faced them. Their lives had suffered an implosion, and a tower of dreams had come tumbling down.

Do not let this happen to you. Do not sell yourself short by compromising your commitment to morality. You are, each one of you, children of a divine Father in Heaven. You were created after His design in the image of your Creator. Your body is sacred. It is the temple of your spirit. Do not defile it with sin.

Now, hearkening back to the illustration of the tower that collapsed, I remind you that in its place will be constructed a new and beautiful building. Similarly, those who have transgressed can turn to their Redeemer, our Savior Jesus Christ, and, through the power of His Atonement, be made clean and new again. The Lord has said, “Be faithful . . . ; succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees” (D&C 81:5).

Understand that you are being chased. Satan is chasing after you, and you had better run as fast as ever you can.