Unfettered Blather

Now that inevitable has happened and Mitt Romney has dropped out of the race for president, I can finally talk about one of the main problems that caused his demise.

The Mormon issue has received a lot of press and the discussion about the beliefs of those affiliated with the Latter Day Saints, especially in the early stages of the campaign. While many were cautious about his chances, some claimed the issue was not of particular importance. They were simply wrong.

My stance on Mormonism is one of practical indifference . I view it as simply another religious belief system in a wide and varied culture. I have a Mormon friend and I respect his views on a great many issues. Much like any person of faith, I view each person as an individual and if they seem to be making an effort to be a good and genuine person in their daily lives I can respect that. When elections come in to play, this simply isn’t enough to a mass audience.

Mitt Romney, as most Mormons are from personal experience, keep many of their more sacred and essential tenants of their faith secret. I have received many explanations for this but in the end this does nothing to remove the myth and stereotype associated with the faith and most Mormons don’t seem overly concerned by this. This is a big problem. How people view religion, for or against is one of the biggest aspect of their personality to those around them. It tells us where they view themselves, the world and what motivates many of their actions. Religion is incredibly powerful, it can motivate immense self-sacrifice and breed the most vicious hatred .

Mitt Romney’s approach was to “focus” on the similarities between Christians and Mormons and to blend their ethical/moral value systems together in an attempt to show the two parties aren’t very different from each other. None of this actually dispels or answers any of the questions and concerns people have, be it born of reason or urban legend. Romney redirected many of the comments. People know when they are being given indirect or coy answers.

It is time for the Mormon community to open itself up to public scrutiny and face the questions and criticisms every faith must bear. Faith is incredibly important to people in their public officials, and having one simply refuse to discuss or contextualize their belief system on a fundamental level is political suicide. What motivates your decisions? How are women seen in the Mormon faith? What about the issue of multiple wives? These are questions everyone has asked and have a right to know if someone is going to represent them. To be honest, many people don’t know the answers. I don’t belive Mitt Romney’s place was to educate the public on his faith or debate it’s fine points, but telling people that one of the most powerful and important driving forces in your life is not up for discussion is unacceptable.

People assume, usually the worst, but they also need to feel comfortable. There are lots of assumptions about the Catholic faith but people are comfortable with it due to time and exposure, something most have not received from Mormonism.

Public office is a life with no secrets, even more than the lives of celebrities. I am amazed politicians feel they can keep the details of their pasts, businesses deals and family matters a secret in a position that demands transparency. We are almost too demanding of transparency, valid or not however, this is the name of the game we are in.

Mormonism openly admits that aspects of their faith are off limits to outsiders and I noted some Mormon comentators were nervous abotu how far Romney would go in his revelations. How can one be trusted when they are told they aren’t allowed to understand their motives? That isn’t something people embrace. This is one thing for casual interactions, faith is personal, but once you ask that person to make laws and vote for you based on their value system you truly need to know if they reflect yours.

I believe many people are uneasy about Romney’s faith but due to the climate of acceptance we have in society, simply refused to voice their concern for fear of being labeled a bigot or insensitive. I have encountered many who scoffed at his attempts to sideline the issue.

Every faith must be tested by scrutiny in the public circle. Mormonism is too insular and this damages them in the public arena. If any belief system, religious or otherwise is to grow and flourish it has to cast aside such secrecy, show the debates it carries on internally and what it’s shared vision is for those around them. To use an extreme but logical example, we are living in a post Jim Jones era and this has become part of the cultural mindset when viewing religion. Transparency is no longer optional if you wish to take part in the shaping of your country.

Perhaps an uninspired topic title for such a broad and human topic, but simplification is the point of my thoughts.

Human behavior towards sexuallity is easily one of the biggest areas of social reaction and behavior we can observe on any given day. We hear jokes about it, see billboards, overhear people in lunch lines and watch television programs filled with sexual references, some in the form of advertising, others based in personal concern, needs for guidance or curiosity. Sex literally fills our world in ways most people simply fail to appreciate on a basic level. The Zoey 411 post in the very blog is an example of how sex creates issues to multiple planes of discussion.

Human beings are driven by the fundamentals, sex is one of those but the issue unlike many others is charged with prequalifiers and long-standing debates.

I’ve been a Christian all my life and like most have had my faith challenged and aside from being rasied in thefaith, I came to my own individual conclusions on why I believe. Faith without conviction is meaningless, I discovered, reasearched and discussed until I realized what I felt was the correct path in believing. Being in the greater Christian community I’ve come to observe the behavior and reactions to sexuallity from multiple standpoints. My family has been involved in some activities most diehards of the faith would consider quite scandalous. My cousin became pregnant out of wedlock, my one uncle has issues with pornography. All of this and the reactions from my family has helped me to understand and reconcile the human and the spiritual being.

That being said, I’ve taken a great interest in the opposing viewpoints on sex, sex education and the nearly constant sale of sex to consumers and teens because of it’s (to them) still mysterious allure.

Sex to me is combination of passion, biological drives and a expression of love between two people. Honestly, neither side of the debates on sex really have it right or understand the issue to me. Given sex has been around since the beginning of time, I’m a tad surprised we haven’t come to a great appreciation of understanding of it as an intergral and complex system. Sex is akin to politics, even if someone gets close to concensus, there is usually some issue that causes the common ground to be cast aside.

I think the wider Christian community needs to take a deep breath and calm down about sex as a whole. I’ve seen the various approaches and heard many stories. My great uncle told me one where he was threatened as a child to have his mouth washed with soap for saying the word “pregnant” in front of company. This type of behavior (even in the past) does little to convince people we are not a religion of prudes who shame even appropriate acts of sexuallity. My grandmother is still uneasy by the way women these days display their pregnancies . Is a child not a blessing of God? Apparently some cannot see past the act of physical contact used to create said blessing.

Innocence is a term that has far too much importance and is often as misunderstood as the word meek. I believe small children are innocent in such matters, I know in my teens that innocence was long gone. What many fail to appreciate is a healthy dose of reality burns the widely held vision of innocence away at a certain point. To many, innocent means naive. What makes a Christian strong is not being unaware of the dark side of the world, but knowing what makes their faith strong and why they should not give in whenever the urge captures them.Turust me the urge will capture you. I was given tools to work with by my family, fear and abuse of shame were not among them.

Can someone care to explain to me the dread over “the talk” with your teens? I grew up with a Catholic mother who grew up in the closed door system to sex. She never needed to have the talk with me, by the time I was a teen I knew what the essentials were. Afterall, having sex isn’t rocket science. This self-enforced sense of discomroft is growing rather trite with me and plays to a host of personal conflicts that often have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Most parents aren’t ready for their yougn adults to have sex, the kids were ready a long time ago, they’ve just been wandering in the dark due to mom and dad’s discomfort.

Did Jesus not talk to prostitutes to save them? Once more, he could identify them as such. I don’t believe this was because he had access to a higher power, Jesus was in the world but not of it afterall. Jesus knew a prostitue when he saw one. That is not the innocence so many people preach and seek.

This culture if filled with sex, its is rather tiring and lazy way to sell ideas and products this way. Still we will never be able to shelter ourselves from it because in the end we become sexual creatures as a certain stage in our life and there is a universal understanding advertisers can tap in to. The simple fact is, sex sells because everybody past puberty gets the joke or innuendo.

What we are left with is teaching our children responsibility to themselves, their faith and their community instead of fear. Too many Christians are afraid of this topic. We frankly fear teen pregnancy for all the wrong reasons. The responsibility aspect knows no faith or creed either, this is common sense.

I know of adult men who refuse too glance at women in bikinis because it is not chaste. I love and appreciate the female form, but to always associate sexuallity with lust constantly is simply silly and I find that to be absurd. To appreciate is not leering. I don’t look at the female body as a “temptation” but a thing of beauty to be appreciated. Appreciation is a world away from lust.

Sex is not “bad” , it never was and never will be. We are not going to raise balanced and capable people if we keep sending these conflicting messages. If we do not teach from a position of strength we will never create strong people with the ability to make wise decisions. Sex in culture peaks and falls, but a quick glance at history reveals people in the past were never as pure as many seem to to think, people are the same and always will be and we need a healthy dose of pragmatism when we talk about sex. Sex is as ancient as man (for obvious reasons) and someday maybe we will come to appreciate it, respect it and deal with it in ways that will solve more problems than they create. Frankly at this point to me, I think we’re doing a pretty poor job.

Does a Christian third party candidate open the door for a Clinton victory? I don’t really care, but go read the Anchoress’ post anyway because it’s good stuff.

I used to admire Dr. James Dobson. He was willing to go against conventional wisdom and politically correct driven “pop science”. Unfortunately, Dr. Dobson can’t simply stick to his specialty, which is psychiatry or psychology, hell I don’t know all those head-shrinkers look alike to me.

Regardless, the falling out of my opinion with Dr. Dobson happened when I discovered that Focus on the Family was responsible for campaigning in a number of states (like, all of them I think but I’m too lazy to Google it right now) that decided to voted and passed gay marriage bans. This is a bit of a slap in the face for me and my “I support state rights and believe gay marriage is a state level issue”. I am a Christian and a non-supporter of gay marriage, but I do stop short of making it illegal. Hey, as long as they aren’t forcing Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies under threat of lawsuit I don’t care. I also think that it is our duty as Christians to reach out to sinners, following the example that Jesus set, and not to force people to march to the beat of our drummer. At its core, Christianity is about choice. Putting our morality into law seems to go against what Christianity is about. The campaign by Focus on the Family to pass gay marriage bans does not seem very Christ-like.

That sets the stage for this latest nonsense. First of all, I don’t personally know Guiliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney, etc. any better than I know Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and so on. One thing I can honestly say about ANY of the current candidates is that they all have at least one agenda, value, or belief that goes contrary to mine. Guiliani and I disagree on abortion, Clinton and I disagree on healthcare, Obama and I disagree on the war, Edwards and I disagree on the reasonable price of a haircut. I have no problem with a third party candidate, but I have to ask “What purpose does it serve?”. If the purpose is because we don’t have a single candidate that I can find vote worthy than that’s great. If it’s because a candidate is not “Christian enough” then that is silly. What you have to ask yourself is what is more important, the country or your principles?

My principles are incredibly important to me, and I want a candidate who more or less mirrors them. I think that’s true of most Americans. However, when I step into the voting booth to cast my ballot, I don’t vote for what I think is best for me, but who is best for the country. Right now, I couldn’t tell ya’. My favorite Republican is still in the race, but my favorite Democrat has done everything they can to self-destruct, so the run off I was hoping for is no longer going to happen. Oh well, at least they did it during the primaries. I digress, the point is that even though I might disagree with a candidates values, that doesn’t make them the wrong choice. In the real world I may have to work for a boss who is not a Christian or have subordinates who are not Christians. Should we insist that the people over us, below us, and around us share the same values? I praise Focus on the Family in not using suicide bombers but regardless we cannot have that same “convert or else” mentality. This is what gets Christians compared to Muslims in the media, and while I still see a world of difference our message cannot be the same even if our methods are more legal than brutal. Do I want to have a Christian as a president? Of course I do! Will I vote for someone that Dr. Dobson claims is “not Christian enough”? Absolutely, especially if Dobson is determined to take over for Falwell, in which case his opposition to a candidate may become their best endorsement.

Major hat tip to Josh of Cathode Tan for posting the link.

So there is more to the Seattle Airport story than what was first reported. I know, I know, it’s so hard to believe that the news media reported a story without all the facts. I’m a chump for ever thinking they do.

According to this story, the original action was that the Rabbi in question was going to sue if the Seattle Airport did not put up a Menorah in addition to Christmas trees, at which point the airport figured it was safer to just not do anything rather than face further accusations of exclusion.

I’m not sure if this is really any better to tell the truth. Again, the Christmas tree is not a Christian symbol, nor is it associated in any way with the Christian religion other than having the name “Christmas” attached to it. Then again, is Christian Slater a Christian because of his name?

If the airport had Nativity scenes then I could understand. The Christmas tree is a nice neutral symbol of the holidays. Traditionally it is put up the day after Thanksgiving and taken down sometime before New Years. I still think the Rabbi was being a putz about the whole thing, and bringing forth a lawsuit was just outright wrong. I think threatening to sue to get your way is pretty low. He still has a valuable lesson to learn in this situation.

On the other hand, I am miffed that the facts of this incident were so badly jumbled by the press.

Seattle Airport removes Christmas trees after Rabbi complains

It’s not a joke, it’s for real. In order not to offend anyone, the Seattle Airport has removed all of its Christmas trees.

What stuns me is that the person who complained is a Rabbi. I would think if anyone understood the importance of tolerance, especially in the context of reaching out to others, it would be a Rabbi.

I continue to be amazed by people who want respect and tolerance for their beliefs, but can’t do the same for others. A large part of the US population celebrates Christmas, even though many who celebrate don’t really go to church on a regular basis or only nominally acknowledge the presence of God. Even I, a practicing Christian, tend to think of this holiday beyond it’s original Christian origins. The Christmas tree is not even a Christian symbol, though there have been those that have tried to rationalize it as such.

Congratulations, Rabbi, for adding fuel to an already stoked anti-Semitic fire and also keeping to the status quo for intolerance.