All around, I see people breaking laws or otherwise causing harm to others. I am not talking about things like theft or speeding (ok, I see tons of speeding, but that is a different matter). I am talking about things like doctors forcing or cajoling their patients into accepting treatments that are not in their best interest. I am talking about housing providers ignoring laws requiring them to keep housing suitable for their tenants. I am also talking about businesses cheating their employees deliberately or due to ignorance. These things bother me. I have a policy of social intolerance of bad behavior, but most LDS people seem to think that it is better to sacrifice their freedoms than to do something that could be construed as uncivil or otherwise not getting along with others. The LDS religion teaches tolerance of the beliefs of others, but many act as if they believe this means they should tolerate harmful or illegal actions against them by others. If you are LDS, let me correct your thoughts on this. If you are not, feel free to consider what I am about to present anyway.
The LDS book of scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants (often abbreviated D&C) contains the following verse (D&C 134:11):
We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.Note that the first part says "We believe that men should..." It does not say "can," "may," or even "are justified in." It says "should." This is Church doctrine. While it is not explicitly worded as a commandment ("thou shalt"), it does use very similar wording ("shalt" and "should" are conjugations of the same root). Now, I want to be clear here. This is not just about getting what you are legally entitled to. It goes much further than this. If you read the rest of section 134, you will find more Church doctrine stating that members of the LDS Church (well, and everyone else) have a responsibility to uphold the just laws of the land in part by turning in people who break it. Again, this is not just about getting what you are legally entitled to. This is about enforcement of the law in general. If you are mistreated by a doctor, and you choose not to take legal action against that doctor, you are allowing that doctor to mistreat others by your inaction. If you choose not enforce laws requiring your landlord to keep your home or apartment rental in livable conditions, you are potentially allowing others to come to harm by your inaction. If you do not report an employer who is cheating you out of overtime pay or who is otherwise cheating or harming you, you are allowing that employer to cheat or harm other employees. Some of these people who are coming to harm because of your inaction may not even realize that they are being treated in a way that is prohibited by the law.
While I have found no LDS scripture stating this, in my personal opinion, when a person deliberately chooses to allow illegal or harmful behavior to continue, that person becomes complicit in that illegal behavior. While the law is unlikely to prosecute if the behavior is ever reported by someone else, I believe that God will hold you accountable for harm that happens because you are too lazy or fearful to do your civil duty as stated in the above mentioned scripture.
Here I would like to admit that I am not perfect. I have been in a few circumstances where I chose not to press charges against a doctor or a landlord, where, according to this scripture, I should have. In both cases, I did not want to cause contention. In hindsight, I should have. That doctor has probably caused emotional harm to multiple patients since then, which I could have prevented. I feel bad, and justifiably so, that I did nothing to prevent that harm. Since then, however, I have made some better choices. Long ago I mentioned this, but I will mention it again. I once gained knowledge of a labor law violation involving a minor. Even though I was not directly impacted by the violation, I chose to report it. The employer was raided by the labor department, and evidence of the violation was found. Fines were given (I do not know how much, but fines for minor violations can get into the tens of thousands, and the violation occurred multiple times). That employer will likely never make that mistake again. I am almost certain the employee who was harmed will never have that happen again with that employer either. My action may have hurt one employer (who earned the harm), but it saved a lot of innocent employees from harm. Also, by reporting the violation, I strengthened the law. If violations of the law are never reported, it is almost as if the law does not exist. By reporting a violation, I made it clear to those violating the law that they cannot get away with breaking the law without consequences. A law that is not enforced is worth very little and does almost nothing to protect anyone, but a law that is enforced justly serves its purpose well. My actions helped a law to be enforced that otherwise would have been useless (in that particular case).
Anyhow, any LDS person who believes that convenience and peace are more valuable than enforcing the law is a hypocrite. Besides the above scripture, there are many LDS scriptures stating that even killing is justified when it is in defense of yourself, your family, your friends, your property, or your rights and freedoms. Maybe the U.S. is a sue-happy nation where too many frivolous lawsuits occur. Choosing not to press charges when lawsuits are justified will not improve the situation, and in fact, this act of giving up your legal rights and protections will actually make it worse for everyone.
I did not want to make the article longer by getting into this, but I want to share it here.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1044221/utah-school-asks-breastfeeding-mom-to-cover-up
Breastfeeding in public is sort of a hot topic right now. In the U.S., breastfeeding is a legally protected activity. What this means is that a mother can breastfeed a child anywhere the mother is legally allowed to be. It also means that there are no restrictions on how the child is breastfed. Specifically, a mother could remove her shirt entirely, going completely topless, and breastfeed her child while completely exposed. It also means that a woman can expose her breasts to pump or even hand express milk to feed her child. While most women prefer to use some kind of cover, breastfeeding with or without a cover is protected by law. This means that it is illegal to tell a breastfeeding mother to cover up.
My wife was recently informed of the situation discussed in the above mentioned article, by people connected with the incident. I suggested she tell the woman to send a copy of the letter to the school board and threaten legal recourse if the situation was not immediately handled. (Acting on this threat would have caused significant reputation damage to the school board in question. If you think I am mistaken: http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1031089/deltas-breastfeeding-policy-on-twitter-creates-uproar) Instead, the woman did something far more effective. She held what amounts to a nursing party in the school cafeteria (she reported that some women were nursing entirely exposed). This resulted in substantial media coverage, which not only has helped to make sure that breastfeeding laws will be followed better in the future, but also damaged the reputation of the principal who wrote the illegal letter.
The point of this is that enforcing our rights is necessary to preserve them. Even though it is a legally protected right to breastfeed, covered or not, people are acting as if it is not a right. Many women are shamed into covering up or even bottle feeding (which is nowhere near as beneficial as breastfeeding) by those who doubt their right to feed their child properly. The result of not consistently exercising this right is that it has almost been lost. Now, women are being forced to make a big deal about breastfeeding uncovered, and in some cases, they are even forced to take legal action. If legal action had been taken the first time someone tried to shame or force a woman into covering up or ceasing to breastfeed (after the protective laws were enacted), and every time after that, this right would be well understood by everyone. Sadly, I hear at least one report a month about someone trying to bully a breastfeeding woman into covering up or stopping. (And, if you are one of the people who feel like covering up should not be that hard, go back up and read the article about Delta Airlines. Some babies will not breastfeed when covered.)
Interesting side note: Back more than 50 or 60 years, breastfeeding uncovered was not uncommon. Around the time breasts started being hypersexualized by the media, breastfeeding uncovered got a lot less popular and became taboo in public (in part, doctors of the era mistakenly recommending formula as healthier than breastfeeding are to blame, as this caused a general reduction in breastfeeding). If many women start breastfeeding uncovered, breasts will loose some of they hypersexualization as people start to remember what they are really for (in case you did not know, they are for feeding babies). This could make advertisements and media that focus on breasts less effective. In conclusion, it is probably not in the best interest of the media that bare breastfeeding become as common as it used to be. For everyone else, breastfeeding is the healthiest way to feed your baby, physically as well as emotionally. Any restrictions on this activity will ultimately harm tiny, innocent, helpless babies and their mothers.