Throughout history, religion has played a major role in how people act. In many cases, religion is better at controlling how people act than law is. Historically, many nations that recognized this co-opted religion as an additional method of control, creating or adopting state religions that encouraged people to act how the government wanted them to. Religion has always been more personal than government though. Even within one religion, members understand doctrines differently from one another. Because religion is about personal belief, it should not be forced on someone, and as the American Revolution approached, this started to become far more obvious. This fact was ultimately one of the driving factors in that revolution. If you ignore the aspect of personal belief though, you may notice that religion has a lot in common with government.
First, to be completely blunt, religions are governments. They are not secular governments, but they do govern their members. The most important difference between religion and secular government is free will, and this is why government and religions have no business being legally connected. When a state religion is created, it becomes an arm of the government, and the free will that makes religions what they are is lost. This even applies to nations that adopt atheism as the state religion, banning any other religions. As micro governments, religions actually play some very useful roles.
Religions have some power over the behavior of their members. Now, some people perceive this as a bad thing, but it is not actually. The reason is that participation is entirely voluntary. Where religion is free from the influence of secular government, it encourages people to be civilized of their own free will. Religions to do wield legal power to punish their members in any universally meaningful way. They might excommunicate members who do not follow the tenants of the religion, but in most cases, members who are expelled from a religion have shown either through their words or actions that they do not actually believe the doctrine of that religion (there are occasional exceptions), and thus, no serious harm is done to them. Religions are more or less social institutions that impose social rules and punish deviation through entirely social means. People are free to choose their social rules by choosing which religion they are a member of. This is unique, because people have little power over their secular government beyond relocating to the realm of a different government. Even in a democratic government, those who do not agree with the majority have little control over how they are governed. When religion is free, each person can choose his or her own social rules, and if there is not a religion that fits, it is always possible to create a new one. Overall, religions help keep civilization civilized, and more effectively than government can.
Religions act as an additional check and balance to secular government. Religions help unify people. Groups of people who choose to have similar beliefs is far more united than the people of a nation that is forced to follow only one religion. Religions can unite against unjust government actions. Religions can help encourage political dialog that can drive positive change. Religions give the people more power and ability to unite against the government when necessary (religions even played an integral role in starting the American Revolution). When governments choose to work with religions, the voice of the people can be better heard by the government, without the need for the people to unite against the government. Viewed as independent governing entities who represent their followers, religions can work with secular governments to enhance communication between the government and the people it represents.
Religions also tend to be better at social welfare than governments. Because religions cannot impose mandatory taxes, they are limited to the voluntary donations of their members, which is why some forms of welfare must be handled by secular governments, however, religions can often get into places that secular governments cannot. This does not just include countries in need of foreign aid that doubt the motives of secular governments. It also includes homeless people, who do not have permanent addresses or even identification. Secular governments just cannot afford the man power required to effectively distribute all needed welfare, even in their own regions. Religions often have plenty of members willing to spend some time on charity work, who can distribute welfare with less concern for accountability. Because the funds are donated voluntarily, religions do not have to worry so much about abuse of the system. Also, because religions typically have more limited funds, abuse of religious social welfare is rarely very profitable. In addition, because religions are autonomous and have less accountability, they can be more flexible. In the effort to enforce fairness and accountability, government often inadvertently leave gaps in their social welfare programs. Religions can fill those gaps, though perhaps no so well as the government could by analyzing the system and making adjustments. Without religions helping with social welfare, much of the world would be doing far less well than they are.
The most unique thing about religions is that participation is voluntary. This is very useful. First, it encourages each person to choose a religion. Most people in the U.S. are members of some religion or other. Of those that have no official membership, many still identify with some religion, even if it is just a generic version of some category of religions (for instance, non-denominational Christian). Those who do not identify with any religion often still have some personal religious ideology that guides they actions. This means that most Americans subscribe to some religious ideology that encourages them to get along with others. Further, because religion is voluntary, people feel compelled to keep the tenets of their religions, because they made a personal choice to do so. There is a great deal of work that government does not need to do, because religions do it for them. Integrity is only legally enforced when legal contracts are involved, however, most people are honest most of the time, even when it may not benefit them. Most people don't steal, even when they know they will not get caught. Most people overlook minor harm that was unintentional. There are no laws enforcing most of this good behavior, and in the cases where there are, they are not reliable. People choose to be civilized anyway, and in a large part, religions are responsible. Religions encourage civilization and making wise choices, and because participation is voluntary, members are more likely to follow the commandments and recommendations, because they chose them of their own free will.
Secular governments have a monopoly on violence, and perhaps that is for the best. In the past, religions that have been permitted to use violence have abused that authority a majority of the time. Even limiting religions to using violence only on their own members is probably a bad idea. Likewise, religions have something of a monopoly on personal belief. Again, this is probably for the best. Allowing secular governments to control the beliefs of people has almost always ended in disaster in the past, and forcing a large group of people to have the same beliefs has never turned out well. Government and religion complement each other in very important ways, when they are autonomous from each other. When they are combined, however, a major conflict of interests almost always arises, and one or the other is assimilated and becomes an engine of tyranny.
Showing posts with label social intolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social intolerance. Show all posts
04 December 2014
21 August 2014
Idiot Awareness
I just wanted to point out that now days, public bad behavior is often permanently documented on the internet. It turns out that a large number of Americans do not know how to properly park their cars. It also turns out that the old adage, "The customer is always right," is actually proven false many times each day. There are tons of idiots, jerks, egotists, and any other brands of people with poor or uncivil behavior out there. It also turns out that many of them are documented in the one place that it is impossible to completely remove data. So, next time you are in a hurry and consider parking in the middle of the path in a parking lot because it will only take a few seconds to return your Redbox movie (yes, I saw this happen last week and it took almost five minutes), reconsider.
If you want to have your faith in humanity destroyed, Not Always Right is a great website documenting some of most stupid and inconsiderate customers on the face of the planet. These are stories about customers who believe that because they are the customer, they must be right. One thing you might find is that many Americans think Canada is part of the U.S. and expect to be able to use U.S. money in Canada. You will probably also discover that a lot of Americans have a hard time recognizing when a problem was created by their own actions.
A great site for making you wonder about the effectiveness of U.S. drivers tests is Bad Parking. There are actually several web sites dedicated to this subject. Bad Parking collects photographic documentation of poorly parked cars. Most images show cars parked crossing the lines in parking lots, making it difficult for other cars to find a space. The occasional image shows a car parked entirely outside of the parking spaces, where they will interfere with traffic. Even more rarely, you may find a car parked in the middle of a public street. It also turns out that there are some Americans who do not realize that it is illegal to park in front of a driveway or other exit. While some sites are kind enough to blur license plates, this one does not. As such, some of its photos may qualify as evidence of traffic violations.
This is not all. There are plenty of other web sites documenting various uncivil or otherwise stupid activities perpetrated by people. YouTube has plenty of videos showing people doing really stupid things and often paying fairly severe consequences. Darwin Awards documents ways people manage to accidentally kill themselves or make themselves infertile by their own stupidity. There are plenty of websites dedicated to stupid things done during the commission of a crime. Thinking before acting or speaking is becoming more and more important, as it becomes ever easier to permanently document poor behavior.
The point with all of this is that doing stupid or uncivil things is exactly that: stupid and uncivil. Really, people should try to be intelligent and civil, even when no one is looking. Now, though, stupid or uncivil acts may result in long term embarrassment and even other harmful consequences. Many employers now search the names of job applicants online to make sure they have not done anything that might reflect poorly on their business. Even a photo from a drinking party can result in rejection for employment, regardless of qualification. Many people have discovered that putting videos or pictures of their bad behavior on Facebook can destroy many of the most desirable employment opportunities. The cost of bad behavior is quickly getting very high, because of how easy it is to document and share. Something like parking inappropriately could jeopardize even a really low end job, like food delivery, if some annoyed person happens to take a picture of your poor choice and post it on the internet. If you cannot even park properly, how can an employer trust you to drive safely? Even if the job does not involve driving, a person who does not conform to social conventions of civility cannot be trusted with any job where they might ever interact with other people.
Serious consequences aside though, and the entire point of this article, publicly documented poor behavior will definitely result in mocking and reputation loss. Even if they never meet you or figure out who you are, consider that every time you are rude to a cashier, park your car poorly, or otherwise behave poorly when other people are around, you could end up on a website where millions of people make fun of your stupidity every day for the rest of your life.
If you want to have your faith in humanity destroyed, Not Always Right is a great website documenting some of most stupid and inconsiderate customers on the face of the planet. These are stories about customers who believe that because they are the customer, they must be right. One thing you might find is that many Americans think Canada is part of the U.S. and expect to be able to use U.S. money in Canada. You will probably also discover that a lot of Americans have a hard time recognizing when a problem was created by their own actions.
A great site for making you wonder about the effectiveness of U.S. drivers tests is Bad Parking. There are actually several web sites dedicated to this subject. Bad Parking collects photographic documentation of poorly parked cars. Most images show cars parked crossing the lines in parking lots, making it difficult for other cars to find a space. The occasional image shows a car parked entirely outside of the parking spaces, where they will interfere with traffic. Even more rarely, you may find a car parked in the middle of a public street. It also turns out that there are some Americans who do not realize that it is illegal to park in front of a driveway or other exit. While some sites are kind enough to blur license plates, this one does not. As such, some of its photos may qualify as evidence of traffic violations.
This is not all. There are plenty of other web sites documenting various uncivil or otherwise stupid activities perpetrated by people. YouTube has plenty of videos showing people doing really stupid things and often paying fairly severe consequences. Darwin Awards documents ways people manage to accidentally kill themselves or make themselves infertile by their own stupidity. There are plenty of websites dedicated to stupid things done during the commission of a crime. Thinking before acting or speaking is becoming more and more important, as it becomes ever easier to permanently document poor behavior.
The point with all of this is that doing stupid or uncivil things is exactly that: stupid and uncivil. Really, people should try to be intelligent and civil, even when no one is looking. Now, though, stupid or uncivil acts may result in long term embarrassment and even other harmful consequences. Many employers now search the names of job applicants online to make sure they have not done anything that might reflect poorly on their business. Even a photo from a drinking party can result in rejection for employment, regardless of qualification. Many people have discovered that putting videos or pictures of their bad behavior on Facebook can destroy many of the most desirable employment opportunities. The cost of bad behavior is quickly getting very high, because of how easy it is to document and share. Something like parking inappropriately could jeopardize even a really low end job, like food delivery, if some annoyed person happens to take a picture of your poor choice and post it on the internet. If you cannot even park properly, how can an employer trust you to drive safely? Even if the job does not involve driving, a person who does not conform to social conventions of civility cannot be trusted with any job where they might ever interact with other people.
Serious consequences aside though, and the entire point of this article, publicly documented poor behavior will definitely result in mocking and reputation loss. Even if they never meet you or figure out who you are, consider that every time you are rude to a cashier, park your car poorly, or otherwise behave poorly when other people are around, you could end up on a website where millions of people make fun of your stupidity every day for the rest of your life.
27 July 2014
Peace vs Prosecution
I would like to share an LDS scripture with you, but first I want to give some background.
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):
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.
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.
01 April 2011
Polygamy
You may have heard about the TV show about a real polygamist family (Sister Wives). My wife has been watching it and I have caught most of it as a result. It is a very interesting perspective, especially considering that polygamy is still widely practised in other parts of the world, though rather differently.
As a Mormon (mainstream Mormons have not practised polygamy for over 100 years), I have a different take on polygamy than most people and a better understanding of the situation than most people. Many polygamists in Utah and nearby states (who use the early doctrines of the LDS Church as justification) do not practice polygamy as it was taught by Joseph Smith (the founder of the LDS Church). The family on the TV show does practice it as taught by Joseph Smith, for the most part.
This family has come out and admitted to practising polygamy. As mentioned on the show, this is extremely unusual for LDS Fundamentalist polygamists. They have said that their intent is to show that not all polygamists are bad (in the last 10 years there have been numerous cases of polygamist families getting in legal trouble for forcing underage marriages, sexual abuse, and many other horrific crimes). From what I have seen, they have done a decent job of showing this. Actually, most polygamists are not bad; misguided maybe, but not bad. (I served a mission in Utah and heard and saw a lot about polygamists living there.)
This family is now under investigation for polygamy. One of the wives had been fired from her job for practising polygamy (is it any wonder that most polygamist families are secretive about it). They took a huge risk to try to show the world that polygamy is not the evil cult that it was thought to be and now they are suffering for it.
I would like to mention here that I do not condone polygamy. It is against the standards of the LDS Church (of which I am a member) and against the law. This is what I would like to discuss.
This family is being investigated because polygamy is illegal. The original reason it was made illegal is that non-LDS men living in primarily LDS communities often had a very difficult time finding a wife. This was partially because the LDS faith recommends against marrying outside of the faith. It was also partially due to the fact that some LDS men had several wives. These non-LDS men blamed the lack of interested women on polygamy and lobbied for it to be made illegal and were eventually successful. The LDS Church outlawed polygamy when the US government outlawed it. (One of the commandments within the LDS Church is to obey the law of the land. Since this and polygamy were conflicting commandments within the Church, it was decided that the commandment to obey local laws was of higher priority and the practice of polygamist marriages was discontinued.)
Now, it is also illegal in the US (at least, in all states that I am aware of) to have sex with anyone that you are not legally married to. Of course, this law has not been enforced for nearly 100 years. This and the law against polygamy (which prohibits being legally married to more than one person) essentially covered all the bases. If you were legally married to multiple people, you were breaking the law, and if you had multiple wives, but were only legally married to one, you were committing adultery, which was also illegal. Now though, since adultery is no longer considered or prosecuted as a crime (though it is generally still illegal), things work differently.
Polygamy is now often prosecuted even if the participants are not legally married. This is, of course, not how the law against polygamy actually works, but our legal system seems to allow judges to make decisions based on personal beliefs, as opposed to codified law.
This family only has one legal marriage: the first. The other marriages were performed by religious ceremony, but no licenses were obtained or sent in. Technically, there is no law against this, but the marriages are not legally binding or recognized. This does not fall under the legal definition of polygamy (it does fall under the legal definition of adultery, but it would be extremely hypocritical to attempt to prosecute for this).
This situation is barely different from one where a married man has three mistresses. It is also very similar to the situation where a male high school student makes a point out of trying to sleep with as many girls as possible. There is only one major difference. This man takes responsibility. He is not hiding his "mistresses"; his wife is totally aware of them (and in most cases recommended them and in all cases approved them; approval of additional wives by the first wife was a requirement of original LDS polygamy). He takes responsibility for the children that have come from these relationships and makes sure that they are being well cared for. He is providing separate living areas for each woman and her children (something mentioned by Joseph Smith when teaching how polygamy was to be practised). And, last but not least, this guy is being accused of moral and legal transgressions.
If we are going to prosecute polygamy, we should also prosecute anyone who has sex with someone they are not married to. By prosecuting this family, but not the high school student, we are saying that irresponsible sex with multiple partners by people who are not even capable of dealing with the consequences (children) is more morally correct than responsible sex with multiple committed partners by people who are capable and prepared to deal with the consequences. We are also saying that secretly committing adultery is more moral than having an open, committed sexual relationship with someone that has been approved for this by our current spouse or spouses, and who we are willing and able to help support and be responsible for.
This is extreme hypocrisy. Our society condemns the man who openly cares for and supports several women, but considers secret uncommitted flings to be a matter of privacy and personal preference. We stand behind a law that was clearly intended as religious discrimination, but ignore laws that were intended to protect people from breaches of contractual commitments. (Adultery is now only considered in divorce cases where a pre-nuptial agreement covers it, even though adultery is legally a breach of the marriage contract.)
While I do not condone polygamy, I do think that if we are not going to start rigorously enforcing laws against adultery and fornication, we should stop prosecuting polygamy, at least, if there is not more than one legal marriage. Otherwise, we are discriminating against religious beliefs. We do not prosecute Catholics who commit adultery, even though it is against their religion and the law. So, why is it that we prosecute against polygamy when it is not against the religion of the polygamists and is technically the same crime as the Catholic committed if there is not more than one legal marriage? Again, the difference being that the polygamist is doing it responsibly and with the consent of his wife.
Lord Rybec
As a Mormon (mainstream Mormons have not practised polygamy for over 100 years), I have a different take on polygamy than most people and a better understanding of the situation than most people. Many polygamists in Utah and nearby states (who use the early doctrines of the LDS Church as justification) do not practice polygamy as it was taught by Joseph Smith (the founder of the LDS Church). The family on the TV show does practice it as taught by Joseph Smith, for the most part.
This family has come out and admitted to practising polygamy. As mentioned on the show, this is extremely unusual for LDS Fundamentalist polygamists. They have said that their intent is to show that not all polygamists are bad (in the last 10 years there have been numerous cases of polygamist families getting in legal trouble for forcing underage marriages, sexual abuse, and many other horrific crimes). From what I have seen, they have done a decent job of showing this. Actually, most polygamists are not bad; misguided maybe, but not bad. (I served a mission in Utah and heard and saw a lot about polygamists living there.)
This family is now under investigation for polygamy. One of the wives had been fired from her job for practising polygamy (is it any wonder that most polygamist families are secretive about it). They took a huge risk to try to show the world that polygamy is not the evil cult that it was thought to be and now they are suffering for it.
I would like to mention here that I do not condone polygamy. It is against the standards of the LDS Church (of which I am a member) and against the law. This is what I would like to discuss.
This family is being investigated because polygamy is illegal. The original reason it was made illegal is that non-LDS men living in primarily LDS communities often had a very difficult time finding a wife. This was partially because the LDS faith recommends against marrying outside of the faith. It was also partially due to the fact that some LDS men had several wives. These non-LDS men blamed the lack of interested women on polygamy and lobbied for it to be made illegal and were eventually successful. The LDS Church outlawed polygamy when the US government outlawed it. (One of the commandments within the LDS Church is to obey the law of the land. Since this and polygamy were conflicting commandments within the Church, it was decided that the commandment to obey local laws was of higher priority and the practice of polygamist marriages was discontinued.)
Now, it is also illegal in the US (at least, in all states that I am aware of) to have sex with anyone that you are not legally married to. Of course, this law has not been enforced for nearly 100 years. This and the law against polygamy (which prohibits being legally married to more than one person) essentially covered all the bases. If you were legally married to multiple people, you were breaking the law, and if you had multiple wives, but were only legally married to one, you were committing adultery, which was also illegal. Now though, since adultery is no longer considered or prosecuted as a crime (though it is generally still illegal), things work differently.
Polygamy is now often prosecuted even if the participants are not legally married. This is, of course, not how the law against polygamy actually works, but our legal system seems to allow judges to make decisions based on personal beliefs, as opposed to codified law.
This family only has one legal marriage: the first. The other marriages were performed by religious ceremony, but no licenses were obtained or sent in. Technically, there is no law against this, but the marriages are not legally binding or recognized. This does not fall under the legal definition of polygamy (it does fall under the legal definition of adultery, but it would be extremely hypocritical to attempt to prosecute for this).
This situation is barely different from one where a married man has three mistresses. It is also very similar to the situation where a male high school student makes a point out of trying to sleep with as many girls as possible. There is only one major difference. This man takes responsibility. He is not hiding his "mistresses"; his wife is totally aware of them (and in most cases recommended them and in all cases approved them; approval of additional wives by the first wife was a requirement of original LDS polygamy). He takes responsibility for the children that have come from these relationships and makes sure that they are being well cared for. He is providing separate living areas for each woman and her children (something mentioned by Joseph Smith when teaching how polygamy was to be practised). And, last but not least, this guy is being accused of moral and legal transgressions.
If we are going to prosecute polygamy, we should also prosecute anyone who has sex with someone they are not married to. By prosecuting this family, but not the high school student, we are saying that irresponsible sex with multiple partners by people who are not even capable of dealing with the consequences (children) is more morally correct than responsible sex with multiple committed partners by people who are capable and prepared to deal with the consequences. We are also saying that secretly committing adultery is more moral than having an open, committed sexual relationship with someone that has been approved for this by our current spouse or spouses, and who we are willing and able to help support and be responsible for.
This is extreme hypocrisy. Our society condemns the man who openly cares for and supports several women, but considers secret uncommitted flings to be a matter of privacy and personal preference. We stand behind a law that was clearly intended as religious discrimination, but ignore laws that were intended to protect people from breaches of contractual commitments. (Adultery is now only considered in divorce cases where a pre-nuptial agreement covers it, even though adultery is legally a breach of the marriage contract.)
While I do not condone polygamy, I do think that if we are not going to start rigorously enforcing laws against adultery and fornication, we should stop prosecuting polygamy, at least, if there is not more than one legal marriage. Otherwise, we are discriminating against religious beliefs. We do not prosecute Catholics who commit adultery, even though it is against their religion and the law. So, why is it that we prosecute against polygamy when it is not against the religion of the polygamists and is technically the same crime as the Catholic committed if there is not more than one legal marriage? Again, the difference being that the polygamist is doing it responsibly and with the consent of his wife.
Lord Rybec
14 November 2009
Social Tolerance
Social tolerance is destroying our country and the world. Our country has embraced social tolerance from the beginning. Social tolerance is a very good thing, in moderation. We should tolerate differences of race, religion, political ideals, and many other things. Without these tolerances, we would decay back toward disorder and become less civilized. On the other hand, tolerance of unethical behavior, rudeness, and self destructive behavior do the same thing as intolerance of race, religion, etc... Social tolerance has two sides. One side is things that are barbaric not to tolerate, the other is things that make us barbaric if we do tolerate them.
The importance of social tolerance is often understated. We understand the importance of tolerating things like race and religion so well that this tolerance has been required by law. The true importance of social tolerance is not so much what is tolerated as the fact that social tolerance is more powerful than law in encouraging people to behave themselves. It is against the law to exceed the speed limit on public roads, yet at least 90% of people do it many times a day. On the other hand, it is entirely legal to stare, but at least 90% of people avoid doing it (in other countries staring is not socially wrong and plenty of people do it, but in the US staring is a social taboo). Social intolerance of unethical behavior is much stronger than laws designating it such. If people ridiculed and disdained speeders, far fewer people would speed. Instead, most people overlook it, or tolerate it, so nearly everyone feels it is permissible.
Another thing about social tolerance that we all seem to miss is that it does not require us to agree with what we are tolerating. We might tolerate other religions without agreeing with what they teach, or we may be friends with people who have different political ideals without agreeing with those ideals. We could even dislike people of a particular race, without treating them poorly. We are entitled to our own opinions, but that does not mean that we cannot tolerate things that we do not agree with.
Just as important as social tolerance is social intolerance. This term is seen as evil in our society, because the only context it is ever used in is cases of discrimination, where intolerance is bad. In reality, a society that tolerates anything and everything is no better than anarchy. In this sort of society, the only thing that keeps people moral is fear of the law. In this sort of society, the moral law is "it is only wrong if you get caught". This is where the US, and most of the world, is headed. We should be able to expect people to be polite to us, we should be able to expect them to clean up after themselves (except in places like restaurants, where they are paying someone else to do it), we should be able to expect them to be truthful, we should be able to expect them to be punctual. In short, we should be able to expect people to be kind, polite, and honest. If someone exhibits bad behavior and we blow it off, they will feel entitled to continue the bad behavior. If we want people to treat us how we would like to be treated, first we should treat them that way and second we should not tolerate being treated otherwise.
You may wonder how to be intolerant of bad behavior. This is important, because we cannot act rudely to people if we want them to be polite. Often the most powerful message we can send someone displaying bad behavior is disappointment. It not only tells them they have done something we disapprove of, but it also tells them we expected them to act better. Disappointment tells people that we care about them enough to expect good behavior from them.
Another very strong way of being intolerant of bad behavior is to look and act like you are uncomfortable. If someone does something unethical or impolite, you can look and act uncomfortable with the situation. While this is not as strong as disappointment, it will usually get the point across. If someone suggests something unethical and the entire room goes silent and everyone else looks uncomfortable with the suggestion, not only will it kill the suggestion, but it will discourage similar suggestions in the future.
If these do not work, you might consider talking to the offending person in private. Tell them that their behavior (the specific one or ones) offends you, or makes you uncomfortable. If they admit that the behavior is wrong, offer to help them correct it. In this case, they may continue the behavior, but as long as they are trying to fix it and are making progress, you should help them. Note that this generally does not work as well as the above two. Many people will become defensive when approached about how they act. This needs to be done carefully. In cases like this, you should take care to be polite and non-confrontational. It also helps to make sure they know you are their friend and are willing to help them with this.
Lastly, if none of these things are working, you should think about ending the relationship with the person (assuming one exists). If a person is continuing harmful behavior (physically, emotionally, or mentally harmful) and has expressed that they have no intention of stopping, ending any relationship with that person will send a clear message. The best way to do this is to let the person know that you would like to continue to be friends with them, but that their behavior is such that you do not feel comfortable being around it. A less effective route is to just stop your communications with the person. In this case, be ready to explain why you are no longer friendly with them, because they will probably ask.
If you cut off a friendship without giving a reason, then your attempt at social intolerance of bad behavior has failed. With any of these techniques, the person must be aware of the reason, otherwise they are unlikely to change their behavior.
There is one more technique that can be used. If you take the responsibility for the behavior, it will generally make the person doing it feel bad about it. If you have a friend with a swearing problem, you might apologize for them when you are around other people who do not swear. If a person leaves a cart in the middle of a parking lot on a windy day (when the cart may cause damage when the wind blows it into someone else's car), you could take the cart and place it in the receptacle. Things like this can have a very strong effect on others, when they see you take responsibility for the consequences of their bad behavior, and may also affect others who see it.
We are all socially responsible for each other's behavior to some degree. If we tolerate unethical or immoral behavior, we are responsible when the behavior continues.
Lord Rybec
The importance of social tolerance is often understated. We understand the importance of tolerating things like race and religion so well that this tolerance has been required by law. The true importance of social tolerance is not so much what is tolerated as the fact that social tolerance is more powerful than law in encouraging people to behave themselves. It is against the law to exceed the speed limit on public roads, yet at least 90% of people do it many times a day. On the other hand, it is entirely legal to stare, but at least 90% of people avoid doing it (in other countries staring is not socially wrong and plenty of people do it, but in the US staring is a social taboo). Social intolerance of unethical behavior is much stronger than laws designating it such. If people ridiculed and disdained speeders, far fewer people would speed. Instead, most people overlook it, or tolerate it, so nearly everyone feels it is permissible.
Another thing about social tolerance that we all seem to miss is that it does not require us to agree with what we are tolerating. We might tolerate other religions without agreeing with what they teach, or we may be friends with people who have different political ideals without agreeing with those ideals. We could even dislike people of a particular race, without treating them poorly. We are entitled to our own opinions, but that does not mean that we cannot tolerate things that we do not agree with.
Just as important as social tolerance is social intolerance. This term is seen as evil in our society, because the only context it is ever used in is cases of discrimination, where intolerance is bad. In reality, a society that tolerates anything and everything is no better than anarchy. In this sort of society, the only thing that keeps people moral is fear of the law. In this sort of society, the moral law is "it is only wrong if you get caught". This is where the US, and most of the world, is headed. We should be able to expect people to be polite to us, we should be able to expect them to clean up after themselves (except in places like restaurants, where they are paying someone else to do it), we should be able to expect them to be truthful, we should be able to expect them to be punctual. In short, we should be able to expect people to be kind, polite, and honest. If someone exhibits bad behavior and we blow it off, they will feel entitled to continue the bad behavior. If we want people to treat us how we would like to be treated, first we should treat them that way and second we should not tolerate being treated otherwise.
You may wonder how to be intolerant of bad behavior. This is important, because we cannot act rudely to people if we want them to be polite. Often the most powerful message we can send someone displaying bad behavior is disappointment. It not only tells them they have done something we disapprove of, but it also tells them we expected them to act better. Disappointment tells people that we care about them enough to expect good behavior from them.
Another very strong way of being intolerant of bad behavior is to look and act like you are uncomfortable. If someone does something unethical or impolite, you can look and act uncomfortable with the situation. While this is not as strong as disappointment, it will usually get the point across. If someone suggests something unethical and the entire room goes silent and everyone else looks uncomfortable with the suggestion, not only will it kill the suggestion, but it will discourage similar suggestions in the future.
If these do not work, you might consider talking to the offending person in private. Tell them that their behavior (the specific one or ones) offends you, or makes you uncomfortable. If they admit that the behavior is wrong, offer to help them correct it. In this case, they may continue the behavior, but as long as they are trying to fix it and are making progress, you should help them. Note that this generally does not work as well as the above two. Many people will become defensive when approached about how they act. This needs to be done carefully. In cases like this, you should take care to be polite and non-confrontational. It also helps to make sure they know you are their friend and are willing to help them with this.
Lastly, if none of these things are working, you should think about ending the relationship with the person (assuming one exists). If a person is continuing harmful behavior (physically, emotionally, or mentally harmful) and has expressed that they have no intention of stopping, ending any relationship with that person will send a clear message. The best way to do this is to let the person know that you would like to continue to be friends with them, but that their behavior is such that you do not feel comfortable being around it. A less effective route is to just stop your communications with the person. In this case, be ready to explain why you are no longer friendly with them, because they will probably ask.
If you cut off a friendship without giving a reason, then your attempt at social intolerance of bad behavior has failed. With any of these techniques, the person must be aware of the reason, otherwise they are unlikely to change their behavior.
There is one more technique that can be used. If you take the responsibility for the behavior, it will generally make the person doing it feel bad about it. If you have a friend with a swearing problem, you might apologize for them when you are around other people who do not swear. If a person leaves a cart in the middle of a parking lot on a windy day (when the cart may cause damage when the wind blows it into someone else's car), you could take the cart and place it in the receptacle. Things like this can have a very strong effect on others, when they see you take responsibility for the consequences of their bad behavior, and may also affect others who see it.
We are all socially responsible for each other's behavior to some degree. If we tolerate unethical or immoral behavior, we are responsible when the behavior continues.
Lord Rybec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)