The guys we hired to do our music for The Device have several cds of music, the latest being Makara, which was released in 2010.
Should we make a new movie and use their music again? :)
Monday, May 21, 2012
Quick thoughts
Good place to talk about things. I knew we'd come up with very thoughtful...thoughts. Basically a think tank. If we were to continue such a discussion on such a complex topic I guess it would be helpful to have some kind of discussion map where it shows the basic question with other questions stemming from that along with arguments and what not. Hard to keep everything organized in my head and on the screen.
Do we want to keeping discussing this issue? Or move on to evolution? J/k.
Do we want to keeping discussing this issue? Or move on to evolution? J/k.
Re: The Great Issue of our Time
What is the question here? Is it an issue of the rightness or wrongness of a particular behavior? Is it a test of how well our personal theories about government coexist with our testimonies of the Restored Gospel and of modern-day prophets, or of our commitment to such?
My thoughts on this issue recently have centered around whether or not a position I hold based on belief should be a position I try to bind to other people in law. my feelings and positions have shifted and changed even over the last few days as I have read and considered everybody's comments. It has really made me think deeply about the interplay between government and religion, and the purpose of government.
If the question is whether or not homosexuality is wrong, my answer is that it is. If the question is whether or not same-sex unions should be legalized under the title "marriage," my answer is also simple: no. My belief should inform my involvement in the democratic process, as well as my own actions and behaviors. I guess I am less Libertarian on this point, as I think that the rules of a community should reflect the values and aspirations of that community.
Why is it illegal to take the life of another person? Because our community ostensibly values every person's life, and believes that each person has a right to live, and we don't want the people we are close to, or ourselves, being killed. We have legislated a value.
Nearly any reasonable person would say that homicide should be illegal because it is, by it's nature, bad. Even a libertarian (I would guess) would say that there ought to be a rule (law) against killing one another, and a means, chosen by the community, of enforcing it (government). There seem to be things that everybody knows are bad, and things that not so many people know are bad, and things that some people say are bad but which others call good. Still more would say that nothing is inherently wrong, because of the temporary nature of existence and lack of meaningful consequences, etc.
How many people have to think something is bad before it deserves to be defined by law as such? How bad does something have to be before it qualifies for its own legislation? Is badness that affects only the doer ever necessary to be made illegal? Can I say that doing bad things makes you a weaker person, less productive to my community, and use that reason to write a law?
We are never (so long as mortals are in charge) going to agree on the basic answers to these questions, let alone the degree to which they should apply. This is exactly the reason we live in the United States of America, because the colonies couldn't agree on a single government, but recognized the value of some common laws and currency. As with most divisive issues, I say let the states decide, and let the Supreme Court Justices get day jobs. If you have a different idea of when life begins than I do, let us not try to "prove it" in the highest court we can find (honestly, that doesn't prove anything), let's agree that there is a possibility we both might be wrong and respect each other anyway, and if I can't stand the sight of your face, I should perhaps go live with people who are more like-minded. If enough of us feel that way, we should do what we can to protect our common ideals and, if necessary, make some laws which apply to our similarly-minded community.
Should it be a goal of government to preserve itself and its people? If you think about America as a sort of being or organism, you can imagine a sort of self-preservation instinct; we avoid things that would hurt us, and seek after what helps us grow and be healthy. Natural and human resources are like food, invaders are like diseases. It seems obvious that we should defend ourselves against an invading army which would damage or make off with our resources, but what about other threats? Moral threats, if unchecked, can damage or destroy the human capital by making them less happy, less efficient, and more dead. Therefore, as Ked pointed out, we have laws against some kinds of behavior. It can be argued (and has been stated by those we consider to be prophets) that the breakdown of the family produces fewer happy and moral people, and that less morality and happiness sickens the country as a whole, threatening our persistence as a society and the well-being of our community. Therefore, we would argue that to preserve the country, we should preserve the family. On this basis I believe I can observe the Bretheren's appeal to "promote [the measures presented in The Family: A Proclamation to the World] designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
Then again, if you don't think it's government's job to preserve the country, or that such preservation should not come at the expense of certain personal liberties, that argument is essentially null.
What is difficult about all of this is our (and everybody else's) real, fervent belief in absolute right and wrong. Yes, there are things that are wrong by their nature, and I personally find homosexual behavior to be on the list. However, the principle of stewardship prohibits me from doing much about that belief outside of my own family, and the principle of agency limits what I can do about it outside of my very own self. I just don't think it is right for us to try and coerce our beliefs on others for reasons they will not accept. As James has pointed out, if we try to do so, we should expect nothing less than some good old-fashioned golden rule retribution.
Yes, the prophets hold stewardship over the Earth to teach and warn, and yes, we ought to follow them in promoting the value of the family, but we can do it charitably, correctly utilizing the power we each have as citizens, recognizing that every person has a right far beyond what the government can guarantee to believe and behave how he wants to. If we think that doctrines A or B should be made secular law for the purpose of preserving our society, it has to be done through the mechanisms available, by consensus. For us, it means doing our best to present what we hold to be truth, respecting every person's right to an opinion.
It is futile to present evidence in an argument when both parties do not recognize the validity of the evidence (making religious appeals ineffectual), or when either party is so committed to his position as to be beyond convincing. Therefore, if we are going to convince anybody, we should spend our time talking to somebody who might listen (being ourselves willing to listen), and bring to the table something besides "God said so." We can bring that too, since we believe it to be true, but we should realize it won't advance the argument much.
When people can not agree on the fundamentals of an argument, they stop trying to find out what is right and revert to proving who is wrong and who is evil. You have the religious right saying homosexuality is wrong and will destroy us all because God said so, the liberal left saying it isn't wrong and would you please leave God out of it because He only exists in your imagination, the right responding with threats of brimstone at some certain but unproveable time in the future, the left responding with words like "bigot", and certain "news" organizations make an insane amount of money by capitalizing on (and amplifying) the rhetoric and emotion, further preventing any useful dialogue.
Anyway, back to my question about the relationship between my beliefs and our laws. Homosexuality is wrong. I would say I know that to be an unalterable truth. Others disagree. Based on the fact that we disagree, it would seem to be imprudent to pass a law in one direction or the other because such a law would impede on somebody's belief -- unless a consensus can be reached that it is wrong or not because:
a) it is against the community's common values, or
b) it threatens the strength and continuity of the community (proven hopefully by strong scientific evidence).
Technically this should be possible. In reality, I don't see it happening on a national level. Whether it is a politically motivated sentiment or not, I think that President Obama's position to leave the issue to the states is the right one.
Because I recognize that we all, as a country, are not going to agree on the issue, I hope we will get to a point that we can continue on in mutual trust and peaceful misunderstanding. I agree with a good many goals of the gay rights movement. I see no good reason to marginalize a person based on what he or she decides to do with whomever behind their closed doors when it has no bearing or reflection on the person's intelligence, dedication, or ability. There's no reason to deny a person a job simply because he is gay. I recognize that it is human nature to be wary of that which is different or not well understood, but I will sure do my best to try see beyond that irrational fear. I also think that two people who care for each other deeply and are concerned for one another's well-being should be granted the right to be there for one another, in a hospital for example. A simplistic assessment of the legal ramifications being discussed, perhaps, but hopefully a good expression of my feelings.
Because I listen to NPR, much of the discussion I hear seems to assume that the issue of the morality of same-sex marriage is a settled one, and that the smarter and more educated folk are just waiting for the rest of us to catch up with the times, as if we were on opposite sides of the civil rights movement we learned about in school. I rather resent this characterization because it casts an automatic light of Dr. King and the Freedom Riders on the one side, and makes people imagine that my friends and I party while wearing pointy white hats. This is just not true. If we could talk like humans to one another, somebody might find out that I don't want anybody dead. I don't want anybody riding in the back of the bus if they don't want to. I don't want anybody to be disrespected (including myself) because we don't agree. I'm not going to say that I think AIDS is a plague sent from God to destroy the wicked (how would I know if it were?). I want you to have a good job. I want you to be happy. I don't want to tell you how you have to be happy, but if you want to talk about it I will sure try to explain why I feel the way I do.
My point in a nutshell: We disagree. That's fine. Let's all honestly, humbly, and respectfully find the best ways to strengthen and protect ourselves, our families, and our society.
One last thought: Some people are gay and want to be. Some people are gay and don't want to be, for the simple reason that they just don't want to be. I worry that if this idea that one is the way one is and can't or shouldn't change gets too much traction, we will be discriminating against those who wish to change by limiting their options for doing so. Let's not even argue about whether or not it is possible, but respect a person's desire to try. There are a good many things that people do these days that weren't supposed to be possible, and I think that there may even be a market for treatment if those with resources weren't afraid of being smeared by those who say they are protecting gay rights. I know there are a few things about me that I'd like to change, and that changing those things may be against my innate mortal nature. I'm glad nobody faults me for wanting me to be stronger or more patient. It's about me being the person I want to be, and really, isn't that what this whole rights movement is about?
My thoughts on this issue recently have centered around whether or not a position I hold based on belief should be a position I try to bind to other people in law. my feelings and positions have shifted and changed even over the last few days as I have read and considered everybody's comments. It has really made me think deeply about the interplay between government and religion, and the purpose of government.
If the question is whether or not homosexuality is wrong, my answer is that it is. If the question is whether or not same-sex unions should be legalized under the title "marriage," my answer is also simple: no. My belief should inform my involvement in the democratic process, as well as my own actions and behaviors. I guess I am less Libertarian on this point, as I think that the rules of a community should reflect the values and aspirations of that community.
Why is it illegal to take the life of another person? Because our community ostensibly values every person's life, and believes that each person has a right to live, and we don't want the people we are close to, or ourselves, being killed. We have legislated a value.
Nearly any reasonable person would say that homicide should be illegal because it is, by it's nature, bad. Even a libertarian (I would guess) would say that there ought to be a rule (law) against killing one another, and a means, chosen by the community, of enforcing it (government). There seem to be things that everybody knows are bad, and things that not so many people know are bad, and things that some people say are bad but which others call good. Still more would say that nothing is inherently wrong, because of the temporary nature of existence and lack of meaningful consequences, etc.
How many people have to think something is bad before it deserves to be defined by law as such? How bad does something have to be before it qualifies for its own legislation? Is badness that affects only the doer ever necessary to be made illegal? Can I say that doing bad things makes you a weaker person, less productive to my community, and use that reason to write a law?
We are never (so long as mortals are in charge) going to agree on the basic answers to these questions, let alone the degree to which they should apply. This is exactly the reason we live in the United States of America, because the colonies couldn't agree on a single government, but recognized the value of some common laws and currency. As with most divisive issues, I say let the states decide, and let the Supreme Court Justices get day jobs. If you have a different idea of when life begins than I do, let us not try to "prove it" in the highest court we can find (honestly, that doesn't prove anything), let's agree that there is a possibility we both might be wrong and respect each other anyway, and if I can't stand the sight of your face, I should perhaps go live with people who are more like-minded. If enough of us feel that way, we should do what we can to protect our common ideals and, if necessary, make some laws which apply to our similarly-minded community.
Should it be a goal of government to preserve itself and its people? If you think about America as a sort of being or organism, you can imagine a sort of self-preservation instinct; we avoid things that would hurt us, and seek after what helps us grow and be healthy. Natural and human resources are like food, invaders are like diseases. It seems obvious that we should defend ourselves against an invading army which would damage or make off with our resources, but what about other threats? Moral threats, if unchecked, can damage or destroy the human capital by making them less happy, less efficient, and more dead. Therefore, as Ked pointed out, we have laws against some kinds of behavior. It can be argued (and has been stated by those we consider to be prophets) that the breakdown of the family produces fewer happy and moral people, and that less morality and happiness sickens the country as a whole, threatening our persistence as a society and the well-being of our community. Therefore, we would argue that to preserve the country, we should preserve the family. On this basis I believe I can observe the Bretheren's appeal to "promote [the measures presented in The Family: A Proclamation to the World] designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
Then again, if you don't think it's government's job to preserve the country, or that such preservation should not come at the expense of certain personal liberties, that argument is essentially null.
What is difficult about all of this is our (and everybody else's) real, fervent belief in absolute right and wrong. Yes, there are things that are wrong by their nature, and I personally find homosexual behavior to be on the list. However, the principle of stewardship prohibits me from doing much about that belief outside of my own family, and the principle of agency limits what I can do about it outside of my very own self. I just don't think it is right for us to try and coerce our beliefs on others for reasons they will not accept. As James has pointed out, if we try to do so, we should expect nothing less than some good old-fashioned golden rule retribution.
Yes, the prophets hold stewardship over the Earth to teach and warn, and yes, we ought to follow them in promoting the value of the family, but we can do it charitably, correctly utilizing the power we each have as citizens, recognizing that every person has a right far beyond what the government can guarantee to believe and behave how he wants to. If we think that doctrines A or B should be made secular law for the purpose of preserving our society, it has to be done through the mechanisms available, by consensus. For us, it means doing our best to present what we hold to be truth, respecting every person's right to an opinion.
It is futile to present evidence in an argument when both parties do not recognize the validity of the evidence (making religious appeals ineffectual), or when either party is so committed to his position as to be beyond convincing. Therefore, if we are going to convince anybody, we should spend our time talking to somebody who might listen (being ourselves willing to listen), and bring to the table something besides "God said so." We can bring that too, since we believe it to be true, but we should realize it won't advance the argument much.
When people can not agree on the fundamentals of an argument, they stop trying to find out what is right and revert to proving who is wrong and who is evil. You have the religious right saying homosexuality is wrong and will destroy us all because God said so, the liberal left saying it isn't wrong and would you please leave God out of it because He only exists in your imagination, the right responding with threats of brimstone at some certain but unproveable time in the future, the left responding with words like "bigot", and certain "news" organizations make an insane amount of money by capitalizing on (and amplifying) the rhetoric and emotion, further preventing any useful dialogue.
Anyway, back to my question about the relationship between my beliefs and our laws. Homosexuality is wrong. I would say I know that to be an unalterable truth. Others disagree. Based on the fact that we disagree, it would seem to be imprudent to pass a law in one direction or the other because such a law would impede on somebody's belief -- unless a consensus can be reached that it is wrong or not because:
a) it is against the community's common values, or
b) it threatens the strength and continuity of the community (proven hopefully by strong scientific evidence).
Technically this should be possible. In reality, I don't see it happening on a national level. Whether it is a politically motivated sentiment or not, I think that President Obama's position to leave the issue to the states is the right one.
Because I recognize that we all, as a country, are not going to agree on the issue, I hope we will get to a point that we can continue on in mutual trust and peaceful misunderstanding. I agree with a good many goals of the gay rights movement. I see no good reason to marginalize a person based on what he or she decides to do with whomever behind their closed doors when it has no bearing or reflection on the person's intelligence, dedication, or ability. There's no reason to deny a person a job simply because he is gay. I recognize that it is human nature to be wary of that which is different or not well understood, but I will sure do my best to try see beyond that irrational fear. I also think that two people who care for each other deeply and are concerned for one another's well-being should be granted the right to be there for one another, in a hospital for example. A simplistic assessment of the legal ramifications being discussed, perhaps, but hopefully a good expression of my feelings.
Because I listen to NPR, much of the discussion I hear seems to assume that the issue of the morality of same-sex marriage is a settled one, and that the smarter and more educated folk are just waiting for the rest of us to catch up with the times, as if we were on opposite sides of the civil rights movement we learned about in school. I rather resent this characterization because it casts an automatic light of Dr. King and the Freedom Riders on the one side, and makes people imagine that my friends and I party while wearing pointy white hats. This is just not true. If we could talk like humans to one another, somebody might find out that I don't want anybody dead. I don't want anybody riding in the back of the bus if they don't want to. I don't want anybody to be disrespected (including myself) because we don't agree. I'm not going to say that I think AIDS is a plague sent from God to destroy the wicked (how would I know if it were?). I want you to have a good job. I want you to be happy. I don't want to tell you how you have to be happy, but if you want to talk about it I will sure try to explain why I feel the way I do.
My point in a nutshell: We disagree. That's fine. Let's all honestly, humbly, and respectfully find the best ways to strengthen and protect ourselves, our families, and our society.
One last thought: Some people are gay and want to be. Some people are gay and don't want to be, for the simple reason that they just don't want to be. I worry that if this idea that one is the way one is and can't or shouldn't change gets too much traction, we will be discriminating against those who wish to change by limiting their options for doing so. Let's not even argue about whether or not it is possible, but respect a person's desire to try. There are a good many things that people do these days that weren't supposed to be possible, and I think that there may even be a market for treatment if those with resources weren't afraid of being smeared by those who say they are protecting gay rights. I know there are a few things about me that I'd like to change, and that changing those things may be against my innate mortal nature. I'm glad nobody faults me for wanting me to be stronger or more patient. It's about me being the person I want to be, and really, isn't that what this whole rights movement is about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)