Satire: Former member of the church explains how, now that she is free from the church, she spends all her time dedicated to it

<Satire>

Weekly Standard: This week we welcome RealLucySmith, who is a former member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but spends a great deal of her time still involved with the Church.  We look forward to better understanding her perspectives.  Lucy, thank you for joining us.

RealLucySmith: Thanks for having me.

Weekly Standard: You spend a lot of time engaging with people about the church on social media, can you tell us a bit about what you stand for?

RealLucySmith: Sure, I stand for anything that opposes Mormons.

Weekly Standard: Well, we know you are are not a part of the church you left, but maybe you could explain what it is that you support...

RealLucySmith: That is what I support.  When someone says they believe that Joseph is a prophet, I shout plural marriage.  When someone says they were uplifted by President Nelson, I scream about how he is an old white male.

Weekly Standard: But even if that's true, I mean, don't you have something you want for society?  Do you have a cause you are trying to persuade people to join?

RealLucySmith: Yes, that's what I'm saying.  I want society to be free of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Weekly Standard: But how would you respond to the people who are bettered and benefited by the church and its teachings?

RealLucySmith: Now that I've left the church, I'm free to spend every waking minute discussing the church with every stranger on the internet.  I never had that kind of freedom to study the church when I was a member... it never benefited me...  I like to think of myself hypothetically as a cranky woman standing near the toy section of Wal-Mart around Christmas time shrieking "there ain't no Santee Claus!!"

Weekly Standard: While I'm impressed by your ability to sound like Gilbert Gottfried, don't you think that is kind of... insensitive to the children during the holidays?

RealLucySmith: That's what the parents say to me... "Even if you were right, you're attacking a tradition that brings happiness and improves behavior."

Weekly Standard: Hang on, that ties in with my previous question... how would you respond to these imaginary parents in your analogy? 

RealLucySmith: I don't, I focus on the kids and shout that their parents lie about everything, and that they are probably adopted.

Weekly Standard: Wait, what? I thought this was hypothetical.  Is this something you actually do?

RealLucySmith: Well, no...

Weekly Standard: OK, good, because that's...

RealLucySmith: Harassment? Yeah, that's what the manager told me before escorting me out of the building...  That's why I don't do it anymore.

Weekly Standard: I was going to say crazy...

RealLucySmith: What's crazy is that some people still think that Jesus is the one leading the Church of Jesus Christ...

Weekly Standard: And you believe it's just Russell M. Nelson, the man who presides?

RealLucySmith: Hahaha no... That's like believing we landed on the moon!

Weekly Standard: Wait, you don't believe that we landed on the moon?

RealLucySmith: I don't believe anything!  Doubt is the only protection against them... Well, doubt and this...

Weekly Standard: What are you putting...? Is that...?  Are you wearing a foil hat?

RealLucySmith: The church is just the tip of the iceberg...  It's a cult that consumes people!

Weekly Standard: But you said that you don't believe anything...

RealLucySmith: That's why you shouldn't believe anything... It's how they get you...  What do you think happened to Santa Claus?  Another victim of the Mormons...  That's why I was arguing at Wal-Mart, and why I argue with people on the internet!

WeeklyStandard: Well... thankfully we're out of time... We appreciate RealLucySmith joining us, and I think we have all gained a little perspective on former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spending so much time and effort engaged with the church after they have left.  In the opinion of this reporter... even if everything that they believe about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were true, it would still not help us understand their bizarre compulsions and behaviors.  Thanks everyone, and have a great day!

</Satire>

Satire: A discussion about the religious standards of modesty and how they affect society

<Satire>

Weekly Standard: Today's Skype discussion includes guests John, a father of five children, Debbie the drunk, a... drunk..., and Grande Miguel, an expert on eating sticks of butter and making fun of deeply held religious beliefs.

Our topic today will be on religious standards of modesty, and how they affect society.

Let's start with John... John, you've been a vocal advocate of modesty standards, what can you tell us about how this has affected your family?

John:  Certainly... Even young children can learn the importance of respecting their bodies by dressing appropriately.  In my family, we avoid problematic shifts in modesty expectations by being consistent the whole time.

Weekly Standard: So that includes covering the entire body?

John: I mean, we don't wear masks and bonnets... but we don't have trouble finding nice clothes that have reasonable necklines and sleeves for our girls, or neat, clean, appropriately-styled shirts and pants for our boys.

Debbie the drunk: You just want to sexualize your daughters (hiccup)... you like looking at her shorn poulders... I mean porn shoulders... (hiccup)

Weekly Standard: Debbie, it's 9 AM... are you already... intoxicated?

Debbie the drunk: I... I just... I just threw up a little bit in my mouth... (hiccup)  And then I swallowed it... so it's OK...

Weekly Standard: OK Grande Miguel... do you have some insight on how modesty standards affect society?

Grande Miguel: Of course, I'm a little weirded out by John insisting that his daughter need to cover her shoulders at a very young age.  Obviously a girl that age hasn't developed yet, and should not be forced into fashion standards that are based on the sexual impulses of people around her.  I also think it's odd that John is so worried about shoulders in general.  They don't need to be covered.

Weekly Standard: John, what would you say in response?

John: Like I said, consistency is a good thing.  My wife and I live by the same standards, and we teach our children to be respectful of themselves and others, and part of that is dressing appropriately.  I guess I'm also a little creeped out by Grande Miguel being so interested in seeing my daughter's shoulders.

Debbie the drunk: Ha!  I knew it!  You just (hiccup).

Weekly Standard: Just what Debbie the drunk?

Debbie the drunk: Who are you?  Hey... I've gotta get another... (hiccup)

Weekly Standard: It appears that Debbie the drunk has wandered away from her camera.

Grande Miguel: I'm not the one trying to cover her shoulders!  John is!  John is the one who has to make everyone cover their shoulders!

John: Grande Miguel... am I the one who made you cover your shoulders?  You're wearing a very very large shirt...

Weekly Standard: While that's a compelling point John we don't want to...

Grande Miguel: You can't cover my shoulders John!  I don't have a problem with... just let me get this...

Weekly Standard: No Grande Miguel!  Please keep your shirt on!

John: That does not look healthy...

Weekly Standard: We at the Weekly Standard would like to apologize to all those who saw that before we ended the Skype call... I'm being told that the CDC was notified, and is en route to Grande Miguel's location.  In spite of the circumstances at the end of the show, we do want to thank our guests for bringing their perspectives to this issue.

</Satire>

What Type of Marriage Discrimination Will Gay Marriage Advocates Continue To Support?

I have seen many rainbow picture profiles on Facebook and many "love wins" sentiments after the 5-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in which they used the 14th amendment to discover a "right to marry."  There are numerous legal reasons why this move represents a dangerous precedent, and how wrong it is for justices to find "implied rights" are more important that explicitly stated rights (such as in the 10th amendment).  For those that have interest in the legal side of this (or those who claim that defense of traditional marriage is indefensible), reading the dissents of the four justices who did not support this finding is illuminating.

I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad.  I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.

It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage.  In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:

• That I "probably don't have a lot of gay friends"
• That I have a phobia of homosexuals
• That I am a bigot
• That I am hateful
• That I don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That I might be gay myself if I am "threatened"
• That I am fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That I am encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That I am being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

The list is not comprehensive, but it never ceases to amaze me how many accusations are made about any person who believes in traditional marriage.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to be married, the question I have for gay marriage advocates is whether they plan to extend these rights to everyone.  (This is a rhetorical question, I don't want you to tell me about it, I want you to actually open your mind to the consequences of "love" "winning.")

Take for example the polygamous group.  (Now before you say that this is a straw man argument, and no one is advocating for it, read this article)  So if seven people decide that they are in "love", how can a person say that they should be denied the right to marry?  Obviously not because we adhere to a standard of traditional marriage.  If you are opposed to polygamy, let me suggest the following reasons:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of polygamous friends"
• That you have a phobia of polygamists
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have polygamous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the biological brother and sister that have fallen in love, but that the state will not issue a marriage license because they are related.  If marriage is a right, then who are you to say that being related should deprive a person of this right?  If you still disagree that incestuous relationships should be able to have legal recognition in the form of marriage, may I suggest the following reasons that you believe this:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of incestuous friends"
• That you have a phobia of incest
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have incestuous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the man that has fallen in love with his pet dog.  They would like to make their love officially recognized in the form of marriage.  Who are you to say that the dog doesn't love its owner.  I have spoken to many vegetarians who insist that animals have all the same feelings that humans have, and that the most important of those feelings is love.  Who are you to say that this type of relationship is "not natural."  For thousands of years the majority of civilization believed the exact same thing about homosexuality (and many still do.)  Just because Leviticus 18:23 says "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion" doesn't mean anything.  After all, the Bible also forbids eating pork or women speaking in church, so you can't accept everything in the Bible... right?  Certainly this form of "love" may not be traditional, but the man has a right to be married, and if you try to discriminate against the form of his love, it can only be because:

 

• That you "probably don't have a lot of animal-loving friends"
• That you have a phobia of human-animal relationships
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have bestiality desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the forty-year-old man that has fallen in love with a twelve-year-old boy.  The boy says that he is happy with the man, and who are you to say their relationship is taboo?  Of course, the boy may not be an adult, to which traditional marriage relationships typically are limited, but tradition is not the basis for love anymore, right?  It's only love.  Nothing else matters, right?  And who are you to say that the boy is not capable of being in love?  If young people are not capable of love, then are you advocating banning relationships in high school between students who are under the age of eighteen?  No more "cutest couple" in the year book, right?  Your "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" is not allowed.  There are no gay teens, right, since they are too young to understand or participate in sexual activities, right?  Or perhaps you truly believe that "love" should win?  Perhaps the pedophile is just another "non-traditional" relationship that has been negatively stereotyped by society.  No?  Then perhaps you say this because:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of pedophile friends"
• That you have a phobia of pedophilia
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have pedophilia desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

If you are a gay marriage advocate, you may be tempted to let me know about how these ideas are totally different than those of gay marriage.  You may be tempted to shout "slippery slope" or "no one is going to advocate that" or "straw man" or whatever else makes you feel better about the fact that you believe (as I do) that there should be some discrimination in who we permit to marry.  Please, before you begin sending me messages about how awful a human being I am... consider for just a moment that perhaps gay marriage advocates are not so very different from the traditionalists, cake bakers, and people of faith that many of them tend to demonize.

If the reasons for why you might be opposed to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other unnatural relationships are not accurately represented by the bullet point lists... then consider for a moment the possibility that the reason I am opposed to homosexual marriage may not be accurately represented by these things either.

Additionally, if you have thrown "traditional marriage" out the window as a valid reason to discriminate against other unorthodox types of unions, consider for a moment the actual reasons that you are opposed to them.  Examine why you believe that some types of unions are not good, and should not be condoned by society.

It is my earnest hope that perhaps, in the moment when you struggle to define why it is OK to discriminate against some marriages, that you will see that advocates of traditional marriage are not the demons they are painted to be.

Wait, I thought you believed in separation of church and state...

Zack Kopplin has received attention in the past year for his efforts against creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools.  This is not all that uncommon an effort among atheist activists.  The thing that sets him apart is his attack of private schools that teach such concepts.

He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana.  For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student.  The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs.  The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.

Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design.  Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.

Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.

Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding.  To a degree, they have.  The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes.  People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding.  If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.

To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding.  Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church.  What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.

Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion.  While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it. 

Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment.  Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state.  (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)

Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities.  Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property.  Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.

Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches.  The more obvious roles include welfare and charity.  A less obvious role is education.

While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent.  This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.

In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.

Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis. 

A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to.  A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to.  Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to.  The government has no business telling people what they need to learn.  Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.

Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references.  These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.

Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives.  While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?

If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.