Satire: Perspectives on Hateful People

<Satire>

Point: Hateful people make life difficult (Perspective presented by 32-year-old Hal, a self-proclaimed advocate of homosexual rights)

Hateful people are everywhere.  Of course, in public places, you kind of have to expect it.  On Twitter, there are lots of alt-right accounts that say hateful things like "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," or "God invites us to repent and be better."  This kind of talk is really just code for "we're homophobic" and "we don't accept you."

What really hurts is when the hate can reach you in places you thought were safe, like your home.  Family and so-called friends pretend to accept you, but they're always demanding that you conform to their way of thinking...  Even my mom was like "can you please be respectful of President Oaks?  Calling him a nazi homophobe every two sentences is unkind."  Of course, she says it because she hates me.

Even going to church, where they say that "everyone is welcome," I was asked by the gestapo church leaders to stop saying the F-word because it's offensive, even though they say words I find offensive like "standards" and "modesty."

People can be so hateful!

                            ************************

Counterpoint:  Hateful people make life difficult (Perspective presented by 13-year-old Jake, a self-proclaimed gaming expert)

Hateful people are everywhere.  Of course, in public places, you kind of have to expect it.  On Twitter, there are lots of stupid accounts that say hateful things like "education is important," or "kids are disrespectful."  This kind of talk is really just code for "we hate fun things" and "we don't accept kids."

What really hurts is when the hate can reach you in places you thought were safe, like your home.  Family and so-called friends pretend to accept you, but they're always demanding that you conform to their way of thinking...  Even my mom was like "can you please be respectful of your teacher?  Calling him a snobby killjoy every two sentences is unkind."  Of course, she says it because she hates me.

Even going to church, where they say that "everyone is welcome," I was asked by the gestapo church leaders to stop saying the F-word because it's offensive, even though they say words I find offensive like "reverence" and "obedience."

People can be so hateful!

</Satire>

What is this nonsense about a "Mormon Male Gaze" circulating?

So I was given a link to an article a few days ago called "The Harms of Projecting the Mormon Male Gaze."

This is not the first time I have seen well-meaning but misguided attempts to attack modesty standards, but it is probably the most thorough.  It is also nearly entirely wrong.

The article begins with the writer rehearsing an account in which she complained to a male who had given a talk in church about a joke she had not appreciated, "the more doors that get slammed in your face as a missionary, the prettier your wife will be."

She describes approaching the speaker and saying the following:

"I’ve heard this joke a lot, and I’ve also heard how it affects the young women and girls, including me. It can make us feel like a young man expects to be rewarded with a pretty wife after serving a mission, or that we’re a trophy he earns for enduring hardship.  It’s also hurtful because it makes us feel like we’re only valued for our looks, not for our kindness, or our personality, or our spirituality.  And for the women who consider their looks to be a little plain, it can make us feel like we’re not deserving of a man who worked hard on his mission."

It's a fair point to say that young men should not expect the result of missionary service (or any other religious devotion) to be a wife, attractive or otherwise.  The best motivation for service should be to help the children of God, and ultimately to return to his kingdom.

It's not a fair point to say that she should feel like she's a trophy who is only valued for her looks.  It seems presumptuous to assume that missionaries everywhere are all hoping to marry her personally, or if she is not taking this to mean that missionaries are thinking of her personally, she has no business being hurt by the idea that missionaries hope to have an attractive spouse.

It's also unfair for girls who think they look plain to feel like they don't deserve a man who worked hard on his mission because hard working missionaries hope to be married to an attractive woman.  This is part of the reason that the "prettier wife" saying exists... because so many men can relate to the desire to have an attractive spouse.

The author then recommends that such jokes be avoided, particularly in audiences that contain women and girls.  Not having heard the context of the comment in this case, I cannot defend it as being humorous or appropriate, but I can imagine a circumstance in which a man, hoping to praise his wife, might use this idea in an acceptable manner.

For the author, the concern seems less about the joke, and more about a perceived systemic problem with males in the church.  She describes it by saying:

"The Mormon Male Gaze (from ‘male gaze’) is rooted in the flawed idea that a young woman’s body is automatically, inherently sexually alluring to the priesthood holding men all around her. She is alternately seen as a temptation to be eschewed or a reward to be given.  Both interpretations objectify the young woman for her body. When the Mormon Male Gaze befalls a girl, the young woman herself bears the burden of being appropriately alluring, so as to be a reward to “worthy” young men, while not being overly alluring to “tempt” other men. According to the many accounts I gathered, the projection of this Mormon Male Gaze is usually done by adult women to younger girls, or by women to each other.  The projection of the gaze exists even when the threat of actual gaze does not."

First of all, a woman's body is inherently sexually alluring to all males who are at least 12 years old.  This should not be surprising.  Tremendous amounts of advertising uses scantily clad women to part men from their money, and Youtube and Twitch streamers who show cleavage and/or tight apparel have far more views than those that do not.

This is not a new phenomenon.  The reason prostitution is called the world's oldest profession is because it is true of men all over the world and throughout history.  It's biologically true.  The daughter of Jared seemed keenly aware of the effect of the female body on a man when she proposed a plan to dance before Akish:

"And now, therefore, let my father send for Akish, the son of Kimnor; and behold, I am fair, and I will dance before him, and I will please him, that he will desire me to wife; wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say: I will give her if ye will bring unto me the head of my father, the king.  And now Omer was a friend to Akish; wherefore, when Jared had sent for Akish, the daughter of Jared danced before him that she pleased him, insomuch that he desired her to wife. And it came to pass that he said unto Jared: Give her unto me to wife. And Jared said unto him: I will give her unto you, if ye will bring unto me the head of my father, the king." (Ether 8:10-12)

The result of this arrangement was a conspiracy formed by Akish to kill his friend, Omer, the king.

How could the daughter of Jared be so confident that this man would commit murder because he saw her body and liked it?  There may be more to the story, but it is at least in part to the fact that all men are inherently drawn to a woman's body.

Though King David was certainly at fault for the incident with Bathsheba, it is worth noting that the impulses that persuaded him to discard every decent principle he had come to embrace started when he saw a woman's body from his rooftop.

Though it is difficult to precisely describe the strength of this power, a man killing is friend and a good king cheating, lying, and ultimately murdering are things that have happened under its influence.

It is completely fair to say that women are not the "gatekeepers" or that women bear sole responsibility to keep men from behaving badly, as the author of this article points out later... but if a joke about attractive spouses is supposed to be avoided out of consideration for the feelings it invokes in others, certainly some care should be taken with appearance out of consideration for the powerful feelings it invokes in others.

Second, the point about the objectification of women is flawed.  Since men naturally seek an attractive woman,  marriage to a beautiful woman should feel like a reward; the blend of love, happiness, and attraction certainly felt that way to me.  Additionally, a bride should feel like a trophy when she is married.  This does not mean she should lose her humanity, or any of the other qualities she has... it means that she should feel physically beautiful.  That's at least one point of wearing a wedding dress... to stand out as an object of admiration and desire.

It is a problematic marriage in which the wife is no longer the object of her husband's admiration.  Of course she should be valued as an individual with talents and qualities besides physical appeal... but expressing physical love in the bonds of marriage does not have to take anything away from a wife's other attributes and values.  It adds to the relationship when the husband continues to hold his wife as an object of beauty and admiration, in addition to honoring all her other roles.

The author of the article proceeds to group several items together under the "men shouldn't view attractive wives as rewards" heading.  Some of these ideas can be addressed by understanding that men actually should prize their wives and feel like their relationship with them is a reward... but a couple of them are actually valid points:

"- Leaders who require girls to accept the invitation of boys to dance at church dances.

- I bought you dinner and was a perfect gentleman all night; don’t I deserve a kiss?”

 I personally think that dancing is a terrible way to interact, and I agree that forcing acceptance is a bad idea.  This reinforces the behavior in the second example... the idea that physical affection should be handled by making deals.  A kiss should be an expression of actual love, not a service to be purchased or exchanged for other goods or services.  Even within the bonds of marriage where there should be an expectation of love, the value of physical intimacy is diluted when it is demanded, withheld, or treated like currency.

Another subject the author of this article tackles is something they label "the lustful priesthood guardian fallacy."  The idea is that young women leaders ask women to cover themselves so they do not tempt priesthood leaders, and the main objection is that if they are meant to protect these girls, the ease with which they are tempted makes them bad protectors.

I am going to hazard a guess and suggest that the author of the article would probably not approve of a nudist girls camp, even if there were no men there.  Would it be OK for a person to come in to a church meeting completely naked?  Most people, even who object to the standards of modesty imposed by church leaders, would probably still be uncomfortable being naked.  While this may seem like a straw man argument (after all, she is not arguing for exhibitionism), it serves to show that there is a line in which a person is not covered well enough.  Acknowledging that there is a line means that the real debate is not "modest dress standards are bad" but "what constitutes inappropriate dress," which is a very different argument.

Her argument about gender reversals also falls flat for two reasons.  It is equally inappropriate for men to expose themselves, whether or not women are the people forced to look at their junk.  Also, men and women are... (surprise)... different.  While there exist some women who are deeply affected by visual stimulus, men, on average, are affected far more.  Dennis Prager did a great video on this idea.  Thinking that men and women can be interchangeable is perhaps the biggest fallacy in this section.

The last section the author covers is titled "The Modest is Hottest/SexyModest fallacy."

Here she is recycling the argument used about women should not tempt men while simultaneously being attractive to men, as though it is only possible to do one.

My wife was always self-conscious about showing too much skin, and even before we were together, she went to extra lengths to be modest including wearing shorts over swimsuits, wearing shirts underneath dresses with questionable necklines, and mostly wearing t-shirts and pants.  In other words, she strictly followed modesty council.

In spite of her following the guidance of church leaders, she was (and still is) very attractive.  She is not the only one who has figured out the trick to this supposedly no-win scenario.

Even if a person does buy in to this either/or idea, then would it not also follow that a girl can't tell a boy that he should value her more as a person than a sex object while simultaneously showing her chest off?  And isn't that more what church leaders are trying to teach young women?  If a girl wants to be respected for her intelligence, her wit, her compassion, or any other non-sexual attribute, then maybe she should work to make those attributes more noticeable than her body?

At the end of the article, the author went into a tin-foil hat level conspiracy (probably hyperbole, but I could not tell for certain) about how the church's history with polygamy and pioneer DNA lead jealous women to lash out at potential rivals for their husbands' affection.  Of course, that's utter nonsense.  A far more reasonable explanation is that people have struggled to keep the standards of their faith for thousands of years... and that a bit of counsel from those who are more experienced is likely good (by the way, that's a huge reason we have the scriptures).

The issue that this article represents is more serious than the problem it seeks to investigate... which is that there are individuals in the church who do not understand the basic differences between men and women, or how to handle these differences, but that are certain that leaders in the church are wrong.  That this article seems to resonate with so many people... that is the issue.

Instead of being angry about a "Mormon Male Gaze," it would be helpful for people to learn how men and women work... and until they have learned themselves, to trust that the guidance of church leaders is based on real experience that, if followed, will probably help rather than hurt.

How to Survive the 2016 Presidential Election

Let me begin by explaining my perspective.  Even if you disagree with my positions, I hope you find value in my suggestions for dealing with this election.

For those who know me, it is no secret that I am politically conservative.  I have supported Republicans in elections since I have been eligible to vote.  The principles of limited government as defined by the Constitution and the Federalist Papers have resonated with me the more I have studied them.  Though they predated me, conservatives such as Davy Crockett and Calvin Coolidge have inspired me.  While Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were not perfect leaders, I supported much of what they did.

I did not support John McCain in the primaries of 2008, but I voted for him in opposition to Barack Obama.  I did not support Mitt Romney in the primaries of 2012, but I voted for him with similar opposition in the November election.

Then came 2016.

Early in the race, I recall being frustrated with people who were already saying there were no candidates they wanted to support.  If you believed everything Barack Obama said about himself, you could support Hillary.  If you wanted to ignore every failure of socialism hoping that this time it would be different, you could support Bernie Sanders.  If you wanted someone outside of politics to make a difference, Ben Carson fit the description.  If you wanted someone who had political experience and constitutional principles, Ted Cruz was the man.  If you wanted a compromiser who could relate to younger voters, Marco Rubio was viable.  If you wanted an establishment Republican, there was Jeb Bush.  Finally, if you wanted to flip people off, there was Donald Trump.

Through a series of events I am not sure I understand yet, the two parties lifted up Trump and Clinton as the nominees.

Any frustrations I had with people who said there were no good choices disappeared.  On the one hand, Hillary Clinton has been tied to pay-for-play corruption in the State Department.  She has obfuscated and lied about things even when she did not need to (such as her pneumonia episode).  Even Democrats who supported socialist Bernie Sanders recognized her corruption in the primary process.  For non-democrats, Clinton represents every flaw that accompanies big-government politics.  On the other hand, Donald Trump is a crude individual who has used personal attacks and media manipulation to propel himself.  He and his campaign promoted insane conspiracies that Ted Cruz's father might have been involved in the JFK assassination, and unnecessarily shameful attacks about Cruz's wife.  His record with infidelity and morality directly conflicts with the standards that Republicans have typically tried to espouse.  Even worse, his ideas for policy are all based on large government solutions including large tariffs, undefinable immigration changes that may or may not include a wall, and confusing foreign policy positions that have difficulty differentiating between friends and foes.  Essentially, Americans are being given the choice between two Democrats... two unlikable Democrats.

Third party candidates have risen to try to position themselves as viable alternatives.  Of course, Jill Stein of the Green Party is even further to the left of the major party nominees, but Gary Johnson has, in an attempt to court disenfranchised voters, put himself in roughly the same position as Trump and Clinton in terms of policy.  He praised a lot of the Bernie Sanders strategy, and is left of Clinton on immigration.  His foreign policy understanding is famously lacking, and his major priority is the legalization of drugs.  Essentially, the major third party candidates have offered us two more Democrats from which to choose.

This, among other precedent, has led many people to conclude that the best thing they can do with their vote is to oppose one of the two major political candidates.  The media is all over the Trump tapes (that reveal nothing new; Donald Trump has always been a crude man) to encourage people to prevent Trump from becoming President.  Conservative sites have a target-rich environment to show Hillary's record of corruption (that also reveal nothing new; Hillary Clinton has always been a corrupt manipulator) that they use to encourage people to prevent Hillary from becoming President.

I completely understand wanting to prevent either one of these people from becoming President.  Frankly, I understand wanting to prevent some of the third party candidates from becoming President as well.

That having been said, let me suggest the following:

1. Don't make excuses for any candidate.  I know that Hillary Clinton will cause awful harm as President of the United States.  That doesn't excuse Donald Trump's awful behavior.  Additionally, I know that Donald Trump is unlikely to keep any of the promises he has made, and would be a disaster for America.  That doesn't mean Hillary's dishonesty and criminal activity was OK.  Acknowledge the imperfections that each person has.

2. People who have opposing political views are not incompetent racist traitor bigot liars (necessarily).  Of course it is possible to find Trump supporters that are hateful lunatics, and Hillary supporters that actually hate America, but it is likely more productive to talk about ideas, principles, and values rather than slinging disrespect.  If you have to become an awful person to show that someone else is an awful person, then what have you really accomplished?

3. The Government is incapable of solving most of our problems.  Having voted for or against a candidate does not absolve an individual of personal responsibility.  You must still help other people.  You must still be decent and law-abiding.  You must still work hard.  You must still try to better yourself.  Ultimately, the most significant sources of improving people (and in turn, society) are Jesus Christ, and strong families (in that order).  The most important education, the preservation of values, the way people of different races, genders, and backgrounds can improve interactions... all of these things are best improved by fathers and mothers who love one another and their children.  Religious institutions that promote faith and family, as well as charity, honesty, respect, virtue, and forgiveness support families in these efforts.  These elements will do the most to solve the problems our society faces.

4. Don't let political frustration discourage you.  It is easy to become cynical.  It is easy to avoid participating in elections or political conversations.  Sometimes, it seems justified.  The outlook on the 2016 Presidential Election is not encouraging, regardless of which party wins.  That does not mean that you should stop caring.  That does not mean that your conscience is unimportant.  That does not mean that America is beyond redemption.  This nation has been in precarious situations before, and we have triumphed when enough people did the right thing when it was difficult.

5. In the end, the good guys win.  I don't want to suggest that life will be sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows... There will be perils, disasters, tragedies, and horrors... many of them will be perpetrated by people (2 Timothy 3:1-7).  I do want to suggest that, in the end, God will make everything right.  No one will "get away with" their crimes.  No injustice will go uncorrected.  No wound will remain unhealed.  No hurt will persist.  In the end, good will triumph over evil.  Have faith.  Have confidence.  Even if it doesn't look good right now, Jesus Christ is coming... and he will save us all.

Why the Bible still matters...

I recall an English class in college where the instructor read several papers to the class to illustrate good and bad techniques used by students.  The assignment had been to locate an editorial article and to write a paper that argued in favor of it, or against it, and one of the papers the instructor read first invoked the Bible as an argument against physician-assisted suicide.  The instructor warned that using the Bible to support a point was dangerous because so many people disagreed on the Bible, or interpreted it differently.

The instructor then read my paper.  I recall having written in response to an editorial that claimed vegetarians were morally superior.  Ironically, the article had invoked the Bible suggesting that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" did not provide exceptions, so believers in the bible should avoid the taking of animal life for food.  In response, I had used Bible passages that contained instructions for killing animal sacrifices, and also shown that the resurrected Christ had eaten fish.

The instructor asked the class what they thought of my writing.  Some people immediately pointed out that I had used the Bible, and that it was dangerous.  The instructor indicated that because I had used it in response to a biblical argument, it proved the point, and was an effective example.

At the time, I recall feeling quite proud of myself.  Even now, I believe that I defended the use of animal products convincingly in response to the editorial... and even though I continue to enjoy the delicious flavor of bacon, beef, poultry, and fish... instead of pride, a small sense of shame comes to me.

As time has passed, I have come to realize that my arguments did exactly what the instructor described: they eroded trust in the Bible.  They suggested that any conclusion could be obtained from the book, which implies that no conclusion derived therefrom is of any importance.

Contemporary conversations about issues ranging from health care to homosexual marriage and abortion to taxes, frequently cite the Bible... and individuals on both sides of any given argument have been known to appeal to the same religious book for justification that their point of view is morally correct or even favored by God himself.  Opponents on both sides are quick to read passages that describe dietary restrictions or other obscure and archaic guides for conduct from the Old Testament to show that people are selectively following the Bible.

Enough arguments that use the Bible have circulated such that for many people... the Bible no longer matters.

To any that may have reached this conclusion (and I cannot overemphasize this), I say you are wrong.

Equally, to those who persist in using the scriptures as a weapon to prove that others have not come to the correct conclusion on any given issue... you are also wrong (even if you're right about the issue).

The primary purpose of the Bible is not to prove anything.  As critics point out, there are times when the Bible seems incomplete (2 Chronicles 9:29), or confusing (Genesis 22:1-2), or archaic (Leviticus 11:2-4).  Those that allow these flaws to convince them the Bible has no worth because of some passages, miss out on the truly beautiful and powerful passages that inspire.

Consider the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Luke 24)  Jesus expounded the scriptures to them in a powerful manner, such that after he was gone they said "did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32, emphasis added)  Certainly, defenders of the good book can point to its historical significance, or the influence that it has had on the English language, the availability of printing, the concepts of liberty and morality... but the purpose of scripture study is illustrated in the example of the disciples on the road to Emmaus.  It is not to produce well-thought argument... it is to help men recognize God.

Much like other religious performances, the true power of reading the Bible depends on an existing faith in God.  (see Hebrews 11:6)  Just as the parables that Jesus taught meant nothing to some audiences, to some they revealed great truths (Matthew 13:34-35), the same words in the scriptures can produce different messages for different readers.  Those that have "ears to hear" are those that are open to spiritual truths.

Reading the Bible with faith produces spiritual strength and understanding.  I cannot help but be moved when I read the bold teachings of Christ in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7), or the profound description of Jesus as the Word of God (John 1).  The confidence of Isaiah and Hezekiah (Isaiah 37), the courage of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego (Daniel 3), and the fearlessness of Elijah the Tishbite (1 Kings 18) have power to inspire and strengthen.

A complete enumeration of moving passages is not practical, but I have found that the more I read, the better I come to know God.  In a world of strife and conflict, the Bible matters not because it specifically and with certainty answers with logic any given issue, scenario, or question... but because it helps people become better.  A world where more people strive for righteousness and selflessly devote their time and talents for the betterment of his family is precisely the reason that the Bible is here.  God is trying to speak to us, and just as he did on the road to Emmaus, the scriptures are the tool that allows any disciple to recognize God.

And so if it has been a while, dust of the cover, crack open the pages, or even go online for free(https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible?lang=eng).  No matter where a person is in life's journey, reading the Bible, when properly used and diligently studied, can help them get to a better place... a place closer to God himself.

Tolerating Unethical Behavior

John Dillinger was a depression-era gangster that robbed banks.  He had quite a number of successful heists before the BOI (precursor to the FBI) eventually tracked him down.  He was shot multiple times in a final escape attempt.

During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular.  There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown.  Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad.  Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.

Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber.  In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.

Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue.  Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level.  The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States.  In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars.  In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.

Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this.  For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States.  For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.

Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity.  There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.  Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.

The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality.  The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners.  While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.

There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision.  Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics.  Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical. 

I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits.  I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be.  I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured.  The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.

Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical.  The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:

John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child."  After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted.  He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity.  In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them.  The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported.  Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.

In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime. 
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.

Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point.  The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior.  The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."

In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].

Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.

Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.

The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.

Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness.  They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.

This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good.  Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes.  The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"

For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify.  Homosexual behavior is unethical.  Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it.  Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior. 

The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)

Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior.  That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

How to misinterpret the Bible

The Bible is viewed by some as the definition of Christianity.  The contents of the Bible for this group defines their religion in its entirety.  They believe it is more than inspired; they believe it is infallible.

For the other extreme, the Bible is viewed as a loose set of guidelines, or perhaps even suggestions for living rather than laws by which humanity will be judged.

Of course, not to be excluded is the group that feels the Bible is so flawed that it represents the best case against Christianity.

To add additional layers of complexity, arguments have ensued between people that place equal value on the word of God regarding its context, its meaning, or the wording of a particular translation.

With so many methods available to misinterpret the Bible, it becomes easy to see how there can be so much disagreement among Christians over even the most fundamental doctrines and concepts.  You may even wonder (and if you are not wondering, should should wonder) whether you are misinterpreting the Bible.  Here are a few ways:

1. The Bible is infallible.  Even though we do not actually have original manuscripts of what Moses, Isaiah, John, or Paul wrote, there are those that think the book is perfect.  This of course does not even touch on which translation should we consider to be accurate.  For example, Genesis describes God as being penitent and sorrowful that he created man, as if the creation was a mistake (Genesis 6:6-7)  Really?  God made a mistake?  Or is it possible that the Bible may have a mistake?  God didn't write the Bible, so odds are, there are some flaws.  That doesn't mean it's bad, just flawed... kind of like you...

2. The Bible is complete.  This is convenient for those that want to do something that is not specified in the Bible.  There is even a scripture in the Bible that seems to back it up, and it decries the adding or subtracting of the prophecy of this book.  (Revelation 22:18-19)  Of course, God said something almost identical in Deuteronomy 4:2, and yet a lot of prophecies were added after that.  Additionally, there was no such thing as the Bible in the days of Moses or of John.  It was compiled hundreds of years later.  There are lots of references in the Bible to books that did not make it in. (book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).)
The conclusion?  The Bible has a lot of good stuff... but complete?  Not so much...

3. The Old Testament has been fulfilled; it's not important anymore.  Of course there are elements of the Old Testament that are no longer required.  Christians no longer perform animal sacrifices, observe the Passover, and are even able to eat pork and shellfish.  That does not mean anything that came before Christ was rendered unimportant.  Christ was very concerned about the law and the prophets. (Matthew 5:17-20)  In fact, an examination of Matthew 5 indicates that Christ wanted people to live by a higher law than they had previously known.  No longer was it sufficient to say "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but instead, "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)  Isaiah gave many prophecies about Christ's second coming, which are obviously yet to be fulfilled.  (Isaiah 2)  The Old Testament may contain references to things that are no longer used in terms of "Law of Moses" specifics, but there were many important events that help us understand who God is, how he deals with his children, and what life's purpose is.  Saying the Old Testament doesn't matter anymore is like saying arithmetic isn't important anymore because you're learning algebra.  Guess what, you still need it!

4. As long as you believe in God, it doesn't matter what the Bible says.  Certainly there were times before the Bible.  There were even times before the oldest book in our Bible was written.  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all lived before Moses wrote Genesis and told their story, so no amount of the Bible played a role in how they made decisions and recognized God.  That having been said, the Bible is important today.  Does a person need to be baptized to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? or is believing God exists all that is important?  The Bible contains Jesus's answers to these important questions.  (John 3:5)  For a Christian, the importance of learning what Christ did and taught should be obvious...

5. Everything in the Bible is symbolic.  Stories in the Bible that describe events such as the flood in the days of Noah, or a time when men lived hundreds of years before dying, or even when Elijah called down fire from heaven may seem fantastic.  Some people feel more comfortable if they dismiss such events as metaphors for something.  It must be more believable to say that God "figuratively" plagued Egypt, or that he "figuratively" raised Lazarus from the dead.  Unfortunately, people that subscribe to this thinking are "figuratively" full of crap.

6. Everything in the Bible is literal.  On the other side of the coin are those that embrace every parable and analogy as the literal truth.  These kinds of people were like the ones weirded out when Jesus told them they needed to eat his flesh. (John 6:51-60)  There are many things that were done symbolically.  The details of animal sacrifice and ordinances all had meaning beyond the literal actions.  The many parables that Jesus taught were to help certain people learn specific things.  People who failed to understand symbolism then are much like those that fail to understand it today... they "literally" don't know what the Bible is saying.

7. Some verses in the Bible aren't politically correct, so the whole book must be false.  Some people seem to know only those verses in the Bible that discuss dealing with suspected adulterers under the Mosaic law and government, or the verses in which Paul talks about women being silent in churches.  (Deuteronomy 22, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)  Since there are verses in both the Old and New Testaments, I guess you can just dismiss both of them, right?  I mean, it's not possible for some parts of a book to be more important than other parts, right?  If you don't have a problem with say... homosexuality, adultery, or fornication... then you can just dismiss what the Bible says about it because of the politically incorrect verses, right?  And because you only read a handful of controversial verses, you have a good idea about the themes and principles in the rest of it, right?  On the other hand, could it be that you have no idea what the Bible is about, or that your assumptions about what is good or bad that come from your cultural traditions may have as many flaws as (or perhaps even more than)  those cultures described in Biblical times against whom you are eager to pass judgement?  Do you honestly think that being politically correct is more important than learning the true purposes of mankind and life itself? 

8. The Bible is too difficult to understand, so I'm better off without it.  So said the 40-year-old McDonald's employee about high school math.

9. The Bible is the highest authoritative source.  Don't get me wrong.  I love the Bible.  I believe the word of God is contained in beauty, power, and authority within it.  The problem with viewing the law as authoritative was the same issue that the Pharisees had.  They were so consumed with ensuring they knew the law that they missed out on recognizing the law-giver when he came among them.  God is the highest authoritative source; the Bible is not.  If you think that God is not capable of communicating with mankind except by means of a flawed book (See #1 and #2) then why call him God?  If he sent prophets and angels in times past to augment or clarify the meaning of his word, why should our time be so different.  Hint: it's not.

10. The Bible has a code that can be used to calculate the exact date of when Jesus will come again and everything else that will happen in the future.  How can I put this?.... It's a book... just try reading the words...  Counting characters is missing the point...

Ultimately, there are innumerable ways to misunderstand the Bible.  People have used it to justify hunting down so-called heretics, and also used it to excuse those guilty of terrible crimes.  People have used it to condemn and to justify the same acts.  I assert that very few in either group have actually read the entire Bible... let alone qualified themselves to interpret it.

Of course the Bible can be difficult to read and to understand, but the effort required to do so is well worth it.  The Bible may not contain the answer to every question, but with eloquence and power it can shine light on the truth.  There are few things in the English language as powerful as the declaration of Jesus Christ in John 11: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11:25-26)

Additionally, the Bible points us to God for additional wisdom.  The Prophet Joseph Smith was confused by the heated debates between various sects that all seemed to use the same Bible to endorse themselves and condemn one another.  He writes:
"While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." (Joseph Smith - History 1:11-12)

Here is the wisdom of the Bible... it directs us, as it did Joseph Smith, to God himself.

In the end, any other persuasion derived from the Bible is erroneous.  Why call it the word of God if it does not lead us back to him?  I assert that it can and does for all those that diligently search its pages.

Contention may be of the Devil, but Jesus was really good at it!

Having one's views attacked can be aggravating and frustrating whether the views are political, religious, or based on the type of music/movies/shows that a person enjoys.  Of course, closing in on the presidential race in the United States of America, arguments have become heated in many forums.  People that normally remember to say "please" and "thank you" have in many cases been seen slinging that which is vulgar and profane.  Arguments in many cases have the power to bring out the worst in humanity.

Certainly it is no coincidence that Jesus taught in the Book of Mormon the following:

"For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.  Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."  (3 Nephi 11:29-30)

The passage in the Book of Mormon is quite plain and direct, and certainly in harmony with the messages that he shared famously in his sermon on the mount:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven..." (Matthew 5:38-45)

Jesus seemed clear that people probably should not participate in arguments or contentions.  That having been said, he was himself a target of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees that dominated religious thought in Galilee and Judea during his mortal life.  The gospels are filled with accounts of the various attempts that were made to argue against Jesus.  The truth is, as much as he talked about the vices of pride and wrath that are so easily stimulated by arguments, Jesus was really really good at arguing.

One example was the group of Pharisees that thought they could trap Jesus by asking whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar.  If Jesus were to say it was lawful, they could attack his popularity because Roman occupation was despised by the Jews.  If he were to say it was not lawful, they could report him to the Romans for sedition.  His response was perfect:

"Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:19-21)

Jesus gave the perfect answer.  By asking about the image on the coin, those that had thought they could trap him were forced to portray themselves as having overlooked something obvious.  Additionally, he could not be accused of sedition, nor could his piety be questioned by suggesting that people give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his.

Sadducees attempted to attack Christ's affirmation of the resurrection with a hypothetical situation:

"Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:24-32)

In this case, he showed his amazing ability by ignoring the hypothetical situation which was a distraction from the real point of whether or not there would be a resurrection of the dead.  Though they had come to attack his views for something they felt was inconsistent, he was able to counter by identifying their own inconsistency.

On another occasion, enemies tried to trap him by asking Jesus the source of his authority.  If he were to say God, they would accuse him of blasphemy (even though it was true).  If he were to say some other source, they could accuse him of being a false prophet.  He took the advice that he had given in his sermon on the mount when he said:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."  (Matthew 7:6)

Instead of answering the question they posed, he posed a similar question to them:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."  (Matthew 21:24-27)

His enemies were never able to win an argument with him, so in the end, they paid Judas Iscariot to betray him so they could secretly arrange for his death.  Ironically, they were not able to surprise him or beat him even with their murderous conspiracy, as Jesus raised himself from the dead.

Back to the subject of arguments, there are some that may wonder why Jesus even participated in verbal contests when he seemed so against them.  The effort to understand why he debated those that tried to trap him is fundamental to understanding the responsibilities of all Christians to defend the truth, and balancing that with the need to show respect and kindness to all of God's children.

Modern prophets and apostles have encouraged participation in discussions about the church:

"There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches. While some conversations have audiences in the thousands or even millions, most are much, much smaller. But all conversations have an impact on those who participate in them. Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time."  (M. Russel Ballard http://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/07/sharing-the-gospel-using-the-internet?lang=eng)

In spite of the possibility that disagreements or contentions may arise, or the fact that the internet is crawling with trolls that, like the Pharisees of old, feel satisfaction in discrediting, angering, and bullying others, Christians have a responsibility to help others both by charitably imparting of their tangible substance, and by sharing the good news that Christ is alive and has power to save us all.  That having been said, there are lessons to learn from the methods used by Christ himself for dealing with trolls.

Many people that attack Christians do so based on the idea of logical arguments.  A logical argument is like a house where the roof represents a conclusion or premise that is supported by walls representing supporting evidence or reasons.  The basic idea behind attacking a logical argument is that if all or many of the supporting reasons are eliminated, the conclusion falls just as if the walls of a house are knocked down or weakened, the roof falls.

This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion.  As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.

An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God.  He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts.  A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin.  Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.

Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence.  It is based on faith.  Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling.  Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine.  Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.

Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification.  It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions.  Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you.  Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad.  Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct.  If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.

Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning.  Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles.  Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions.  Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views.  In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion."  It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice.  If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical.  Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely.  If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables.  The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.

Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God.  From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices.  The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith.  With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth.  A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him.  He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths.  The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men.  The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.

Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth.  The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."  (John 1:1-9)

People have a general understanding of how to perceive good.  They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion.  While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin.  Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence.  Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right.  With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ.  Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong.  Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.

The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them.  It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus.  Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity.  The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.

When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion.  Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy.  In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings.  In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.

Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree.  In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory.  He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people.  Every knee will bow before His Majesty.  The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.

Be an American, not a troll...

The political debate in the United States has heated up as election day has approached.  Every record not protected by law has been examined.  Popular figures have thrown their support behind one candidate or another, and plead for Americans to do the same.  Every idle word has fallen under scrutiny, and even the amount of scrutiny given has fallen under scrutiny.

People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates.  Some of these posts are civil.  Some less so.

Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.

Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best.  At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.

Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy.  They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create.  To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.

The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do.  Many people avoid politics altogether as a result.  Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens.  Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.

There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack.  This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally.  Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally.  A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney."  On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."

The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate.  While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races.  "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.

Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings.  People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them.  Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.

To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before.  Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement.  Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions.  Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions.  The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America."  The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans.  Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been.  It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.

The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll?  The following list explores solutions:

• Be informed.  Nasty political advertisements are not effective against people who have already looked at the issues and come to their own conclusions.  They target the uninformed.  This leads into the next point which is...
• Choose reliable sources of information.  There is no such thing as an unbiased source, since no source presents all of the information.  The decisions regarding what to report and what to ignore are always based on the opinions of editors (and others) as to what is important or what will bring the most viewing.
• Don't get offended.  This is of course easier said than done.  Try to avoid sources of information that use images and language that will bother you.  Unsubscribe to the posts of some of your Facebook friends.  Stop following celebrities on Twitter.  Of course, eventually you will find something that offends you.  Resist the urge to immediately post something in rebuttal.  Evaluate whether pursuing a dialog is for the purpose of informing or rebuking can prevent pointless debates.  This leads into the next point which is...
• Avoid pointless debates.  If you have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded, talking to someone else who has made up their mind and cannot be persuaded probably wastes time.  Debates are only helpful for weighing two opposing views.  If you talk to someone who is unsure, being persuasive is perfectly fine.  Being a little abrasive might even be ok, depending on the people involved and assuming that arguments presented are founded in facts and honest beliefs rather than clever fallacies.
• Prioritize your principles.  Do you know what things you would be willing to compromise?  Do you have ideals from which you cannot withdraw support?  Candidates and platforms include so many issues, and it is possible that opposing parties might have some elements that are appealing.  Those that most firmly support what is most important to you should have support.  For Christians, the most important principles must be religious.  Saving mankind by embracing good and denouncing evil is more important than saving whales.  For environmental purists, saving whales is far more important than other economic or governmental concerns.  Choices between platforms become easier when you know what is most important to you.
• Be consistent.  Another way this point might be phrased is to examine your beliefs to see if there are any problems.  This does not mean to go read everything from people that disagree with you and hate you...  It also does not mean that if you find an inconsistency, you should throw out your principles immediately.  Is there a better argument to support something that you believe in your heart?  Are the arguments to believe something else more compelling?  Everyone is guilty of some hypocrisy, but the effort to keep it to a minimum is a good thing.

In the end, most people are good.  For conservatives read 'tax-and-spend, anti-war, tree-huggers can be good people.'  For liberals read 'Christian, right-wing, Bible-thumping, hicks can be good people.' 

The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did).  The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us.  Be an American, not a troll.