Thursday, June 19, 2014
Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade the sphere of private life.
—William Lamb, From Melbourne’s Papers
Herewith a recent history of the Mormon Church:
1978: That was the year the church discovered that banning black males from the priesthood during the first 148 years of the church’s existence had been an error. The error was corrected in a letter from the president of the church who stated that the Lord “has heard our prayers and, by revelation, has confirmed that the long promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive thy priesthood. . . .” A leader of a group of black Mormons was delighted with the change in church policy. He said the end of time might be approaching because “we perhaps have reached a state of brotherhood.” He was wrong.
1995: That was the year that the Church’s practice of what the Mormons call “Vicarious Baptism” but is more accurately called “Posthumous Baptism”, was disclosed. The Mormons believe, as most religions do, that theirs is the only one worth having and, more importantly, the only one guaranteeing its members a seat in heaven. Generous of spirit and eager to share their good fortune with those not members of the church during life, it was publicly disclosed that the Mormons had a long tradition of baptizing the dead without their consent or the consent of their descendants. Among the beneficiaries of this practice were Adolph Hitler and 380,000 holocaust victims, including Anne Frank. Upon learning of this practice Jewish leaders were upset. One senior researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center said of the baptized decedents: “These people were born Jews, they lived as Jews and many of them died because they were Jews. They would not have chosen to be baptized Mormons in life and there is no reason they would want to be baptized by proxy in death.” Following the public disclosure of the practice the Mormons agreed to unbaptize all those involuntarily baptized after death and to abandon the practice.
1996: That was the year that the Salt Lake City Board of Education voted to eliminate the ski, chess, Latino, Frisbee and Bible clubs in the public schools. The action was in response to a petition from the Gay/Straight Alliance, a gay and lesbian high school club seeking formal recognition. The club’s purpose was to help gays and lesbians who were struggling with their sexuality, to support one another. Legislators said permitting the club to meet under school auspices eroded family values and promoted homosexuality. In a vote of 4 to 3 the school board eliminated all of the school-sponsored clubs so the board could not be accused of discriminating against gays and lesbians by banning only their club.
2003: That was the year it was disclosed that “Vicarious Baptism” had never stopped notwithstanding the 1995 accords. Furthermore, the unbaptisms never took place. As one of the negotiators of the 1995 accords said: “We never had in mind that we would on a continual basis, go in and ferret out the Jewish names. That would represent an intolerable burden.”
2010: That was the year it was disclosed that “Vicarious Baptism” had never stopped notwithstanding the 1995 accords. Mormons agreed with the Jewish groups that “Vicarious Baptism” would stop and also announced they had a new computer system in place that would make it hard for members to get people posthumously baptized unless those being baptized were direct ancestors of their sponsors.
2012: That was the year it was disclosed that “Vicarious Baptism” had never stopped. Church president, Tomas Monson and two other members in the Mormon First Presidency signed a letter that was read to every Mormon congregation in the world and it says posthumous baptisms of “unauthorized groups, such as celebrities and Jewish Holocaust victims must stop.
2014: That is the year in which Kate Kelly, a human rights lawyer and devoted Mormon who founded the Ordain our Women movement
received a letter from the bishop of her congregation telling her June 22 is the day a disciplinary hearing will be held to see if she should be thrown overboard by the Mormons. In the e-mail notifying her of the hearing she was told that she faces “disfellowshipment or excommunication on the grounds of apostasy.” Kate’s offense is that she has observed that men and women are not equal in the eyes of the church and that should be changed. She thinks women should enjoy the same status as black men and be permitted to become priests.
That is the year John Dehlin, an advocate for lesbian and gay Mormons, got a letter from the president of his region telling him to resign from the church or face a hearing before a disciplinary council. Mr. Dehlin’s offenses include extensive writing about the Mormon Church and LGBT issues, and expressing doubts on Internet postings about some of the teachings of the Mormon Church.
Church officials explained the reasons for ordering Ms.Kelly and Mr. Dehlin to defend themselves. In a statement released on June 11 the officials said: “Some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members.” Unknown is whether this language originated with the present leadership of the Mormon church or was simply copied from a similar statement made in the years before 1976 when black men were trying to get the church to permit black men to enter the priesthood. It probably doesn’t matter.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
There was a little man and he had a little gun . . . .
— Opening line of a nursery rhyme
The question a number of you have asked is whether the events in Cumming, Georgia that took place on June 6 would have been any different after July 1, 2014. That is the date that the “Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014” goes into effect. Not all my readers have read of that act and a brief word of explanation is in order.
Georgia legislators believe that the reason we have so many gun inspired deaths in this country is because our citizens are not adequately armed. Legislators can point to random shootings occurring on a daily basis in which innocent people have been killed in recent months, many of them in schools. The shootings range from those in which many are shot before the shooter kills himself or is caught and those in which only one or two people are killed. What is obvious to the legislators is that many of these deaths could have been avoided if more citizens were permitted to carry arms and could respond to the violence by shooting the shooter before the shooter shoots himself. That explains why during 2014, the Georgia legislature passed, and the governor signed, the “Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014”. The purpose of that act is to make Georgia a safer place. The way that is accomplished is by increasing the places into which people with concealed carry permits can carry guns.
The act permits concealed carry in all sorts of buildings and
institutions. For example, a person who “has been authorized in writing by a duly authorized official” may carry a concealed weapon in the school safety zone of all educational institutions in Georgia. (The “school safety zone” refers to a building owned or leased by the educational organizations described in the act.) Patrons of bars may find themselves seated next to a drunk with a gun at the ready should violence erupt, unless the bar owner specifically bans individuals with concealed weapons. Those in charge of churches may now permit weapons to accompany parishioners to all church functions. People entering government buildings do not have to worry about whether or not they’ve forgotten to leave their concealed weapon at home. The act provides that license holders “shall be authorized to carry a weapon in a government building. . . when [it is] open for business. . .and where ingress is not restricted or screened by security personnel.” If the building “is restricted or screened by security personnel” one of whom is certified as a peace officer, concealed carry is not permitted and a person entering the building with a weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor. All of that brings us to the question posed at the outset. That was whether what happened on June 6 would have happened after July 1.
The event that happened on June 6 was the attempt by Dennis Marx to enter the Courthouse in Cumming, Georgia. Wearing body armor and a gas mask, brandishing an assault rifle, and using his car as a battering ram, he drove up to the courthouse, attempted to run over a deputy who tried to block him and threw out “homemade spike strips” to block other vehicles from following him. In his car he had gas grenades, smoke grenades and pepper spray grenades and assorted other paraphernalia. Mr. Marx was engaged in a lawful pursuit in attempting to enter the courthouse. He was facing 11 felony charges, 10 of which pertained to the manufacture and sale of illegal drugs and was going to court to enter a plea to the charges he was facing. His preferred method of entering was, of course, unlawful. The question of whether his behavior might have had different consequences after July 1 is answered in the negative. The Safe Carry Protection Act does not permit people with assorted hand grenades to enter courthouses using vehicles as battering rams. And even if Mr. Marx had not had in his possession all the weaponry that he hoped would go into the courthouse with him (except for a concealed gun), he would have been unable to enter the courthouse. That is because even under the liberal provisions of the “Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014”, concealed carry is not permitted in courthouses.
When Governor Eaton signed the “Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014” at a picnic ground in Ellijay, Georgia, he said: “This law gives added protections to those who have played by the rules-and who can protect themselves and others from those who don’t play by the rules.” Perhaps the governor or the legislators can explain why the legislature decided that the Act and what the governor described as its “added protections” would not apply to buildings with security screening. Buildings excluded from the Act include the buildings in which legislators meet. Could it be that all their posturing notwithstanding, the governor and the legislators think they are safer if they are in an environment where no one has guns and, therefore, they have no need for the “added protection” afforded by the Act? We’ll never know.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Every man is like the company he is wont to keep.
— Euripides, Phoenix
Because of his appearances with Ted Nugent during the Texas spring primaries in the race for governor, people will, for good reason, assume that this is nothing more than another example of Greg Abbott’s never ending association with people who are red neck sexists and complete and utter boors. Of course it might have been that they thought the Abbott supporter was a connoisseur of great art. They were wrong. She is not.
Ted Nugent is a faded Rock Star of the more unsavory variety. He is an unabashed fan of any device that can dispense bullets and, as Mr. Abbott has repeatedly pointed out when on the campaign trail with Mr. Nugent, a devoted fan of the Second Amendment. There was also a time many years ago when Mr. Nugent was a devoted fan of under-age girls. As he explained in an interview: “I was addicted to girls. It was hopeless. It was beautiful.” That was, of course, 30 years ago, and he has outgrown that particular addiction and was never prosecuted for it. His views on contemporary matters, however, remain on the lunatic fringe which keeps him in the limelight when he accepts the embraces of candidates seeking public office in place of embraces from under age-girls.
During the 2012 presidential election Mr. Nugent was an enthusiastic supporter of Mitt Romney. While supporting Mr. Romney, Mr. Nugent said: “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year . . . .” He went on to refer to the Obama administration as “this vile, evil America hated administration.” His views have not changed.
In a January 2014interview with Guns.com he reflected on the fact that Mr. Romney was not elected president: “I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the Acorn community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America.” Some candidates might try to put distance between themselves and the mouths from which that sort of language comes. Mr. Abbott is not one of them. When Mr. Abbott was confronted by reporters about his association with Mr. Nugent, Mr. Abbott said: “I don’t know what he may have said or done in his background. What I do know is Ted Nugent stands for the Constitution. He stands against the federal government over-reaching.” That is a terrific explanation for why it was helpful to have Mr. Nugent by his side at campaign rallies during the primary season.
Mr. Nugent’s talk may cause some people to attribute the latest Abbott flap to a kind of sexism and extremism to which associating with Ted Nugent gives rise. Others might conclude that it was nothing more than an artistic endeavor. What I refer to is what happened in California when Wendy Davis, Greg Abbott’s Democratic opponent in the race for governor of Texas, went on a fund raising trip to Los Angeles.
Upon her arrival Ms. Davis was confronted with posters that “superimpose her face on a Barbie Doll’s body that has a plastic baby coming out of its stomach. The San Antonio Express-News said that Texas resident, Kathryn Stuard, is the Abbott supporter who commissioned the poster. Ms. Stuard was quoted as saying of the poster that “It hits people with the truth. The artist is very edgy.” That language suggests that Ms. Stuard is a great supporter of the arts who knows “edgy” when she sees it. That is not the only thing that would lead an observer to that conclusion.
A few days after news of the California poster came out, it was reported in the New York Times that Aby Rosen, a New York real estate mogul and art collector has placed a 33-foot painted bronze sculpture on his lawn in Old Westbury, New York. It is a statue called “The Naked Virgin Mary.” It was created by the well-known sculptor, Damien Hirst. It portrays a very pregnant walking woman whose skin has been stripped way from the right side of her body exposing her unborn fetus.
Those are the amazing similarities between the poster funded by Ms. Stuard and the “Naked Virgin Mary” statue that might cause some to conclude that Ms. Stuard is a devoted and knowledgeable supporter of the arts who was simply trying to carry Mr. Hirst’s creation one step further by creating a poster. There are differences, however. One of them involves putting Ms. Davis’s face on the poster instead of the anonymous face that appears on the statue. The other is adding the words “Abortion Barby Wendy Davis” across the bottom of the poster. Those touches put an end to any notion that Ms. Stuard knows anything about art. Her poster makes no artistic statement. Its only statement is that nothing is beneath the dignity of the Abbott campaign as it seeks to help Greg Abbott become the next governor of Texas.