Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

Over the weekend I attended a Gay Pride festival to show my support for the cause.  A friend attended and posted some pictures on Facebook, tagging me (I have no problem with this).  Another friend, who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent me the following message in response to the pictures:

Hi Isaac.
Your photos with involvement at the kiss-in / Pride popped up on my page. I looked at the home page and the comment of its purpose, to which I responded with an email to [someone I don't know].  Please feel free to address it if you feel so inclined.

Your friend always,

[redacted]

—-

Hello [someone I don't know],
I would be grateful for some genuine and sincere dialog on this issue for which you support. Being LDS, and standing firm for what I believe (not in the name of hate or discrimination but quite the opposite), I have become the recipient of much hatred.

I honestly cannot understand certain terms that have been generated over the years in the promotion of same sex relations. One of those terms was used in your facebook description of the event.

You said, or endorsed:
“This event isn’t just for those who have a partner to kiss! No matter what your orientation or your relationship status, join us to hug, hold hands, and demonstrate the right to love that we all believe in and fight for every day.”

When was the term “sexual orientation” first coined? Who was the first person responsible for combining these words together and where is it documented? I try to see things correctly in the light of truth, and when I see these words combined, I honestly see (and allow me to explain why) an oxymoron. Perhaps if you could tell me, or give me an example of what sexual disorientation would be, I could better understand the intended meaning of sexual orientation. Could you do that for me?

Here is why I see the term “sexual orientation” as an oxymoron. The word “sex” or “sexual” would not exist if there were not the two genders, male and female. To suggest that one gender is orientated back to itself, then, would negate the word sex, because the counter gender is omitted.

I do not deny or negate the reality of same sex attraction, and certainly do not discriminate those who are so attracted. I do, however, wish to better understand it. When I see conflicting terms used to describe it, I only see persons who themselves do not understand it. If there really is such thing as “sexual orientation” then there must exist “sexual disorientation.” That is why I would like to know what you would consider a “disorientation,” as related to human sexuality.

Respectfully, and with love,

[redacted]

I have a lot of love and respect for the person who sent me the message, so I felt it was really important to address it.  I also have a lot of passion about the subject, so I felt it was important to address it.  Also, I don’t know why he sent an email to a person he doesn’t really know.. and why he forwarded it to me instead of just asking me the same things.

Being honest, most of what he wrote above is just a semantics game.  And I just can’t do that.  I want to share with you my response.  It’s not as cohesive or well written as I would like, but I think I’ve started to make my argument.  I’m not sharing this because I’m proud of the way I’ve made my statement, but because: a) I said it and need to stand by it and b)  I want to flush my statements out better.  In my letter, I strive to separate the political issue from the moral issue.  I feel strongly about both, but I think they are separate and distinct.  Also, in this case, when the LDS prophet says it is wrong, there’s no room for conversation and I don’t really enjoy non-dialogue that just makes people angry and doesn’t actually strive to solve the problems.

One more comment before the response:  I hate, hate, hate that I cannot seem to escape using “they,” “them” language.  At some point it can’t be avoided, but I do believe this can/may still create divides that don’t really exist or that shouldn’t exist in what we are all striving for.

I try to keep things political in nature off of my feeds because, in general, I want my voice heard in the ballot box or in areas where political discourse is requested/encouraged.  It becomes hard when I do things I wish to share that cross those lines.  I wanted to share what I was doing and I do believe in the cause enough to be vocal about it.  I am not, however, trying to make it into a battle with my friends.

I appreciate your wish for dialogue as I wish for it as well.  The backlash against the individuals for their support of Prop 8 is very sad to me.  People are taking it personal and trying to make it personal back–I don’t agree with this.  This is an emotional issue and so many people are not thinking, acting, or being mature about it.

On one hand, I can understand it.  There are people who are being told, from a social/political point of view that they are not equal.  On this level, this is an issue of rights as a free person and as a citizen in a country which has paved the way for liberty and justice for all.  Except, in this case, as they see it, it is not for all.

There is also the issue of being told, morally, that you are wrong.  I’d really like to leave this issue alone for now.  We both understand that the church and Prophets have been very clear on this point and I don’t have any interest in arguing for or against that.  But I do ask that you think about what affect this has on a person.

On the other hand, nothing is an excuse for being malicious or showing hatred.  There is already too much hatred and fear in the world, we don’t need any more of it.  Those who attack Prop 8 supports simply because they supported or because they don’t understand are undermining their own cause.

My position is not even necessarily about encouraging behavior someone believes to be socially unacceptable and morally untenable.  This is about understanding and I will say that I often find people to be lacking true, honest understanding.  Not care, not concern, not love, not goodness of heart–I am not suggesting this.  But the ability to listen and understand that a person is going through something which often they do not even comprehend–whether this is “nature,” selfish hedonism, or Satan’s temptations.

One of the large reasons the homosexual lifestyle is flamboyant and promiscuous is because family, friends, and community struggle or actively resist having acceptance (as a person) and understanding.  Individuals repress and resist their desires and end up exploding in frustration and anger.  When a person is told that the sexual contact they desire is dirty and wrong, they’ll take that and run with it.  Or they’ll just make a scene because they know it makes people uncomfortable, which is how they feel all the time.

And this isn’t just homosexuals.  So many sexual ills in our world are rooted not only in individuals and the judgments in life they make, but the way society frowns, represses, and doesn’t accept people.  I watched a documentary last night on two evangelical pastors who work to help people with pornography addiction and how much they are rejected from their own community simply because don’t want to talk about this, even if it’s from a point of trying to help and make a difference.  If we can’t even talk about it, how can we ever solve the problem?

You say that there are terms you do not understand and I say that is not the place to start the conversation.  It’s important and the conversations needs to happen.  But I think it is xenophobic and narrow thinking to reject the unknown simply because it is unknown.  If it is “us” and “them,” then there will always be a battle to fight.  The rhetoric which is used regarding homosexuals is the same rhetoric used for slaves and blacks.  This language is divisive and dehumanizing.  We need to start by accepting that we’re all in the mad world together and maybe we have more in common than we might realize.

I’m not trying to make moral case for homosexuality.  My position here is mainly a political one–I believe we, as a nation, are being hypocritical to say that man is free and liberty trumps all and then deny two consenting adults the right to express love.  Just as we do not deny people the right to drink alcohol, drink coffee, or work on Sunday.  There are potential problems and abuse with all of these things, but the best way to deal with those problems is through education and through community.  When we listen, we will be heard.  Our country is founded on the idea that man, when given the freedom to do so, will achieve great things–innocent until proven guilty–free to choose religion–free to choose love.  Even if we don’t always agree.

I say, proudly, no to “Under God.”

To properly cover the issue, the history of the Pledge of Allegiance must first be examined. Then, a discussion of the history of the Establishment Clause (the clause in the Bill of Rights which prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting an individual’s free exercise of religion) and the court’s interpretation thereof. Lastly, the relationship of the Pledge of Allegiance and the Establishment Clause will provide a clear picture of whether this phrase “under God” is constitutional or not.

Perhaps a surprise to many, the original Pledge of Allegiance did not include an affirmation to God. It was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy. It read, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” It was modified in part in 1924 to read “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In this, one can see that there is no mention of “God” or any sort of non-secular affirmation. The Pledge of Allegiance, at least in 1924, is a political affirmation of the secular state–I believe and support in my country. As can be imagined, this change in 1924 was not the last change. The last change came in 1954, when the phrase “under God” was added. When the “1954 Act” was signed by President Eisenhower he said “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.” This sentiment does not appear to be a secular political sentiment. Rather, it appears–no, it openly proclaims–to be a religious affirmation.

The Supreme Court has much to say on state sponsored religious affirmation. According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling on Newdow V. U.S. Congress, the Supreme Court has established three different tests to the Establishment Clause. The first the is “Lemon” test, created in Lemon v. Kurtzman; the “endorsement” test, found in Lynch v. Donnelly; and the “coercion” test, first used in ISKCON v. Lee. Any of these tests may be used to determine the constitutionality of something in regards to the Establishment Clause.

The “Lemon” test checks for three things: (1) does the government conduct in question have a “secular purpose”, (2) does the government conduct in question have “a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion”, and (3) does the government conduct in question refrain from “[fostering] an excessive government entanglement with religion”.

The “endorsement” test is as follows:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions . . . . The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lastly, the “coercion” test tells us that it is unconstitutional to include invocations and benedictions in the form of “nonsectarian” prayers at public graduation ceremonies. It relies on the principle that “at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or it exercise, or otherwise to act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so” (emphasis added).

Now that the background of the Pledge of Allegiance has been examined and a solid definition of what tests the Courts use to examine issues relating to the Establishment Clause, a review of the “under God” statement in the Pledge of Allegiance can be done.

As has already been explained, the phrase “under God” was not originally in the pledge and it was later added with an explicit understanding that is affirmed a belief in the “almighty God”. It appears straight forward that, at the least, the statement is not a secular statement and is clearly a religious one. In addition, the phrase lends itself to a monotheistic bent. While many have argued that it is merely a “place holder” for other religions to place their professed belief, those who profess this “place holder” belief have a hard argument to make. Not only does the history of the phrase show it is monotheistic, but to those of a non-Christian or a non-monotheistic background, this is simply not possible.

In his dissent on the Nordow v. U.S. Congress opinion, Justice O’Scannlain argues that by removing the phrase “under God”, it is favoring an atheistic platform. However, this is also not true. To favor an atheistic platform, one would need to affirm a belief that this is a nation �under no god�. Removing this affirmation does not support an atheistic platform�even if the movement is brought up, as it is in this case, by an atheist.

Speaking of affirmation, affirmation is exactly what is at the heart of this issue. Justice O’Scannlian and Justice Fernandez both argue in separate dissents to Nordow v. U.S. Congress rulings that by making the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, we must also refrain from reading historical documents and speeches, such as the Declaration of Independence, or the Gettysburg address, or even the Constitution. If the Pledge of Allegiance were just another document or speech, this argument is solid and true. However, this argument is a classic logical fallacy. The comparison is a bad comparison and riddled with an emotional appeal. To read from a document is different than to make a public affirmation to something, in this case the principles found in the Pledge of Allegiance. As Justice Goodwin says, “to recite the Pledge is not to describe the United State; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and since 1954 monotheism”.

There has been a great uproar because of the issue of “under God” and the Pledge. This is mainly due to a high level of emotional attachment to the issue. For those who ascribe to “the Almighty” as the sovereign power of this nation, by removing “under God”, something seems to be taken away. And in some sense, this is true. But, what is a greater crime, to remove “under God” for some people, or to push “under God” onto the rest?

The Court answered this best in their ruling on Barnette, when they said “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”.