DEAD HORSE WALKING

When I was a young Mormon boy I listened intently as the adults around me split hairs about whether or not it was appropriate for a young Mormon boy, such as myself, to wear a light blue dress shirt while passing the sacrament to the congregation. They settled on "it's not necessarily inappropriate, but a white shirt is preferred."

When I was a young Mormon man, I listened to my fellow young Mormon missionaries discuss the same topic, which had the added complication that many of the men which attended our congregations were too poor to afford clean, sterling-white dress shirts (post-communist Bulgaria in the early 2000's), and such a restriction would result in not allowing very many "locals" the "opportunity" to distribute chunks of white bread and tiny cups of water to the parishioners. The consensus was "It doesn't matter if it's inappropriate to wear a blue shirt or not; what choice do we have? Surely the Lord will understand our predicament."

And so on...

It seems that the blue shirt vs white shirt debate has been going on for generations and resurrects, as it were, every so often. I suppose this argument dies particularly hard because for many Mormons it is the closest they will ever come to theological nuance.

Invariably, whenever this dying horse finds new life, thereby prolonging its obligatory flogging, a secondary debate emerges: culture vs doctrine.

As one who has left the Mormon church, I rarely find the opportunity to join in these debates with believing members. And, for the record, I'm okay with that. But I do recall a few instances discussing philosophy and epistemology with Mormons and this topic has briefly come up. Since it isn't really that important to my overall critique of Mormonism (believers have no compelling reason to claim their positive feelings about the truth claims of the church are, in fact, from god, and, therefore, have no compelling reason to believe the church is true), I usually skip the debate between culture and doctrine in the moment. But I tend find myself thinking about it some time later. It's a curse.

The long and short of my argument is that you can't separate culture from doctrine just because you don't want to appear pedantic over minutia. The culture of the church is a reflection of its doctrine. There is a reason leaders of the church have stressed these seemingly minor things over the pulpit. Because, according to them, it matters. It is a way of gauging one's dedication to the church, and I don't mean this cynically. For church leaders it really is an effective shortcut for worthiness.

For example, the Word of Wisdom (Mormonism's rather underwhelming code of health) recommends against the drinking of coffee. As with the blue shirt vs white shirt debate, Mormons have debated the topic of coffee consumption for generations and I know of a few devout believers who look forward to the day when drinking coffee will no longer prevent one from entering the temple and going through the ordinances necessary for one's salvation (that's right, Mormons believe that drinking coffee is a serious enough transgression to warrant god denying the "sinner" eternal salvation). But as more and more studies come out which show that coffee has at least some health benefits (depending on how much sugar and cream one adds to it), more and more Mormons are finding abstinence from the drink to be less and less tenable on the grounds of health and wellness (this is important because Mormons generally believe that their more obscure beliefs will eventually be validated by the scientific community, thus allowing them to smugly taunt non-believers with a hearty "told you so."). And for this reason Mormons are focusing less on the health debate (because, again, they are losing it) and instead tout the point that sometimes god asks mankind to do things for reasons they don't understand as a test of one's faith.

Fair enough, I guess. However, before anyone claims this frail bit of reasoning to be innocuous, keep in mind such reasoning could give way to another Abraham and Issac situation (or, for any Mormons eyeing an apologetic response about the literalness of the Bible, Nephi and Laban (according to the Book of Mormon, god told Nephi to chop off the head of Laban while he was drunk and defenseless, then go to Laban's house, dressed in Laban's presumably blood-soaked clothing, and steal Laban's stuff and kidnap his servant, who Nephi also threatened to kill; and Mormons believe this was a moral thing to do.)), and who knows if round two would yield such a favorable outcome (regardless of the outcome, it was still an immoral thing for god to ask of Abraham or Nephi).

Well, the debate between culture and doctrine seems to have been lit anew as one of Mormonism's very tippy-top leaders, Dallin Oaks, while speaking to a large congregation, reinforced the importance of using the correct hand to partake of the sacrament. Let me restate this. One of god's representatives, a man who claims to be a "prophet, seer and revelator" (whatever that means) and also claims to have such a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus Christ that he can unequivocally speak on his behalf, chose as his topic to a mass of believers the importance of using your right hand to eat bread and drink water instead of your left hand.

And they wonder why members get hung up about blue and white dress shirts...

RABBIT HOLE

The other day I went down a bit of a rabbit hole, at the bottom of which I learned some things about my family which I had not known. And, frankly, I'm not sure how I should feel about it.

It started with me recalling a YouTube video I came across four or five years ago, in which a journalist for the Times, William Lobdell, called my uncle, Clifton Jolley, "a real asshole." Mr. Lobdell had been an investigative reporter on some of the sexual abuse scandals within the Catholic church and had earned a reputation for being hard on religions. After writing a piece in which he mentions how his traditional Christian beliefs were no more ridiculous than the truth claims of Mormonism, and how this had led to his own faith crisis, a Mormon apologetic group called FAIR Mormon (how's that for hyperbole?) invited Mr. Lobdell to an open forum and debate. During this event, my uncle apparently shouted at Mr. Lobdell and told him he had no right as an outsider to tell believing Mormons their beliefs are not true. The thing which stood out the most to me about this encounter is that my uncle, to the best of my memory, had converted to Judaism several years ago.

Obviously, I had my story wrong. There is no way that my uncle would leave Mormonism for Judaism and then taunt a journalist for decrying Mormon beliefs. That would simply be too absurd.

In order to correct my misconceptions about my uncle, I decided to go against the wishes of my mother, who had always warned caution with regards to certain members of her family as they did not believe the same things we did, and I googled his name.

The person I found was a complicated, well-read, quirky man who had been writing articles for the Salt Lake Tribune--something of a liberal cesspool by Mormon standards--literally for decades. He is a poet, a teacher, and considers himself both a non-practicing "Jack" Mormon and Jew-ish.

I was correct that he had converted to Judaism several years ago. But he also kept the label "Mormon," because, as he puts it, the Mormon church has no right to tell someone if they are or are not Mormon. Apparently, this was an idea within Judaism which really resonated with him. Being a Mormon or a Jew is just as much about one's heritage and culture as it is about their worldview. I wonder if he would apply the same logic to someone raised in the Heaven's Gate or Moonie cults, or, for that matter, under communism.

While I found this new information intriguing, what really blew me away was that my uncle--the guy who publicly shouted at a reported for being critical of Mormon beliefs--had presented at the Sunstone Symposium multiple times. For those unfamiliar with Sunstone, it is an organization which discusses difficult and controversial (I would say "damning") topics within Mormonism. They invite critics of the Church to give presentations constantly.

It seems that my uncle has no problem with criticism of the church generally, as long as it comes from within. So, I guess by his standards I am okay to continue dismantling the tenets of Mormonism since I am staying in my lane, as it were.

The thing that really gets me about all of this is that I'm in my mid-thirties and there are several people to whom I am related that I know virtually nothing about. Honestly, I feel a little gypped. My mother's fear that my uncle and his family might be a bad influence on her children and show them a way out of the church prevented me from getting to know a really interesting member of my extended family. Someone in whom I could have confided a decade ago when my faith crisis kicked into full gear. I realize that he and I probably would not have seen eye to eye on everything, but that's okay. Just knowing someone who had made a similar journey out of the church and came out the other side decent person would have been huge for me. And I suspect this is exactly what my mother feared.

As tempting as it is for me to put all the blame on my mother, I have to take a step back and realize that she is a victim too. Her parents raised her in the church. It isn't her fault she took it seriously. There is a reason most people stick with the religion of their upbringing. They are familiar--and are, therefore, comfortable--with the organization and support system. Facing one's doubts about their entire worldview is inherently emotionally challenging and intellectually painful. Add to this the fact many people are taught that doubts are of the devil and you have a recipe which makes it a wonder that anyone finds their way out of religion alive.

So, no, I don't blame my mother for being overprotective and shielding me from what she thought were genuine threats to my eternal salvation. I simply regret that she felt it was necessary to do so.




BONUS MATERIAL:




My uncle explaining his complicated relationship with the church just a couple years before the shit hit my fan:

Part 1.

Part 2.

The beginning of William Lobdell's presentation:

ZIONTOLOGY

Mormons have a bit of a reputation for being litigious and pedantic. Maybe they think these are attributes of god. I think it has more to do with the Church's push over the last 50 years or so to build hierarchy within the church resembling a corporation. This is also why the Mormon missionaries wear business attire (with backpacks) as they pedal their bicycles door to door. Anal-retentiveness seems to me to be a cheap substitute for perfection, which Mormons are happy to point to as an attribute of their "gospel" ("The church is perfect, even if its members aren't" "If a perfect church can't produce perfect members, then in what sense is it perfect?").

In recent years the former president of the church (notice that I didn't say "prophet"), Tommy Monson, fought hard to soften the public image of the church. He embraced their colloquial label "Mormon" and ran multiple public relations campaigns which utilized the word in a positive light (i.e. "I'm a Mormon," "mormonsandgays.com," etc.). It seemed to be working, actually. I don't no if it has really helped membership, but the image of the church has literally never been better. Fast forward to this week, however, and Tommy's successor, Russell Nelson, has effectively undone much of the PR gains of the Church.

Rusty Nelson has always been one of the biggest sticks in the mud of the Church's leadership. He reportedly was the driving force behind the Church's 2015 policy change concerning homosexuals in the church, which categorized active homosexuals--especially those in legal gay marriages--as apostates, and the children of which could not be baptized until they reached the age of eighteen and disavowed the sinful lifestyle of their parents (children of straight couples can be baptized at the age of eight without any disavowals). So, for those keeping score it came as no surprise when Ol' Rusty Bucket announced an update to the Church's media style guide.

I know, I know. A style guide? Does this really matter?

Honestly, I didn't think it mattered much at first. If the Church wants to sully their public image, far be it from me to stand in their way. But, I listened to a program on NPR this morning which addressed this issue as it directly pertains to them and how they discuss the Church in their programs. You see, part of the update to the style guide is that news agencies are no longer allowed to refer to the Church as "Mormon" or "Mormonism" or even "LDS." The Church's official statement says that news agencies should refer to the Church by its full name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (say that three times fast), in its first reference and all subsequent references should be "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" or the "restored Church of Jesus Christ" (Yeah, good luck with that last one). And members of the faith should be referred to as "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Latter-day Saints" and not "Mormons." [insert "eye roll"]

NPR's response--which I loved--was that it was not up to the Mormon Church to make this decision for news agencies or those who are not adherents to the religion. Furthermore, the term "Mormon" is used as a point of clarification for their listeners and readers, most of whom have no context for the long-winded official name of the Mormon Church.

Hell yeah, exactly this. Rusted Nail-son may want to dodge the Church's sordid history, much of which the Mormon Church has actively sought to bury from public knowledge for over a century, but it is the job of journalists to accurately convey information to the public. I commend NPR for politely declining the rebranding mandate from a man with the hubris to call himself god's mouthpiece. As some of the people on the program pointed out, if god really speaks to the world through this man, and this is one of the rare instances when the man claims to have received such a revelation from god, couldn't god have chosen a more important topic than the name of a church? Ya know, like poverty, world peace, climate change.

I'll tell you why. Because god has nothing to do with it. This is in the best interests of the Mormon Church, according to their CEO. This would be no different than a corporation having some horrible PR nightmare occur, and in an effort to reduce their losses, the board of directors completely remake their image and even change the name of the company in order to distance themselves from the disaster. It's all about business.

In related news, some people in the ex-Mormon community have proposed "Ziontology" as the new preferred name for the Mormon Church. And I kinda like it.

TALKING 'BOUT MY SUPERSTITION

Over the weekend several of my Mormon friends and family posted links to articles about a new revolutionary study which seems to confirm one of their favorite religious prohibitions against the consumption of alcohol.

On the surface, I get it. It feels nice to be vindicated. So, why not gloat a little bit? It's not like pride is a sin. Right?

I have a few things to say about this new study. First, the headlines of the articles linking this study are a bit misleading, claiming that "no amount" of alcohol is good for your overall health, etc. Right, just like no amount of soda, candy bars or binge watching Netflix is good for your overall health. The authors of the study admit from the outset that this particular point is complex and that there are some studies which show that moderate alcohol consumption "can have a protective effect on ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, and several other outcomes." Before reading this study I had never heard of these benefits before. I assumed that it was general knowledge that alcohol wasn't really healthy and even people who cited those articles from the nineties about the potential health benefits of drinking red wine (which had more to do with the grapes used to make the wine than the alcohol) did so with a wink and a nod.

Second, the risk of lower alcohol consumption is proportionally lower than higher levels of consumption. Meaning, the more you drink, the higher the risk. This is a bit like saying the more you drive your car, the more likely you are to get into an accident. The only way to completely minimize one's risk of a car accident is to never get into a car. It should be apparent that this is an oversimplification, and, therefore, not very revolutionary, even when applied to alcohol.

Third, I have a problem with their lumping together of certain kinds of risks. Specifically, disease related risks (i.e. cancer and tuberculosis) and risks related to one's actions (i.e. car accidents and self harm). To me, these are important to distinguish because risks related to actions can be moderated through responsible drinking, and can be complicated through other factors like mental illness. If a person with depression drinks they are more likely to try to hurt themselves than someone without depression. From what I can gather, the study shows that there is a higher risk of alcohol contributing to deaths caused by accidents and self harm than caused by disease especially among people under 50 years old. The study also claims that for people between 15-49 alcohol is one of the most common factors for cause of death. What I infer from this is that one shouldn't drink and drive, and one shouldn't drink if they have depression or another mental illness which might be affected by alcohol. Furthermore, these factors can be managed through responsible drinking, and knowing one's limits. 

Fourth, the study is limited in that its methodology basically amounts to drawing conclusions based on correlations, and the integrity of the results depends on the methodology of other researchers (if a study used a flawed methodology it would affect the meta-analysis). This is a problem of meta-analyses in general. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for for these limitations (most likely financial), and I'm not saying this discredits the study necessarily. I'm saying this is a potential problem which makes it difficult to prove causality. If anything, this just shows the need for further research, especially since this particular study claims to dispute some findings of previous studies. 

Alcohol has risks. No one has seriously disputed this in decades. But lots of things have risks. Lots of good things like driving cars or other foods and drinks. Lots of medications, such as aspirin, Tylenol and Ibuprofen, have negative effects on one's liver similar to alcohol, although to lesser degrees. These risks should absolutely be accounted for while making a decision. But let's not pretend that Mormons abstain from alcohol for health reasons (Utah has more soda shops than bars, despite the link between soda and type II diabetes). 

The Word of Wisdom (the basis for the Mormon prohibition against alcohol) is actually not against all alcohol consumption, and even says that wine is preferred for use in the sacrament: 

"5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies."

There are even some who argue that the WoW did not intend to prohibit beer--only wine and liquor. This is how some Mormons justify their use of Kombucha. Not to mention that Joseph Smith, the one who wrote the WoW, never made it a hard set rule, but only a suggestion and continued to drink alcohol with his apostles until the day he died. 

Let's suppose that there are no issues with this study and that there is now clear and indisputable evidence that alcohol is always bad and will eventually kill everyone everywhere. Until such evidence was found, believers did not have a sound reason for abstaining from alcohol. Refusing to do something because god told you not to do it is not a good reason to not do it. And now that there is a good reason to not do it believers do not get to retroactively claim that they were justified all along. 

Muslims and Orthodox Jews have prohibited the consumption of pork for centuries. The original claim was that pigs shouldn't be eaten because they are unclean animals. This was a spiritual claim, not a hygienic one. Now that modern science can examine the composition of meats, some Jews and Muslims are claiming vindication because pork has high sodium and fat content. They claim that god knew this all along and he was protecting them through these prohibitions. Well, pork isn't the only meat with high sodium and fat content. So is beef, and that is totally Kosher (so long as it doesn't have cheese on it, of course). And if god is using these ancient prohibitions to save lives, why didn't he reveal something useful, like washing your hands before you eat or after delivering a child. 

There are plenty of reasons to not drink alcohol, including just simply not having a desire to drink it. But using a religious prohibition as a reason to not do something is tantamount to superstition. And if a superstition turns out to have a nugget of truth behind it, it is still not wisdom. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Christopher Hitchens on superstitions, among other things:

HIGH-MINDED HIVE MIND

There has been a long-winded debate among Mormons and ExMormons about the Church's influence over politics. I first came across this argument when GOP primary winner, and man whose political career died trying, Mitt Romney ran for US president in 2012. The question came up of whether or not the Church might try to influence Mitt's policies as president or outright tell him what to do. A similar concern arose of JFK in relation to the Vatican. At the time, Mitt assured voters that he would represent his constituents and not be bullied into submission by a church which has had a sordid political history.

In the past the Mormon Church has sought to influence politics in very direct ways. As early as their first settlements in the American frontier, Mormon founder, and man who repeatedly takes your 14 year old daughter behind the barn to "just talk about God and stuff," Joseph Smith had gathered thousands of followers in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. These small communities which relied almost entirely on local government were soon overrun by apocalyptic "Latter-day Saints" with a single religious mind who all voted according to their prophet's conscience (a prophet who was convicted of fraud in his youth for convincing other men to dig for buried treasure by staring at a magic stone in a hat, and who later started a religion based on an ancient gold book he found in the dirt which he "translated" by using a magic stone in a hat, and wouldn't let anyone with a background in linguistics touch it).

It is no wonder, then, that the locals responded with violence to oust their hive-minded new neighbors (who also happened to be stealing their wives and daughters as polygamous sister-wives, which is also why the Church was so in favor of a woman's right to vote since it would effectively give Mormon polygamous households several more votes).

The Church has learned over the years to be more subtle in their political influence. But as we have seen over the past few decades, the Church still can't keep its greasy fingers off of certain issues. We still don't know the full extent to which the Church has actively sought to thwart the gay rights movement in Hawaii and California. In Hawaii they kept to the shadows when gay marriage was proposed, but became much more brazen when the issue came up as Prop 8 in California, issuing an official statement from the Church to be read over the pulpits asking members to donate their time and as much money as they could to fight this societal evil. And many people took the Church seriously, sacrificing their children's college education to help fund the anti-gay marriage agenda (the Church teaches that members will face a choice like Abraham sacrificing his son Issac as a show of good faith to God, and people look for such sacrifices in their lives believing God is testing their faith).

For years the Church has denied any wrong doing regarding Prop 8 (among other things), and claims that most of their donations, like their humanitarian efforts, came in the form of faithful members volunteering their time. Maybe this is true, but many sources (such as the documentary "8: A Mormon Proposition") have shown that the Church has donated a metric butt-load of money as well.

More recently the church has sought to influence politics in Utah, where they have the strongest foothold. Around the time the US Supreme Court legalized gay marriage (2015), the Church successfully got the Utah legislature to incorporate protections for "religious liberty" in a bill which offered housing and employment protections for LGBT people. In other words, the Church successfully pleaded for the right to discriminate against gay people.

They have also successfully changed votes in the state senate regarding other issues, such as medical marijuana, liquor laws and comprehensive sex education. And despite their long history of breaching the bounds of tax exemption, officially the Church has maintained that they DO NOT tell their members how to vote (see video below).

Next they'll be telling me the Church no longer practices polygamy.

Well, in recent news--yesterday, in fact--the Church sent out a mass email to members in the state of Utah asking ever so politely that they vote "NO" on a bill which would legalize medical marijuana (see left).

It seems that no one told self-proclaimed prophet of God, and nonagenarian who's pretty sure today is a weekday, Russell Nelson that there are some things a prophet just can't do (should we tell him God is supposed to be omniscient?). I guess this is what happens when you send a self-righteous heart surgeon to do an attorney's job.

And, of course, the IRS will do nothing regarding the Church's tax exempt status. The best we can hope for is that enough ExMormons petition the Freedom From Religion Foundation to sue the Church.

The thing I don't understand is why the Church gets involved at all. They have a long list of prohibitions for their members which include many legal things, such as tobacco and alcohol, coffee and tea, premarital sex, watching R rated movies, dating before the age of 16, wearing revealing clothes, swearing, shopping on Sundays, etc. Yet, when issues come up in American politics (notably, not the rest of the world), the Church shoves itself into the conversation where less than 2% of the population (at best!) adheres to their worldview. Why not stay out of it and if it becomes legal, like gay marriage and alcohol and everything else, just issue yet-another prohibition for members. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Sigh...




BONUS MATERIAL:




Former Mormon prophet, and nice young man just trying to pay for college by selling magazine subscriptions, Gordon Hinckley reassuring the public that the Mormon Church does not tell members how to vote.

BANG YOUR HEAD

A few months ago, at the most recent Mormon General Conference, a man named Garrit Gong was named an apostle of the church. This is significant if for no other reason than the fact that he is the first Mormon apostle to have skin darker than medium beige ("Now are we diverse?"). Along with this new title came the accolades of "prophet, seer, and revelator" (Tell me, again, about religious humility...). Well, as it turns out, during my tenure at BYU I had a few run-ins with Mr. Gong, which allows me to say unequivocally that he (despite his skin color) is without a doubt the most "white bread" church leader I have ever met. Even by Mormon standards, he is positively vanilla.

It is generally well known that to become an apostle in the modern Mormon church you have to undergo a thorough vetting process. The church is surprisingly savvy when it comes to public relations (with a few exceptions regarding civil liberties like race, sexism, homophobia. Ya know, small stuff.), and they have a history of selecting non-controversial figures as their leaders (at least since ultra-conservative President of the church Ezra Benson led them down the "civil rights for blacks leads to Communism" path). I guess having polygamous firebrands like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as their founders will make an organization a bit self-conscious in the public arena today. And so, evidently, for several decades the church has made it a point to stock the shelves with leaders who have about as much life experience as Charlie Brown. And Mr. Gong makes Charlie Brown look like a Garbage Pail Kid.

First, I went to a Stake Conference where Mr. Gong was the presiding authority. From what I recall, he spent some time talking about his background, and shared some anecdotes which he thought the auditorium of a thousand or more young men and young women would find spiritually uplifting. All I found was an unshakable desire for a nap, which I quickly remedied once I returned home. This was around the time in my journey out of the church that I realized that I didn't much care for church meetings which were all filled with the same weak appeals to authority, fallacious arguments from ignorance, and unfalsifiable claims about the nature of the universe. So, maybe I wasn't in the proper head space to truly appreciate the greatness of this man. Fair enough.

Second, Mr. Gong decided to make the ward circuit and hold special meetings with all of the Elders Quorums in his stake. This is not unheard of, and many Mormons today would likely envy my being present for such an intimate, close-quarters discussion led by a newly appointed apostle (never let it be said that Mormons are impervious to hero worship). So what topic did this self-proclaimed man of god and future "Special Witness of Christ" (TM) chose to impart to a classroom of young adult men and future leaders of the church? He set up the projector to display a PowerPoint presentation he had prepared about the pros and cons of the World Wide Web.

Yup. This was the indispensable information he chose to share with us. He started out by sharing some statistics about the prevalence of porn use among young men in the church (I have no idea if his numbers were accurate, but that's not really the point). And he shared a few stories about people misusing the internet and falling away from the church (usually through porn). He then countered everything he just said by pointing to all the great things the internet can be used for, like family history research, preparing for Sunday School lessons and talks, etc. You know the drill.

Of course you know the drill. Everyone knows this particular drill. And that is exactly my point. Mr. Gong had nothing of substance to add to the conversation. Every person in that room could have just as easily given the same lesson and made the same "moderation in all things" argument we've all heard a thousand times. There was nothing revolutionary about what he said. Furthermore, I recall having a conversation with my roommates (some of whom are still active believing members of the church, so don't they feel sheepish) about how pointless and uninspired that whole lesson was. Seriously, we had a good laugh on the drive home.

So what am I getting at? This is the current state of affairs for god's "One True Church" on the earth. This is the great awakening which Mormons believe is taking place all over the planet as they baptize new members and strengthen their numbers. They are becoming less and less distinct from other Christian denominations because they desperately want to be taken seriously on the world stage. And soon enough (or maybe not soon enough) the things which make the Mormon church unique in any way will be white washed away and they will look just like everyone else. They will become a distinct denomination without a difference. And maybe then, one can hope, they will finally become truly obsolete.




BONUS MATERIAL:




Mr. Gong tackling the provocative topic of science-based morality in his usual mind-numbingly mundane tone:

NOT PERFECT

I really want to enjoy the Fourth of July. I really do. I feel immense pride in and gratitude for the sacrifices others have made to allow me the freedoms I enjoy. I feel lucky to have been born into such comparative wealth to 99% of the rest of the world. I am grateful that despite the attempts of others to strip me of my right to believe according to my conscience, our secular government guarantees me the ability to say whatever I want against religion and theocratic zealots. But overt displays of patriotism just rub me the wrong way.

When I left religion many of the avenues of my patriotism went with it. I didn't realize this until I attended a local rodeo. The announcer ordered the crowd of five thousand or so to stand while he said a few words about how awesome the American flag is and what it represents. He then said a generic Christian prayer, and a guest performer sang the national anthem. In this moment I realized that my patriotism was different from that of the thousands of placating patrons surrounding me.

I have had a few more experiences similar to this incident at public events. Each time I have stood with the rest of the crowd and listened to the prayer or anthem or pledge of allegiance. And each time I pause to think if I really want to participate in the ritual.

I think what I don't like about American patriotism and causes me to second guess my own admiration for my country, is the proximity patriotism has with religious zeal. Many Americans mix the two and they make no bones about it. They often boast about it. They seem to think that their particular version of faith has an extra special relationship with the Founding Fathers or the Constitution. Sometimes they do this at the expense of those who believe differently than they do. And they do so without recognizing that a government which can discriminate against one set of beliefs, (like say, Islam or atheism) can just as easily discriminate against their own religion and for the same reasons. But since they are not the oppressed minority (and are, instead, the whining majority), they don't see the need for separation of church and state.

While I was attending Mormon-owned BYU, I took an American History class in which the professor Matthew Holland (son of prominent Mormon Apostle Jeffery Holland) explained how the separation of church and state is the only reason the Mormon church exists. Without it, the bigotry and hatred early Mormons suffered at the hands of more mainstream Protestants would have led to the federal government dismantling the religion with force. This made sense to me. But I noticed a few years later that some of my Mormon friends and family had become very vocal in their opposition to church-state separation. And I was blown away by it.

My theory is that these people have been listening to unhinged Right Wing sources like Fox News rather than tempered conservative voices like my history professor. And because of the current frenzied political climate they seem to be unable or unwilling to consider the irony in the fact that a Mormon sees no problem with churches and government being intertwined. That's like an African American suggesting that slavery might not be so bad.

It is this kind of blind fervor which causes patriotism to leave a foul taste in my mouth. The belief that god wrote the Constitution and inspired the Founding Fathers and has helped the US win every military conflict in our history (**cough, cough, Vietnam**) is fatuous and unsupported by any evidence. It is for this reason that the next time I am "invited" to stand and salute or recite some words or listen to some self-satisfying prayer, I might just sit it out. Not because I lack patriotism, but because I simply have the right to express it--or not express it--however I please. And what's more American than that?

To paraphrase Tim Minchin, "This is my country. It's not perfect, but it's mine."




BONUS MATERIAL:




Tim Minchin performing "Not Perfect."