Ted Kennedy

Ted Kennedy passed away last night. Howard Friedman at the Religion Clause blog posted this beautiful speech from Senator Kennedy. It's too bad I gained respect for Mr. Kennedy after he passed. Enjoy.

I am an American and a Catholic; I love my country and treasure my faith. But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it? There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance....

But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question -- which is whether and how religion should influence government.... The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible.....

The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives.... But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where religion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience..... There must be standards for the exercise of such leadership, so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into an opportunity for mere political advantage. But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition.....

First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself. People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord. In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice -- even slavery -- to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor.....

Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue; but not every public issue involves religious values.... Second, we must respect the independent judgments of conscience. Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith.... Third, in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate. In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts..... Fourth, and finally, we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree.....

In short, I hope for an America where neither "fundamentalist" nor "humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of goodwill look at life and into their own souls.

The human body

“Often, if you come across something in the body that seems like a big deal, you think, ‘Why didn’t anybody check this before?’ But the more you learn, the more you realize that we’re just scratching on the surface of life. We don’t know the whole story about anything.” - Dr. Matthias Nahrendorf, Harvard Medical School.
I can't comprehend the human body as an accident of nature or a freakish event that blossomed from some primordial soup. The body is much too complex. We think we know so much about the body but we don't even know what the spleen is for. Even professors at Harvard don't know about the spleen. How can such a complex system that we know so little about be created by accident?
If we don't know what the spleen is for or how it works, what about the brain?
Just look at your thumb. Move it, wiggle it. It's amazing. How did that come about. Through an accident? I doubt it? It's much too organized and complex.
It's too far fetched for me to believe in accidental human creation. It would take more faith for me to believe in pure human evolution (i.e., that man evolved from an accidental collision of proteins in a soup over billions of years) than it does for me to believe in divine creation.
There is a place for evolution, but when it's taken too far I can't believe in it.

Another reason why Colorado is such a great state!

The Word of Wisdom

As a Mormon I follow the Word of Wisdom. At the highest level, the Word of Wisdom is a code of health that Mormons believe is divinely inspired. Most often, however, the Word of Wisdom is thought of as a series of restrictions that include restrictions on Alcohol, tabacoo, tea and coffee. There are a number of interesting perspectives on the Word of Wisdom that I have been thinking about.
First, the language of the revelation does not specifically proscribe coffee and tea, instead the revelation states that "hot drinks are not for the body or belly." Of course, this includes tea and coffee. But, does this extend to hot chocolate? Is it the heat of the drink that is not for the belly or the make up of tea or coffee?
Second, meat. The Word of Wisdom states, "And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." Does this mean meat should not be used only in the times of winter or does it mean that meat should not be used, but only in times of winter? The comma between "be used" and "only" is operative, and I wonder when it was added. Of course, by reference to D&C 49:18 we are told "And whoso ^aforbiddeth to ^babstain from ^cmeats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God." Hence, I think meat is OK, as long as it used sparingly.
Third, I wonder what the Word of Wisdom would be like if it was revealed today? What would it say about fast food? Processed food? Little Debbie's? Or, high fructose corn syrup? Would it mention soda or caffeine? Would mention exercise for our sedentary life style? If you read the Word of Wisdom as a whole, and consider it as an owner's manual for our bodies by the Creator of our bodies, then it is easy to see how we should take of ourselves today. After all, we shouldn't have to be commanded in all things to see the benefits of living healthy.

American Idol Conspiracy

If you haven't heard this week is the final week for American Idol.

I think I have American Idol figured out. Despite his popularity with the judges, Adam Lambert will not win. Here's why. First, most voters have already made up their mind about Lambert vs. Kris. Those who are undecided are the Danny Gokey fans. I think it's more likely that Gokey fans will vote for Kris than Adam. Their styles are much more similar. Second, you either love or hate Lambert and by this point if you love him you are already voting for him. Third, Simon knows how to play the system. Last year he after the last competition Simon declared Archuletta the winner. That sent a signal to all the David Cook fans that they should not assume he would get enough votes. This year, he actually reminded voters to not assume Lambert would win, in other words, please vote for Lambert. Fourth, when Lambert went back to San Diego they staged him singing in front of the American Flag to war veterans. It seems like this to show that Lmabert is a good old American boy and not the wierdo that he is. The judges now where the votes are coming from and the margins, Simon has huge vested interest in the winner and will do what he can to get the guy he wants. He's had enough losers as winners in the past.

On another Idol note, 88 million votes were cast last week. To put this into perspective, about 129 million people voted in the presidential election. Yes, a TV show gets roughly 2/3 the votes as our presidential election. I would not be surprised if one day it surpassed the election totals. Pop culture can be more important to some. Of course, these are votes and not voters. On American Idol you can vote more than once. Despite this fact, it's still shocking.

Party politics

The republican national committee chairman, Michael Steele, recently stated that Mitt Romney lost the GOP primary stating that "It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism." (article) It's sad that an intelligent and capable leader (with an ample dose of conservative policies) did not win the primary because of his religion, especially when he likely would have fared better against Obama than McCain did. His grasp of economic issues alone would have been a boost for the GOP party. Being a moderate (AKA a democrat in republican clothing or republocrate?) I'm not as annoyed with how the primary turned out as I am with two things:

1. that Steele felt he had to issue an apology, and
2. that primary elections often don't promote winnable candidates.

First, everyone knows Mitt lost the primary because of his religion. It doesn't take a genius to realize this. Yet, Steele issued the following fluffy statement through the GOP spokeswoman: "Chairman Steele regrets the way his comments have been interpreted. Chairman Steele believes Mitt Romney is a respected and influential voice in the Republican Party and looks to his leadership and ideas to help move our party and our nation in the right direction." In other words, Steele is sorry that the truth hurts a respected voice in the party. Can we get out of 1st grade here? Oh yeah, this is politics, so we can't.
Second, primary voting often elevates the candidate that has paid their party dues rather than the candidate that can beat the other side. This is not just a GOP issue. Look at John Kerry, for example, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote and then when Bush was being assailed for his actions, Kerry comes along and gets spanked by a less popular Bushy. McCain, whom I greatly respect for his gumption, moderation, and values, could not and did not match up with the youthful, intelligent and charismatic Obama. I don't see why parties can't figure out the candidate that has the best chance of winning the election over a party favorite? Wouldn't it be better for conservatives to have a less beloved conservative in the White House than a democrate? And vice versa, wouldn't it be better for liberals to do the same. I think democrates got it right with Obama, Hillary had too much bagagge (she was a woman and more importantly she is/was Bill Clinton's woman) to woo voters from the right or the middle like Obama did.

Here are some follow up comments.

Public prayers and such

The other day I read this interesting article by Paul Rolly of the Salt Lake Tribune called Prayers, lies and public spectacles. I've always been curious as to why so many Mormons team up politically with the same fundamentalists that end up bashing us from the pulpit. Focus on the family is great example. They team up with us Mormons on a number of political and moral issues, yet they pull an interview from their website with Glenn Beck (Mormon), because it appears to "legitimizing Mormonism" (article). Some of these groups consider us a cult. I frankly don't get it.
I also find it interesting that many Mormons favor a government that favors religious practices such as prayers, despite that fact that Mormons are constantly being left out of such religious practices as noted in Rolly's article.
There was an interesting supreme court case that stopped the use of prayers being said over the PA system at a high school football game (article). I think many Mormons would support such a prayer. Indeed, until recently I would have. However, in this particular case one of the kids who filed suit was Mormon and not only felt left out, he was quite uncomfortable with the practice. His mom actually testified that she teaches religion at home and the school should focus on teaching her kids about the world. Amen! The kid received threats and intimidation from school officials during the court proceedings. Yes, while we may favor a state that is imbued with our religion, we must remember that elsewhere it is not. Our history should teach us what it was like to be a religious minority and we should strive to not inflict that on others.
Furthermore, the Savior has instructed us to enter into our closet when we pray, and shut the door and pray to our Father in secret. He also warns about the man who prays in public to be seen of men. I don't see how these kind of prayers can be seen in secret nor do I see that they are said to be seen of men.
I strongly favor separation of church and state. Not for the states benefit, but for the benefit of the church.