Abortion again, sort of

I briefly mentioned abortion last week in the post on libertarians being the worst.

At the time it occurred to me that I should treat abortion separately, because it is coming up a lot this year. The term "baby-killers" is being thrown around pretty indiscriminately.

However, I also wrote a pretty good post about abortion four years ago (interesting timing; I wonder what could have inspired it), and I think it was a good post that covered the subject pretty well. I don't need to re-write it. 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2016/10/about-abortion.html 

I am going to convey a recent experience, though, and then go over a recent thought that may be related, if not directly.

Recently someone I know but am not friends with was vociferously responding to a mutual friend's post on abortion. There was a really good discussion going on, with people saying very intelligent things, and sharing personal experiences. There was a lot of compassion and respect, except for this one increasingly angry and insulting person.

It was telling how quickly she devolved into just wanting punishment for the women who got pregnant, and not for the men who participated; they can't get pregnant, so it is the woman's fault. 

There is a level at which I mentally know that "pro-life" is more about controlling women than preventing abortions, if for no other reason than that they never care that fewer abortions happen under Democrats. However, it was still disconcerting to see it be so open and from a woman.

Interestingly, that particular woman did get pregnant out of wedlock and kept the child, so I thought maybe she was mad she hadn't gotten her medal yet. Except, if the law changes and there is no choice, why should she get a medal? Then I thought perhaps it was jealousy that she got stuck with her kid, as their relationship is currently a little rocky. These are mean speculations, but they are also a response to her; how could she show so little regard for the things people - good people, many of whom she knew - were sharing? I mean, she isn't that bright, but that shouldn't make being a hate-filled harpy a given.

Of course, the other thing that is interesting about that is that doctrinally members should support choice and not want to control others. That is Satan's plan. (Theoretically, libertarians should support choice too, but again, they are the worst.)

So, let's head over to that other thought. 

Over the years, through church we have known a lot of wonderful families where a lot of the children don't go to church anymore. We think the parents were good, everything looked like it should be fine, but then somehow that faith isn't there. 

We can take this as a sign of how hard this world is, and there are arguments for that. In addition, I know a lot of great people who have stopped going, mostly because of the bigotry. I am sticking it out, but I empathize with that.

(For the record, I am sticking it out because I think the bigotry is not doctrinal, but something caught by contagion from evangelicals. We should have protected against it better, but I still want to outlast it.)

Anyway, the thought that I had was to wonder if these good and loving parents maybe spent too much time telling their children not to sin, rather than teaching them the fruits of the spirit.

It's understandable how it happens. When there was less awareness of the bigotry in the world, so you think the most palpable evil is fornication and smoking and wearing short skirts, it was easy to feel good. When you start having to choose to rock the boat to make things better; when you have to acknowledge systemic racism or embrace it; when you have to acknowledge that men should be playing a role in maintaining their own thoughts, rather than women continually needing to cover up more; and don't forget having people who believe in the law of consecration needing to understand the flaws in capitalism.. that is a harder situation.

Then you need to know how to be comforted by prayer. Then you need to be able to feel love for people who might sin, and care about them and not make your caring conditional upon whether they sin. You need to know how to get answers for tough questions, and how to trust when the answer is delayed.

It's harder. It is harder to do and harder to teach, but it's necessary. Saying "Don't do that!" is simple, especially when "that" is illegal. If it is something that shouldn't be illegal, and yet there are still good reasons not to do it, we have not been great about having those conversations. 

Are we ready yet?

Libertarians are the worst

I chose that title specifically because I have seen so many people (especially members), say "Actually I lean more libertarian." 

In context, they are saying it because they know that Trump is frothingly hateful, selfish, and in no way moral; of course they are embarrassed to support that, but they can't quite support liberals either. The emphasis on "liberty" and "choice" sounds good, though oddly most libertarians manage to remain against that choice if it relates to a woman and pregnancy. They also tend to be against civil rights legislation, which from the point of view of people who want to do racist things makes sense, but ignores how allowing racial discrimination impairs the liberty of those discriminated against.

I understand the appeal of getting to verbally distance from the sexism and the racism while still keeping it close to one's heart, but I scorn it.

I assure you I could describe many other groups as the worst - I'm pretty sure I'm going to write a poem about that soon - but because this one is so popular now, I want to spend some time focused on it.

If you haven't read it, James Fallon's The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain, is really fascinating, both for what the author says on purpose and for what he may not know he is saying.

Fallon was doing two studies at the same time where he was looking at brain scans. One study was of criminal brains, and the other was for heredity, so he had collected scans of family members. One scan that showed the psychopath characteristics was in the family pile. At first it seemed like a mistake, but it turned out to be Fallon's own brain. The journey was personal indeed.

To be fair, a lot of people who knew him weren't surprised, like that was the missing link that explained everything.

Fallon is a libertarian, and starts talking about that on page 161. This quote is from page 162:

(I) would prefer many situations where some people die. I don't feel responsible for individuals dying as part of a broader cause and don't think we should spend every dime we have to save one child. Such coddling will end up destroying the human race. And who adjudicates who gets coddled? I look at the distant horizon, how things will play out in a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years. If one person croaks tomorrow for the sake of society, it's too bad, but I don't care. I wouldn't let a kid starve right in front of me – I'm not a monster – but if I ran the government I would cut out all welfare.... I don't want to encourage unproductive or irresponsible behavior because I think it will kill society. I'm more sympathetic to the species than I am to that one person or group of people.

As far as the economic policy goes, his philosophy is disputed by many people who have studied it more (Piketty, and Wilkinson and Pickett come to mind). Fallon is confident in his understanding, but a lot of people are now very confident and still very wrong about things. I think there are two other points that matter more.

First of all, the big difference between the diagnosed psychopaths in jail and the esteemed neuroscientist was a loving, nurturing home with opportunities to harness his energy productively. While Fallon has done things that are arguably antisocial (like encouraging people to behavior they later regret, and putting one cousin in a potentially fatal situation without warning him), it was all on the correct side of the law. As someone financially privileged the odds of him ending up in prison go way down. I think that makes for an argument that some "coddling" might be beneficial for society.

Also, that "not a monster" line... he will intervene when the suffering is right in front of him. Okay, it would be more monstrous to look at suffering and ignore it (or enjoy it), but here is the part for members of the church, and for people who believe in God and that we are all connected as His children: it should not be enough for us that suffering happens out of sight.

We know the penalty for not doing unto the least of these when we see them, and the reward for seeing and serving. I believe that goes with a responsibility to look and to care, beyond our line of sight.

Modern technology makes it easier to ignore and to be aware, and we all have choices to make there.

I am happy to acknowledge that there was a time when you could be a Republican in good conscience. There may well have been a time when you good be a conservative (because Republicans were not always conservative, and it's questionable whether they are now) in good conscience as well. However, when that group is essentially working on concentrating wealth into an ever smaller group and using racism to support it, there should be many things pricking your conscience constantly. If you keep ignoring those cries, it is going to be hard to re-engage with your conscience.

Fallon is agnostic; that argument is unlikely to mean anything to him. If you are religious, and if you are Christian, you need to think about what that means.

Because the other thing is that while you can be born more likely to become a psychopath, it is nonetheless something you become. It happens via greed a lot, but that is not the only path.

Our faith in the constitution

Two relevant things I finished today:

1. The book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard
2. I also finished reading all of the October 2020 General Conference talks.

I was impressed that there was an acknowledgment that the constitution had flaws in its initial framing; previous talks have been very reverential. There are reasons for that, but there were definite flaws.

Some of them required amendments.

Originally women could not vote. We clearly support women voting now, and we started that support early. It may not have been so much from a sense of injustice, but more due to it being politically advantageous based on early populations of the Saints. Unfortunately, that does not automatically mean that we acknowledge that there was something wrong with the chauvinism of the day, or that we see the chauvinism of this day.

It is important to think about how the Constitution not only enshrined slavery but did it without mentioning the word, as if that would make it less obvious how congressional representatives and the electoral college bolstered the slave states' influence by finding a way to count non-citizens as partial persons. Do we think about how that effects votes and representation now? There have been amendments and acts to fix that, but there have also been steady efforts to tear them down.

Do we think about how the Constitution never forced us to honor the treaties we made with the Indians?

Do we think about how the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment did not protect our people from being murdered and expelled from settlements, regardless of personal property abandoned and not resolved by the Second Amendment?

A large part of the weakness of the previous Articles of Confederation was an inability to assess taxes federally. The nation could ask states to levy taxes for national expenses, but they couldn't enforce it, and the states were not highly motivated to comply. 

Many of the men who participated in the Constitutional Convention had loaned money to the nation during the war, and without a strong federal government they were unlikely to be repaid. That is not completely selfless and elevated, but it is not unreasonable to pay debts either. Having the ability to tax makes many other things possible. However, it happened that most of the people participating and then voting were wealthier people from higher society. If our country did not officially have an aristocracy, there was something of a de facto one. There is nothing unusual about that, though you can argue it is not very revolutionary.

That doesn't make the Constitution bad or mean that it should be thrown out completely, but we should engage honestly and critically with it, and the values it supports and pretends to support.

Widespread LDS support for Trump has bothered me for many reasons, but the reason I brought up the White Horse prophecy - and I assume a lot of Trump supporters do believe in it - is that the way to save the Constitution is probably not the by supporting the guy who wants a third term, talks about delaying or contesting the election, and is in constant violation of the emoluments clause.

I wholly support the emoluments clause. It is a good thing to limit the ability of someone in office to exploit that office. You may not think that is happening, with some people being overly impressed that the current president is donating his salary. He is making much more than his salary based on increased business at his properties (that he should have given up) both from people wanting to get near him and from charging the Secret Service agents who have to accompany him. The information is out there. Is there also the will to study, and understand, and possibly change?

Do you believe that everyone should be able to vote? What will you do about voter suppression? Does it bother you less if the votes being suppressed tend to be from non-white voters? Because a lot of them are citizens; some people forget that. 

We are rapidly approaching the election; what will your role be?

I am still questioning how to be of the most help. However, I will note that I did spend about eight months studying and blogging about the Constitution (that was inspired by the Bundy's referencing it and not in a way that seemed to make any sense). That started here:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-constitution-getting-started.html

In addition, I will also be reading the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers soon, because I believe it is important. I want to understand the thoughts behind it, and if they were right or wrong. We should engage thoughtfully and critically. 

That seems like the least we can do.

White horsing around

I needed to post about glurge before I posted about the White Horse prophecy because so much of what makes the "prophecy" a problem is its suspicious provenance. That wasn't even what I thought would be the important part, but if it had clear provenance, it would probably look very different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy

First of all, your nutshell of "the Constitution will hang by a thread and it will be up to the Elders of the Church to save it" (or words to similar effect) comes to us from a journal entry of a guy who heard another guy say that Joseph Smith said it, almost sixty years after Smith said it, still according to the one guy.

That is a shaky basis. It doesn't mean that Smith didn't say anything; the references from Brigham Young and Orson Hyde pre-date John Roberts' journal entry. One also can't help but notice that the journal entry is much more flowery and detailed than the other references. That could be more Roberts or Rushton than Smith.

It is very interesting to me that we have Joseph F. Smith dismissing it in 1980 and Bruce R. McConkie dismissing it in 1966, but you still have Charles W. Nibley referencing it in 1922, Melvin J. Ballard referencing it in 1928, J. Reuben Clark referencing it in 1942, and Ezra Taft Benson referencing it in 1986.

That's not a slam at anyone; those are all good men. Getting back to the flowery language thing, none of them referencing the threat to the constitution seem to be mentioning a white horse. I can't rule out that Joseph Smith said something about a threat to the Constitution, or that other people heard it - besides Rushton - and that the idea was carried through.

I also have to know that without having something written down at the time - either by Joseph Smith or by someone who was in the room and then had Joseph check their transcription - it would be foolish to take it too literally.

My point so far is that we get things into our head and repeat them and they become a part of our whole view, quite frequently without thorough examination.

There is definite appeal, right? I mean it's scary - our inspired Constitution will be imperiled, so our whole country is imperiled; drama! But it will all be fine, and we will be the heroes of it. We are such good, smart people!

Then, we we don't question that, maybe we don't question other things.

We might not question our reverence for the Constitution, and if that is justified. 

We also might not question whether our actions - including voting - tend to be more for or against the Constitution. 

I'm going to let that sit for a week.