Article III, giving us information on the Judicial branch of government, is shorter than the sections on both Executive and Legislative. Part of this is a reminder that it is not only through the Constitution that things can be set forth.
For example, Article III tells us that there is a Supreme Court, and we know from Section 3 of Article I that there is a Chief Justice, but the number of justices is not given. We all know it's nine, it's been that way for as long as we can remember, but what we may not know is that the number is set in the United States Code (Title 28, Section 1).
One thing that is interesting is that Section 1 also refers to inferior courts that Congress can establish. Much of the legal system passes through county courthouses, and there is an appeals process there to state courts. However, there is also the a federal court system. It was something that I knew, but did not really think about until I was called to jury duty that was not reporting to the Washington County Courthouse, like I was used to, but instead to U.S. District Court in Downtown Portland.
Section 1 also refers to good behavior by the office holders, though it possibly could have used more teeth. Scalia was criticized for accepting travel on a private jet, and there have been similar criticisms of other justices, but there never seems to be any follow-up, and even in the inferior courts there is a fair amount of abuse that can happen. It is fair to say that the checks in place to balance the different branches may be less effective here.
Section 2 goes over the jurisdiction in cases. Cases that deal with maritime law, a conflict between states, or ambassadors - so often cases where there could be a question about what state or country would have authority, then it belongs under federal law. There is also the option for cases that have come up through the local systems to appeal to the federal courts. The ability to quickly settle which court will hear a case was something that could only help harmony between the states, which was one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation.
Section 2 also states that trial shall be by jury, unless for impeachment, and that trials will be within the state where the crime was committed, but still with a provision for if the crime was not committed within any specific state. (This is one good reason for the specific references to maritime law.)
Finally Section 3 gives some further definition on treason, both for what constitutes treason and the burden of proof. There must be two witnesses confirming the action, and it only consists of making war or giving aid or comfort to enemies. With the Revolutionary War so fresh in memory for the framers, it must have been important to specify that criticism of or disagreement with the government was not in itself treason. Those values would show through more in the drafting of the Bill of Rights.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Sunday, March 20, 2016
The Constitution - Article II
As promised, we now go over the executive branch of government.
There's less on duties and powers than for the legislative branch. That is the area with the most people, and it holds the most power, a balance that must have seemed appropriate to people who were done with monarchy.
Section 1 starts with information on the election process, the term of office and compensation, the oath of office, and what to do in the event of the death or removal of the president. One thing that was not specified is if a vice president stepping in after the death of the president then makes for an acting president or an actual president. That did not get tested until the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841. Despite disagreement from some senators, John Tyler took the oath of office and simply was president. That protocol held. Some clarification on succession was added in the 25th Amendment, but that was not ratified until 1967.
The process for selecting the vice president needed to be changed much sooner. Originally the vice president would be the presidential candidate with the second highest number of votes, which meant that rivals were suddenly serving together, and maybe there were some hard feelings. This process started changing almost immediately, first with the party selecting a mate, and gradually developing over the course of the Nineteenth Century to the current system.
The other part that is getting a fair amount of mention now is the specification that the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, with one prominent candidate having been born in Canada, though his mother was a US citizen (though possibly with dual citizenship so a Canadian citizen as well). The last I knew, some constitutional scholars thought he was eligible, and some didn't. He may not be doing well enough for it to matter, but if it does come up, many more people will be offering opinions.
Section 2 goes over the power to make treaties - with the advice and consent of the Senate - and the presidential role as Commander in Chief. This makes a large part of the presidential duties relate to our relations - in war and peace - with other countries. It also specifies the right of the president to appoint ambassadors, ministers, justices, and so on, as well as the power to grant pardons and reprieves in federal cases.
There are two important points here. One is that when people petition the president for pardons, it is often not within his power. That came up recently when several people were petitioning (perhaps ill-advisedly) for a pardon for the subject of a documentary. Even if that person should not be in jail, that does not fall under the president's powers. Generally state and especially county governments have more to do with who is in jail, and how long they stay.
In addition there is currently some debate over whether in an election year the president should appoint someone now or wait until after the election, with some people even saying that historically it has not been done. That is a bald-faced lie. While it is not common for a need for an appointment to happen in the last year of a term (because really, how often do you even get to appoint a new justice?), in those situations the president has not waited to appoint, and Congress has not waited to confirm.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/
Section 3 sets in place the State of the Union address, and also that the president shall give Congress recommendations as well. Also, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States".
That is more on appointments, but the presidential duty to see that the law is faithfully executed is where you might have a president instruct the Department of Justice to look into something or to quit defending something.
Section 4 gives a very brief statement about impeachment, so that there is a means of removing a president who is guilty of crimes, confirming that no one, including the president, is above the law. So when Nixon said that when he did something that made it legal because he was the president, that showed a poor understanding of his constitutional role.
That's Article II in a nutshell. Remember that you can read it at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html .
There's less on duties and powers than for the legislative branch. That is the area with the most people, and it holds the most power, a balance that must have seemed appropriate to people who were done with monarchy.
Section 1 starts with information on the election process, the term of office and compensation, the oath of office, and what to do in the event of the death or removal of the president. One thing that was not specified is if a vice president stepping in after the death of the president then makes for an acting president or an actual president. That did not get tested until the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841. Despite disagreement from some senators, John Tyler took the oath of office and simply was president. That protocol held. Some clarification on succession was added in the 25th Amendment, but that was not ratified until 1967.
The process for selecting the vice president needed to be changed much sooner. Originally the vice president would be the presidential candidate with the second highest number of votes, which meant that rivals were suddenly serving together, and maybe there were some hard feelings. This process started changing almost immediately, first with the party selecting a mate, and gradually developing over the course of the Nineteenth Century to the current system.
The other part that is getting a fair amount of mention now is the specification that the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, with one prominent candidate having been born in Canada, though his mother was a US citizen (though possibly with dual citizenship so a Canadian citizen as well). The last I knew, some constitutional scholars thought he was eligible, and some didn't. He may not be doing well enough for it to matter, but if it does come up, many more people will be offering opinions.
Section 2 goes over the power to make treaties - with the advice and consent of the Senate - and the presidential role as Commander in Chief. This makes a large part of the presidential duties relate to our relations - in war and peace - with other countries. It also specifies the right of the president to appoint ambassadors, ministers, justices, and so on, as well as the power to grant pardons and reprieves in federal cases.
There are two important points here. One is that when people petition the president for pardons, it is often not within his power. That came up recently when several people were petitioning (perhaps ill-advisedly) for a pardon for the subject of a documentary. Even if that person should not be in jail, that does not fall under the president's powers. Generally state and especially county governments have more to do with who is in jail, and how long they stay.
In addition there is currently some debate over whether in an election year the president should appoint someone now or wait until after the election, with some people even saying that historically it has not been done. That is a bald-faced lie. While it is not common for a need for an appointment to happen in the last year of a term (because really, how often do you even get to appoint a new justice?), in those situations the president has not waited to appoint, and Congress has not waited to confirm.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/
Section 3 sets in place the State of the Union address, and also that the president shall give Congress recommendations as well. Also, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States".
That is more on appointments, but the presidential duty to see that the law is faithfully executed is where you might have a president instruct the Department of Justice to look into something or to quit defending something.
Section 4 gives a very brief statement about impeachment, so that there is a means of removing a president who is guilty of crimes, confirming that no one, including the president, is above the law. So when Nixon said that when he did something that made it legal because he was the president, that showed a poor understanding of his constitutional role.
That's Article II in a nutshell. Remember that you can read it at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html .
Sunday, March 13, 2016
The Constitution - Article I
I quoted the entirety of the preamble because it's short, but it won't be practical to do that for the articles. I am looking at the document at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf.
Article One goes over Congress. Although we will be treating each article separately, it is helpful to know that the first three articles each cover one branch of government, and this branch is legislative. There are two concepts that come into focus here.
One is the separation of powers doctrine, which invests different powers within different bodies. Even though the British Empire had its parliament and not everything was determined by the crown, it must have still felt important to keep too much of any function in one person.
This leads to the other concept of checks and balances. We do see that somewhat here, as there is instruction for impeachment, and other powers of Congress where they could go against the will of the president. However, the phrase "checks and balances" isn't used, it's just something that can be seen in the framing.
The other nod to balance comes in having a bicameral legislature. It could be valid for a state with a larger population to have more say in some matters, but that could impose on the smaller states. Every state has the same number of senators, but representatives are allocated by population and no state will have less than one. Things may not always work out perfectly, but there is an attempt to make things fair.
Ages of eligibility and length of citizenship required for serving in both houses is set forth, as well as the length of terms and the election cycles. It would be chaotic to have every member up for election at the same time, so those terms are set forward.
We have already seen some changes. Originally senators were to be appointed by state legislatures instead of popularly elected. State populations were becoming very dissatisfied with this, so the 17th Amendment changed it, ratified in 1913. You have probably known people who remembered that happening, even if they are no longer with us.
Another significant portion of this article is the Commerce Clause, Section 8, Clause 3. Setting forth the various powers of Congress, it specifies:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
This comes up because often people will feel that various activities should not be regulated, and while that might be true of the activity itself, once money is changing hands, that may not be true. Therefore, you might drink milk from your cow without pasteurizing it, and there will probably never be a law about that, but there might be a law about selling unpasteurized milk to your neighbors. Those laws are often made by state or local bodies, but the potential for federal legislation is there.
I have said that the Constitution as a whole is long and boring, but that is more when you are trying to read through the whole thing at once. Dividing it into sections, the text may still be dry, but it is manageable and can be interesting. I had forgotten about the 17th Amendment, but being reminded of it now, it is impressive that the process went along smoothly for so many years, and then was fixed relatively smoothly as well. They system can work.
There is also a quick reminder of the flaws, right in Section 2, where in expounding how to determine populations you only count 3/5ths of non-free persons. There will be people who will tell you that this was progressive, as it diminished the numbers for slave states, but not as much as not counting any non-free persons.
Also, in not counting non-taxed Indians, there is another reminder. If they had truly been given their sovereignty that would have been reasonable, but said sovereignty was encroached on so often, there was an issue there, even if the problem is not the actual texts.
These are reminders that for all that was good and noble in the intent of the framers, there were things that were ignoble as well, and many of the problems we have in today's society stem from our failure to eradicate our nation's baser thoughts and acts.
Article One goes over Congress. Although we will be treating each article separately, it is helpful to know that the first three articles each cover one branch of government, and this branch is legislative. There are two concepts that come into focus here.
One is the separation of powers doctrine, which invests different powers within different bodies. Even though the British Empire had its parliament and not everything was determined by the crown, it must have still felt important to keep too much of any function in one person.
This leads to the other concept of checks and balances. We do see that somewhat here, as there is instruction for impeachment, and other powers of Congress where they could go against the will of the president. However, the phrase "checks and balances" isn't used, it's just something that can be seen in the framing.
The other nod to balance comes in having a bicameral legislature. It could be valid for a state with a larger population to have more say in some matters, but that could impose on the smaller states. Every state has the same number of senators, but representatives are allocated by population and no state will have less than one. Things may not always work out perfectly, but there is an attempt to make things fair.
Ages of eligibility and length of citizenship required for serving in both houses is set forth, as well as the length of terms and the election cycles. It would be chaotic to have every member up for election at the same time, so those terms are set forward.
We have already seen some changes. Originally senators were to be appointed by state legislatures instead of popularly elected. State populations were becoming very dissatisfied with this, so the 17th Amendment changed it, ratified in 1913. You have probably known people who remembered that happening, even if they are no longer with us.
Another significant portion of this article is the Commerce Clause, Section 8, Clause 3. Setting forth the various powers of Congress, it specifies:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
This comes up because often people will feel that various activities should not be regulated, and while that might be true of the activity itself, once money is changing hands, that may not be true. Therefore, you might drink milk from your cow without pasteurizing it, and there will probably never be a law about that, but there might be a law about selling unpasteurized milk to your neighbors. Those laws are often made by state or local bodies, but the potential for federal legislation is there.
I have said that the Constitution as a whole is long and boring, but that is more when you are trying to read through the whole thing at once. Dividing it into sections, the text may still be dry, but it is manageable and can be interesting. I had forgotten about the 17th Amendment, but being reminded of it now, it is impressive that the process went along smoothly for so many years, and then was fixed relatively smoothly as well. They system can work.
There is also a quick reminder of the flaws, right in Section 2, where in expounding how to determine populations you only count 3/5ths of non-free persons. There will be people who will tell you that this was progressive, as it diminished the numbers for slave states, but not as much as not counting any non-free persons.
Also, in not counting non-taxed Indians, there is another reminder. If they had truly been given their sovereignty that would have been reasonable, but said sovereignty was encroached on so often, there was an issue there, even if the problem is not the actual texts.
These are reminders that for all that was good and noble in the intent of the framers, there were things that were ignoble as well, and many of the problems we have in today's society stem from our failure to eradicate our nation's baser thoughts and acts.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
The Constitution - Getting Started
"We The People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This phrase should be familiar; many of us have memorized it in high school. Despite that, I have noticed that many people who talk a lot about the Constitution, and how great it is, or how they are upholding it and other people are violating it, seem to have no idea what is in it.
I am familiar with the partisan divide that will cause some to oppose anyone and anything because of who supports it, or because of a single issue, but still, your arguments should make sense, and if you want to make an argument or action based on the the Constitution, then do that accurately.
It is understandable that people don't read it a lot, because it is highly boring. The document is a legalistic setting forth of the nuts and bolts of a representative government - some people find that fascinating, but if you don't, that's completely understandable. However, these kinds of documents are necessary, and an appreciation of them is also reasonable.
I am going to spend the next few posts going over various sections, because this is going to keep coming up; it's an election year. If it can be an election year less dominated by the nonsense of the ignorant, that would be great.
We'll get into articles and amendments in later weeks, but first, with just this preamble, we can see the goals. The Union had not been strong enough under the Articles of Confederation. Honestly, that probably isn't studied enough. They still knew enough to know that key issues include Justice, without which it would be hard to keep the peace (domestic Tranquility). Those cannot be accomplished without the general Welfare of the citizens being promoted, and even if it could be done without Liberty, they don't want to. That will require mechanisms of defense. And even though they are considered upstarts, undertaking an enterprise that could easily fail, they want it to last, so that it will be there for their posterity. Those should be the guiding forces.
Here's the other thing that's important to know; there were some serious flaws. Under this Constitution women could not vote and slavery was allowed. Some of the founders may have been against that, but there were enough who didn't believe in liberty and equality quite that much, and the others went along with it. This meant injustice there, and it also meant that while the Federal Law had protection and sovereignty for the Indians included, that was violated over and over again.
It doesn't mean that there was no inspiration in the document. It doesn't mean that there aren't parts of the document that work really well, or at least have worked really well to a point. It's just not as good as it can be, because the people weren't as good as they could have been - an all too common problem.
So that's worth keeping in mind too. We can't be scared of finding flaws. The inclusion of an Amendment process indicates that the writers knew there were flaws. The repeal of Prohibition shows that even a supposed correction can be a flaw.
We can handle this.
This phrase should be familiar; many of us have memorized it in high school. Despite that, I have noticed that many people who talk a lot about the Constitution, and how great it is, or how they are upholding it and other people are violating it, seem to have no idea what is in it.
I am familiar with the partisan divide that will cause some to oppose anyone and anything because of who supports it, or because of a single issue, but still, your arguments should make sense, and if you want to make an argument or action based on the the Constitution, then do that accurately.
It is understandable that people don't read it a lot, because it is highly boring. The document is a legalistic setting forth of the nuts and bolts of a representative government - some people find that fascinating, but if you don't, that's completely understandable. However, these kinds of documents are necessary, and an appreciation of them is also reasonable.
I am going to spend the next few posts going over various sections, because this is going to keep coming up; it's an election year. If it can be an election year less dominated by the nonsense of the ignorant, that would be great.
We'll get into articles and amendments in later weeks, but first, with just this preamble, we can see the goals. The Union had not been strong enough under the Articles of Confederation. Honestly, that probably isn't studied enough. They still knew enough to know that key issues include Justice, without which it would be hard to keep the peace (domestic Tranquility). Those cannot be accomplished without the general Welfare of the citizens being promoted, and even if it could be done without Liberty, they don't want to. That will require mechanisms of defense. And even though they are considered upstarts, undertaking an enterprise that could easily fail, they want it to last, so that it will be there for their posterity. Those should be the guiding forces.
Here's the other thing that's important to know; there were some serious flaws. Under this Constitution women could not vote and slavery was allowed. Some of the founders may have been against that, but there were enough who didn't believe in liberty and equality quite that much, and the others went along with it. This meant injustice there, and it also meant that while the Federal Law had protection and sovereignty for the Indians included, that was violated over and over again.
It doesn't mean that there was no inspiration in the document. It doesn't mean that there aren't parts of the document that work really well, or at least have worked really well to a point. It's just not as good as it can be, because the people weren't as good as they could have been - an all too common problem.
So that's worth keeping in mind too. We can't be scared of finding flaws. The inclusion of an Amendment process indicates that the writers knew there were flaws. The repeal of Prohibition shows that even a supposed correction can be a flaw.
We can handle this.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Feeling cold
This will just be a short one, but I was reminded of it last night as a friend and I were talking about workplace temperature.
In general, I tend to feel warm easily, so I enjoy air conditioning. However, one winter they were having a really hard time getting the building temperature up, to where not only was I keeping my coat on at my desk, but I wanted to keep my gloves on too, though they were not great for typing.
It was around that time that I first read of a study indicating that a cold temperature can exacerbate feelings of isolation and loneliness. That article spoke specifically to workplace temperature, in that if you want your workers to feel connected to each other raising the temperature a few degrees can be helpful.
That seemed counter-intuitive. I knew that conventional wisdom referred to tempers boiling over in hot weather, so I would expect raising the thermostat to lead to fights. At the same time, I know that in some of my loneliest moments I have felt cold, and it wasn't just figurative.
Of course, temperature has a full continuum, so cold, cool, warm, and hot can all be different, and have different reactions, that may also vary based on the individual person.
However, the tip for this week is that sometimes you can help your mind out via your body.
In my household, most of the members run warm, but there is one who runs cold. We try not to make the house too cold, but one thing that is more helpful than raising the thermostat is throwing a couple of blankets in the dryer for a few minutes and then wrapping her up in them, generally accompanied by a cup of cocoa.
This makes her happier than you might expect. There is the individual attention - it means more to have me get the blankets and cocoa for her than it would for her to get them herself - but the temperature boost is also there.
That is probably something you can do for yourself. If you are having a lonely moment, and it is a regular thing, obviously it is work looking into whether you need more support or to repair some relationship. There can also be value in simply wrapping yourself in a comforter, taking a warm bath, or doing some other activity that takes into account your mind and body connection.
In general, I tend to feel warm easily, so I enjoy air conditioning. However, one winter they were having a really hard time getting the building temperature up, to where not only was I keeping my coat on at my desk, but I wanted to keep my gloves on too, though they were not great for typing.
It was around that time that I first read of a study indicating that a cold temperature can exacerbate feelings of isolation and loneliness. That article spoke specifically to workplace temperature, in that if you want your workers to feel connected to each other raising the temperature a few degrees can be helpful.
That seemed counter-intuitive. I knew that conventional wisdom referred to tempers boiling over in hot weather, so I would expect raising the thermostat to lead to fights. At the same time, I know that in some of my loneliest moments I have felt cold, and it wasn't just figurative.
Of course, temperature has a full continuum, so cold, cool, warm, and hot can all be different, and have different reactions, that may also vary based on the individual person.
However, the tip for this week is that sometimes you can help your mind out via your body.
In my household, most of the members run warm, but there is one who runs cold. We try not to make the house too cold, but one thing that is more helpful than raising the thermostat is throwing a couple of blankets in the dryer for a few minutes and then wrapping her up in them, generally accompanied by a cup of cocoa.
This makes her happier than you might expect. There is the individual attention - it means more to have me get the blankets and cocoa for her than it would for her to get them herself - but the temperature boost is also there.
That is probably something you can do for yourself. If you are having a lonely moment, and it is a regular thing, obviously it is work looking into whether you need more support or to repair some relationship. There can also be value in simply wrapping yourself in a comforter, taking a warm bath, or doing some other activity that takes into account your mind and body connection.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Talking about pornography
I have been noticing lately that all conversations regarding pornography tend to focus on addiction.
Addiction is certainly something that can happen, but it doesn't always happen. There are people who watch it sometimes, and sometimes don't, with no withdrawal symptoms.
This is important because if we focus on addiction as an absolute, and the only way in which viewing happens, since it is false it makes us unreliable, when we may be saying other things that are not only true but vital. For people to be able to trust what we say, we need to speak honestly, and that means not just that we don't intentionally lie but that we speak with some understanding, or at least with some awareness of what we don't understand.
It can also be valuable for us to understand how addiction works, and that it tends to fill in gaps and areas of misery. If we remember that, we can work at creating rich fulfilling lives where any addiction has less likelihood of taking hold. That is one way in which talking about pornography is similar to talking about drugs.
They are also similar in that there are valid reasons for not viewing pornography beyond addiction, and those points may be even more important.
If we believe sex is something that should be an enjoyable part of a healthy marriage, and and special within that marriage, then it is easy to see that porn would not be the best way of honoring that. It is not surprising then that pornography would often be degrading in its representations of sex. Because of that, viewing it can easily be demoralizing, and not helpful for keeping a good spirit. That has nothing to do with addiction.
If you use those images for arousal, as a counterfeit it is not surprising that the milder images will lose their effectiveness, and harder, more degrading comment will be needed for the same feeling. That is when addiction becomes a threat, but a commitment to the Spirit and a commitment to chastity were reason enough to turn back before.
That earlier premise, that sex should be an enjoyable part of a healthy marriage, seems so obvious but can become a stumbling block. If we get weird about sex, where members feel guilty enjoying it or thinking about it, or working to make the sex in a marriage more enjoyable, some people will find pornography easier, but it will be less rewarding.
If we get caught up in gender roles, where a husband cannot view his wife as a full person, or pay attention to her needs, or where either person in a relationship tries to shame the other, then pornography can seem easier, and is still less rewarding.
The worst part is that so many of the things we get wrong seem to be due to fear, where we are so afraid of straying off the path that we put up extra rules, that are far harsher - and stupider - than the existing commandments. Then things that are bad ideas turn into horrifying things.
That means that people outside of the church who might understand our points about why something is a bad idea think we are ridiculous, which is not great for missionary work. It also means that people inside of the church can have a harder time seeking help. And it can mean that the teenager you were trying to teach finds examples that prove you wrong, and doesn't believe you anymore, losing the good points that you had made.
Addiction is certainly something that can happen, but it doesn't always happen. There are people who watch it sometimes, and sometimes don't, with no withdrawal symptoms.
This is important because if we focus on addiction as an absolute, and the only way in which viewing happens, since it is false it makes us unreliable, when we may be saying other things that are not only true but vital. For people to be able to trust what we say, we need to speak honestly, and that means not just that we don't intentionally lie but that we speak with some understanding, or at least with some awareness of what we don't understand.
It can also be valuable for us to understand how addiction works, and that it tends to fill in gaps and areas of misery. If we remember that, we can work at creating rich fulfilling lives where any addiction has less likelihood of taking hold. That is one way in which talking about pornography is similar to talking about drugs.
They are also similar in that there are valid reasons for not viewing pornography beyond addiction, and those points may be even more important.
If we believe sex is something that should be an enjoyable part of a healthy marriage, and and special within that marriage, then it is easy to see that porn would not be the best way of honoring that. It is not surprising then that pornography would often be degrading in its representations of sex. Because of that, viewing it can easily be demoralizing, and not helpful for keeping a good spirit. That has nothing to do with addiction.
If you use those images for arousal, as a counterfeit it is not surprising that the milder images will lose their effectiveness, and harder, more degrading comment will be needed for the same feeling. That is when addiction becomes a threat, but a commitment to the Spirit and a commitment to chastity were reason enough to turn back before.
That earlier premise, that sex should be an enjoyable part of a healthy marriage, seems so obvious but can become a stumbling block. If we get weird about sex, where members feel guilty enjoying it or thinking about it, or working to make the sex in a marriage more enjoyable, some people will find pornography easier, but it will be less rewarding.
If we get caught up in gender roles, where a husband cannot view his wife as a full person, or pay attention to her needs, or where either person in a relationship tries to shame the other, then pornography can seem easier, and is still less rewarding.
The worst part is that so many of the things we get wrong seem to be due to fear, where we are so afraid of straying off the path that we put up extra rules, that are far harsher - and stupider - than the existing commandments. Then things that are bad ideas turn into horrifying things.
That means that people outside of the church who might understand our points about why something is a bad idea think we are ridiculous, which is not great for missionary work. It also means that people inside of the church can have a harder time seeking help. And it can mean that the teenager you were trying to teach finds examples that prove you wrong, and doesn't believe you anymore, losing the good points that you had made.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
When to send e-mail
I am going to be sending out various messages soon calling for action, and was thinking about when to send them.
When I was sending out the newsletters, I always tried to send them out between Tuesday and Thursday. My reasoning was that Monday has people catching up on things, and Friday has them trying to get everything caught up, and so the newsletter had a better chance of being read between then.
The obvious flaw with that reasoning is that if we did a good job of getting caught up on Friday, Monday shouldn't be so bad. People shouldn't be sending a lot of business mail over the weekend (though it's weird how often they do). I would also plan on sending the newsletter out around 2 in the afternoon - after lunch, but before people would be getting ready to leave for the day.
I am delighted to find that the internet backs me up:
http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2014/09/04/best-time-to-send-email-campaign
Of course, if everyone uses the same reasoning, the glut of newsletters may cause a panicked delete, so it can backfire.
There were some things I was not expecting:
https://customer.io/blog/timing-week-day-email-sending-schedule.html
I had no idea people hated Tuesdays. You may think that it's Mondays that you hate, but really, you still have a weekend boost going into Monday, and it lifts you up. By Tuesday that is gone, but it's still the right time to send e-mail.
Tomorrow is President's Day, so many people should have a sizable boost this this Tuesday, but this week it might be better to send on Wednesday, or maybe even wait until next week.
(I am probably just going to go with Wednesday.)
When I was sending out the newsletters, I always tried to send them out between Tuesday and Thursday. My reasoning was that Monday has people catching up on things, and Friday has them trying to get everything caught up, and so the newsletter had a better chance of being read between then.
The obvious flaw with that reasoning is that if we did a good job of getting caught up on Friday, Monday shouldn't be so bad. People shouldn't be sending a lot of business mail over the weekend (though it's weird how often they do). I would also plan on sending the newsletter out around 2 in the afternoon - after lunch, but before people would be getting ready to leave for the day.
I am delighted to find that the internet backs me up:
http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2014/09/04/best-time-to-send-email-campaign
Of course, if everyone uses the same reasoning, the glut of newsletters may cause a panicked delete, so it can backfire.
There were some things I was not expecting:
https://customer.io/blog/timing-week-day-email-sending-schedule.html
I had no idea people hated Tuesdays. You may think that it's Mondays that you hate, but really, you still have a weekend boost going into Monday, and it lifts you up. By Tuesday that is gone, but it's still the right time to send e-mail.
Tomorrow is President's Day, so many people should have a sizable boost this this Tuesday, but this week it might be better to send on Wednesday, or maybe even wait until next week.
(I am probably just going to go with Wednesday.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)