We Have Nothing to Fear (Except Ourselves)

The climate in this county is so divisive!  There are days I just want to stop thinking, analyzing, and writing about politics.  It is too bad I feel that way.  I am a nerd, which I am very proud to admit, who worked all of those years on achieving that Bachelor’s degree in Political Science (currently working on my Master's), and now, I question my sanity in wanting to pursue a degree in politics in the first place.   It is so bad that I just want to walk away and allow the extreme right and the extreme left to fight and destroy each other.  The hyper-partisans are destroying our imperfect political system. No longer can one person talk, negotiate, and compromise with one another. We now must demand that everything goes our way or no way at all.  Arguments are being dumb-downed because people have to spin the facts so that everything they believe can be validated and praised.  An example of the dumbing-down of ideas and arguments can be showcased in this brilliant, factual meme that I found on Facebook:

Really?  We can’t talk about Social Security reform because no one on welfare has ever worked for their money?  I don’t know what troubles me more:  that someone actually believes this was such a witty argument that they decided they had to make this into a meme?  Or that this has achieved over 420,000 shares and 42,000 likes on Facebook?  Some may wonder why I would even bother with such pathetic displays like this.  I can agree with that to a point. The reason why I am confronting pathetic political arguments is so I can hopefully inspire people to research and critically analyze everything that comes their way in politics.  Knowing that this meme received 420,000 shares depresses me.  This many people found this worthy and witty enough to share with the world (as I do the same).  I don’t find it worthy and witty.  I find it sad.  It’s sad because people really believe that welfare recipients have never worked in their lives.  They really believe that welfare recipients have never contributed any tax dollars into the system, even though 47.8 percent of people currently receiving food stamps are working? 

I fear that the increased polarization and partisanship will lead to our destruction.  It will lead to our destruction because the gridlock within our government will continue to get worse because no one will be able to agree on anything.  If nothing gets passed then our problems will get worse and worse until there is nothing left of this country.  Here is some straight-talk in regards to the possible destruction of our country:  gay marriage will not be the trigger that destroys this country; taking God out of our schools will not destroy this country; our bloated debt will not destroy this country; our militarily over-extension in this world will not destroy this country. “We the people” will destroy this country because we want to have temper-tantrums over the fact that Congress will not pass all right-winged laws or left-winged laws.

To that I say:  shame on us! I am a moderate; I have evolved over my many years of political study and research.  I love that I have evolved, but there are many people out there that see me as the enemy or as an extremist because I use that awful “c-word,” compromise.  When I hear things like that, I just want throw up my hands in surrender.  I just want to leave the gutter-politics behind.  Why was I so crazy to study politics? I enjoyed it and I enjoyed the debate, but now, it seems like fewer and fewer people want to talk or debate.  It must be one way.  It must be their way or no way at all.  You either have to love President Obama and cheer at his every move or you must hate the President and declare him the worst president ever.  On the flip side, you must have loved President Bush or hated him.  You may not hold any in-between feelings about these politicians.  If you place yourself in the middle it is because you are an apologist, Kool-Aid drinker, or just an idiot.

When I first got interested into politics, I was more of a conservative thinker and voter. I voted for President Bush twice and I voted for Senator John McCain in 2008.  Within four years, my voting preferences had changed.  I voted for the re-election of President Obama.  I know, I am just an idiot, uninformed voter as some people on the conservative side of the aisle would call me for my vote.  I’ll tell you why I voted for President Obama.  I voted for the president because I feel like conservatives have abandoned me. Tea Partiers and staunch Republicans do not want moderates in their party. Conservative one-time darlings like Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan have fallen from grace in the eyes of the right-wing. This has happened because Republicans, like Jindal, have taken more moderate (or more liberal) positions on issues like immigration, big business, and trying to be more inclusive. Conservatives mock the moderates in the Republican Party and I could not handle that anymore.

Another reason why I voted for President Obama was that I believe that conservatives are hypocritical when it comes to true conservative values. Conservatives want to protect their right to bear arms (which I agree with) but they want my private, personal life to be outlawed because gay marriage is icky and the Bible says it is a sin. I thought conservatives believed in limited government, but I found out, they do not believe that. They just want to be free to pursue the things they like while at the same time stopping things that they do not like. I must say, I was not thrilled voting for President Obama because he is not much better. His decisions have not dazzled me.  My vote was a protest vote against the Republican Party for allowing the few hyper-partisans within their party to hijack the entire group.

I also was upset with the Republicans because I cannot handle the hypocrisy of their treatment of President Obama. During the Bush years, conservatives were appalled at the calls for impeachment against Bush or the insane accusations that Bush was a liar. I defended Bush then and I will still defend him today. That is why I defend Obama against these asinine calls for impeachment and name-calling. It is the same pettiness that has been used again and again.  You disagree with them, then you better call them names.  I feel like our politicians, media personalities, and the entire country has reverted back to using high school tactics when it comes to our political discourse.  When I watch shows on MSNBC and Fox News, I half-expect Brenda Walsh from West Beverly Hills High School to show up as a political pundit.  That’s how juvenile the environment has become in the country.

I will always support the president who is in office even if I disagree with his or her policies. If the president is successful then that means I become more successful, and in turn, the whole country becomes more successful. When I say these things, people call me an idiot or an Obama-lover, when I am just trying to be fair.  Unfortunately, when a Republican becomes president again the tables will be turned.  Liberals will be on the attack and the Republicans will be on the defensive again and this disgusting cycle of name calling and finger pointing will continue.

I just want a fair and honest debate. It just amazes me that I am considered a turncoat to people who believed I was a conservative, while people who are liberal, think I am phony because I am now defending the liberal positions on some policy issues.  All I want is to be someone who analyzes things in a fair and non-hypocritical way.  It seems like fewer and fewer people want honest analysis.  The hyper-partisans want a biased opinion that will bolster their ideology.  Everyone be damned if you disagree with these people.  What a sad state of affairs.

This will lead to our destruction, but people will find other reasons to blame on why our country was destroyed.  People will always blame the opposing side.  What we will never do is to look in that mirror and determine that it was “we the people” that allowed for our destruction.

E pluribus unum, indeed!

I'll Have a Side of Bias with my News

"There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion and holding it passionately.  But at those times when you’re absolutely sure that you’re right, talk with someone who disagrees.  And if you constantly find yourself in the company of those who say ‘Amen’ to everything that you say, find other company." – former United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

No matter what feelings you hold about former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, I hope we can agree that her words in this instance are quite true.  Partisan bickering and polarization are becoming major obstacles in the American political landscape.  Politicians and their stubborn political supporters are halting progress.  The American political system is deadlocked.  We as a nation cannot find conciliatory solutions to immigration, tax reform, budgetary issues, etc.  The list goes on and on.  One of the causes for this deadlock is due to a biased news media where political purists get to speak the loudest.

In a peer-reviewed study titled “Partisan Differences in Opinionated News Perceptions:  A Test of the Hostile Media Effect” by Lauren Feldman, an assistant professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University, it was discussed that: “52% of cable news stories on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox offered only a single point of view about controversial issues, compared to 20% of stories on the network evening news.  Further, the expression of journalist opinion appeared in 28% of cable news stories, twice what was found in network evening news broadcasts and nine times that on PBS’s evening newscast, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

Some of you might be wondering why this is a big deal.  Some of you might be saying that Fox News is the only news organization that tells the truth, while others might think that MSNBC is superior when it comes to reporting the truth.  But the real truth is that not one news organization holds that magic key to the truth.  I am not saying that everything on Fox News or MSNBC is complete garbage; every news organization has their positive traits.  What I am trying to say is to not put all of your trust into one news outlet and claim that they are the only true voice in the media.  These news outlets are creating ideological bubbles that are endangering the political process within this country and within the entire world.  These media outlets brainwash their viewers into thinking that the conservative side of the argument is the superior way of thinking and the liberal way will destroy this country, and vice-versa.  This is dangerous because you end up with political ideologues that will not compromise and, in turn, end up hurting the country (last year’s federal government shut down).  Is this how we want our country to run?

Besides, does any one person or any one organization hold the entire truth to politics, science, religion, life, or life-after-death?  I ask this question with hesitation because I know some people would say yes.  That troubles me.  I would never allow one person or one organization to say to me that they have all of the answers.  No one has all of the answers.  If they say that they do, in my opinion, they become highly suspect.  I must then question their motivations for saying such things.  Someone who is truly honest and sincere would never suggest that they have all of the answers and that any opposing thoughts are wrong.

Believe me, I question everything in life, and sometimes that gives me anxiety.  In today’s information age, it almost seems like you must know everything and have an opinion on everything to be listened to.  People feel stupid if they respond to a question with “I do not know.”  In my case, I might be somewhat intelligent (some would probably disagree).  I am book-smart, but I am quite awkward, and I am somewhat unintelligent when it comes to street-smarts.  I might be somewhat competent when it comes to politics, but compare me to someone like Albert Einstein and I end up looking like a fetus, intellectually.  But that’s everyone in existence.  We have our strengths and we have our weaknesses.  Even brilliant minds like Albert Einstein would never suggest that they have the answers to everything.

Be suspect of information, even if you tend to agree with it.  As Condoleezza Rice suggests, if you are in the company of someone or in a crowd where you say “Amen” to everything that is said or written then it is time to seek a differing opinion out.

Every day I visit numerous media outlets.  I visit CNN, Fox News, The Huffington Post, The Drudge Report, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal for national and world news.  Locally, I visit KSL (the local NBC affiliate) and The Salt Lake Tribune.  If there are stories that I want to research or read more about, I search for these stories in other publications.  At the end of the day, depending on the type of news day it has been, my head hurts.  Some of the opinions and comments that I read just depress me.  It is somewhat upsetting to read about all of the horrors that are taking place in this country and in the world.  I want to be informed.  I want to be informed on multiple levels, where multiple sides of an argument are presented.  This information helps me make more informed decisions.  Sometimes my decisions on public policy are liberal (social issues) and sometimes they fall more conservative (budgetary issues).  But knowing both sides allows me to see both perspectives.  If I can see both perspectives then I am more willing to compromise because I know most issues are more complex.  They are not black and white.  They are problems that lie in that murky gray middle of life.  Compromise may not bring about the total solutions to our problems, but at least we are addressing our problems and not kicking them down the road until they develop into full-blown crises.  If we can get things done and compromise, if we discover that our solution is not fixing the problem, then we can go in and find what is not working and fix that.  It is not an easy process but it is a better place to be at then where we are now:  in a deadlocked, frustrating political landscape.

Even though it may be tough to tolerate the opposing view side,  I would rather stomach the other side (while opening up my mind) then sounding or looking like this:

The top comment came from a news story on welfare benefits that was linked from the Drudge Report.  The bottom comment came from a news story on Governor Susana Martinez (R-NM) from Mother Jones.

A Debate of Constitutional Intent

I have a question for all of my readers.  Do you believe if a right is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, then does that mean that perceived right is not protected by the Constitution?  So in other words, because the Constitution does not specify marriage in any capacity, does that mean that marriage (or same-sex marriage) is not a right and that the states can regulate it as it pleases?  On the flip side, does that mean states like California and Massachusetts that do allow same-sex marriage could require churches to perform same-sex marriages, even though some churches would oppose such a thing?  I mean, neither of these examples are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, so that must mean that there are no Constitutional protections when it comes to marriage or religious dissent.  Do my arguments seem silly?  They should.  But I have heard people argue these positions.  Some people actually believe if something is not explicitly mentioned within the Constitution, then that means there are no protections.  I have heard people mention that marriage is not a constitutional right (even though the United States Supreme Court has stated on fourteen separate occasions that marriage is a civil right protected by the Constitution) so that means states can regulate it and deny same-sex couples the right to marry.  Some people take the Constitution quite literally.  These people are dead wrong.

I will show you that they are wrong through the use of analysis and interpretation of the intent of our Constitutional Founders as they were writing the Constitution.  This is the job that judges face all the time in the Judicial Branch of government.  They must try to come up with decisions based upon intent of the Constitution, which sometimes is not explicit.  It is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

I am able to decipher intent by reading the House of Representative notes on whether or not they should amend the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights.  (Yes, some people were opposed to a Bill of Rights).

The House began these debates on June 8, 1789 when James Madison rose in front of the House and declared that “this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution.”  

Mr. Madison’s most vocal opponent was James Jackson from Georgia.  He suggested that the debate on constitutional amendments should not move forward.  Mr. Jackson was against the very essence of the proposal.  He asked, “What experience have we had of the good or bad qualities of this Constitution?”  Mr. Jackson continued, “Our Constitution, sir, is like a vessel just launched, and lying at the wharf; she is untried, you can hardly discover any one of her properties.”  Mr. Jackson did not want to even hear Mr. Madison’s proposals because he believed that the ink was not even dry on the Constitution.  The people of the United States had no experience with the document and he wanted to wait until we had the proper experience to know what is and is not working.  Mr. Jackson noted that, “When the propriety of making amendments shall be obvious from experience, I trust there will be virtue enough in my country to make them.”  Mr. Jackson was more than happy to look at amending the Constitution when the United States had more experience in dealing with the Constitution.   I can see where Mr. Jackson is coming from; I believe he is making a good point because at that time our leaders had no idea how or if the Constitution was going to work in principle, so I agree that you need experience with the document to see what is working and what is not.  I also believe Mr. Jackson makes a good argument for how our modern society should view the Constitution.  The Constitution has been in existence for more than 200 years.  Times, technology, attitudes, and modes of travel have changed.  This is why I believe that there is no harm in having a Constitutional Convention (the process that must take place to make changes to the Constitution).  I know many people who believe the Constitution is hanging by a thread and we need to protect it.  However, if it is not working and we could revise it and make it better, why would someone be against that?  I really believe that we should have a Constitutional Convention every so often (every 10 to 20 years) so we can see if we got some things wrong.  We may find that it needs no revisions but I believe that it does not hurt to have a debate on whether there are items in the Constitution that need to be revised or thrown out altogether.

Mr. Madison re-affirmed his position for amending the Constitution.  He made the argument that he had a duty to his constituents to make sure that the House did not “disregard their wishes.”  Madison believed that his constituents were apprehensive about signing on to the Constitution because there were “countrymen who wish to deprive them of liberty.”  Mr. Madison was looking to calm the fears of his constituents because he believed that all power is subject to abuse within the government and that “the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done.”  Mr. Madison continued on and began to lay out his proposed amendments.   A few of his proposals are as follows:  “First, that there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.”  He also proposes, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”  Mr. Madison lays out his proposals at length on keeping and bearing arms, the criminal justice system, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so forth.  He declares that, “The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights.”

Madison continued and explained why a bill of rights is necessary.  He stated that some states already have declaration of rights incorporated into their constitutions and that the establishment of the United States government had not repealed those rights.  However, some states did not have bills of rights and others that did were defective and some are “absolutely improper.”  He also made the argument that having a bill of rights would help protect against abuse of power.  Madison believed if a bill of rights is incorporated into the Constitution that, “they (the Executive and Legislative branches) will be naturally led to resist the encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.”

Mr. Jackson then argued:  "There is a maxim in law, and it will apply to bills of rights, that when you enumerate exceptions, the exceptions operate to exclusion of all circumstances that are omitted; consequently unless you except every right from the grant of power, omitted are inferred to be resigned to the discretion of the Government."

Mr. Jackson was worried that if you incorporate a bill of rights into the Constitution, that will lead the government to assume that if there are rights not written in the Bill of Rights, that it will have the power to assume that it can restrict the rights that are not listed.  He has a good point because there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees our right to privacy in the United States.  You will hear arguments that government has no business placing cameras out in public or that the government should not be tapping phone calls in the name of security, that it is against our right to privacy.  However, there is no guarantee to the right of privacy in the Constitution.  So the government assumes that it can encroach upon our privacy.  However, with that said, I agree with Madison on this subject.  I would rather there be some expressed rights in the Constitution because that has protected us from more government intrusion, in my opinion.  Take the example of privacy rights and how the government can record and spy on us if they feel like we are a threat and imagine that there was no freedom of speech in the Constitution.  I believe it is probable that the government would curtail our speech in times of crisis.  The government may not want newspapers or individual citizens from posting or publishing political cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.  We have seen that this causes rioting, violence, anti-Western, and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.  I believe the government may try to restrict people and news organizations from publishing pictures out of threat of violence towards Americans and American interests.  This is a hypothetical argument but we have seen how the government acts towards us when it comes to privacy and protecting us in this age of terrorism.

From this debate, I think we can deduce that there were some rights our founders wanted written down and agreed upon.  They did not want the government to infringe on some of our basic rights.  That is why debate on the Bill of Rights continued but was agreed upon.  From that point it was sent through the process of ratification by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states.  Virginia being the last state needed for ratification, which took place on December 15, 1791.

However, we can also see that they knew they could not identify every inalienable right and write it down in the Constitution.  Just because they could not identify every right it doesn't mean that those other rights do not exist.  Never let anyone try to persuade you about certain rights just because they are not literally written within the Constitution.  Besides, in most cases, other rights can be inferred from amendments that are in the Constitution.  This means that freedom of religion allows a church to practice their beliefs.  That means if they think same-sex marriage is sinful, the Constitution protects them from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.  Also, the Equal Protection and Due Process clause will most likely apply to same-sex marriage.  Equal protection protects citizens by making sure all federal and state laws apply equally to all of its citizens.  In other words, states may be able to regulate marriage, but marriage laws must be executed without any bias or discrimination.

If anyone ever argues that a right (same-sex marriage, religions being forced to perform same-sex marriages) is not guaranteed because those rights are not mentioned within the Constitution, remind them that our ideals and founding documents are a little more complex and nuanced.  It is not black and white.  That is why we have such fierce debates over rights and perceived rights.  The Constitution is not clear on a lot of things and that is why our government has checks and balances built within it.  Issues need to be sorted out as carefully as possible so we do not violate the Constitution.  More importantly, so we do not violate a person’s rights.

My So-Called Gay Life: Part 2

In last week's long-winded account of my struggle and coming out, you may ask, what does this have anything to do with me being able to understand and accept people for holding different views? My internal struggle has had a lot to do with how I have been able to accept people from all walks of life.  My struggle allowed me to see and feel both sides on the subject of homosexuality.  At first, I was in denial and upset about homosexuality.  I remember making fun of others who were openly gay.  That was a very pathetic and despicable move on my part.  I feel so ashamed that I did that.  But, my anger and denial went to acceptance and happiness.  I would not change who I am for anyone.  And being gay, I know how hard it is to hold unpopular views of the world.  I have lived as being a part of a minority community.  However, I don't look at myself as being a minority. I'm Feller and just because I am gay, it doesn't make me any less of a person.

First and foremost, I am human.  I'm just Feller.  Nothing is different about me except who I fall in love with (and as I mentioned previously, I was able to find that special man). I really don't see how I am a minority for being gay, though I technically am.  But I do not think about it. I just live my life as who I am.

Secondly, I know how it feels to be judged harshly. There is an extreme minority in this country that wants to tear me down.  They condemn me to hell.  However, I do not get mad at that because in different ways, we are all judged harshly. Some people may judge me because I am gay but many people do not.  Some religious people are judged as stupid or ignorant because they believe in their faith. Some people are judged because they are fat. Some people are judged because of their ideological beliefs. This list can go on and on. Everyone has been judged and labeled at some point in their lives. My story isn't any different than anyone else in this country. I am judged and labeled because I am gay.  So what? Society creates labels and judges everyone. I consider myself the same in this struggle. My label is gay, that does not upset me. In fact, I am more than happy wearing that label. Since we are all labeled and judged I cannot be mad at people with sincere beliefs.

There has been a struggle between most religions in this country and the gay community. So much hatred and harsh feelings have been born out of this struggle. Why? Why do we allow each of us to become divided over someone’s own sexual behavior? How un-enlightened is that? I believe to live and let live. I do not mind that people with sincere faith believe that I am committing a sin.  As long as they allow me to pursue my own happiness, I do not care what others believe.  Once someone supports laws or policies that stop me from pursuing my happiness that is where it crosses the line.  It is one thing to oppose homosexuality.  But to allow the state to sanction laws that stop me from marrying the person I love?  That is where I draw the line.  I hear people say that they get tired of being labeled a bigot or a homophobe because they oppose gay marriage.  I can sympathize with them.  I don’t want people to be called names.  But I would ask them to clarify their position.  I would ask them, "Do you oppose gay marriage and support laws that restrict that right?" or "Do you oppose gay marriage but believe that people should be free to do as they please?"  If they answer yes to the latter then they should not be called bigots.  But if someone opposes homosexuality to the point that they want laws to restrict their rights, then that is highly un-American.  I still wouldn't call them bigots.  I would ask them to look at themselves in the mirror.  Because hating someone to a point of denying them rights is so wrong.  The United States was not born to hate others for being different.

Believe me, I want more people in this country to have strong convictions. I have been taught to pursue my happiness in this country. I do not worry about what people are doing in their lives because they have that right too. I may disagree with their methods but they have that right to do what they like. This means that if someone wants to be a devout member of a faith that believes homosexuality is wrong, that is perfectly fine with me. I do not hate them. I do not believe I will be damned to hell and some of you may disagree with me. But let your God judge me on Judgment Day.  Don't be the judge, jury, and executioner. Jesus Christ, who I do find inspiring, did have a wonderful message. Love others. He preached love and tolerance, even though you may find that person living in sin. I do not consider myself committing sin but if people truly believe that, then good for them. What I do find hypocritical is when people of religion are hateful and go out of their way to get in my face to tell me I am going to hell. That is not Christ-like at all. However, those people are in the minority, as I mentioned last week.  I truly believe that most Christians (this includes Mormons) and people of faith do not hate me because I am gay. They may believe homosexuality is wrong, but they wish me all the luck in the world. They are just standing up for their beliefs like I am standing up for my beliefs. I wish people on both sides would calm down because the reality is that most people do not care what I do with my life. They are the silent majority. We only listen to the people with the loudest voice (like the Westboro Baptist Church) and those are the people that are on the extremes. The media picks it up for ratings and readership and politicians and community organizers pick up on the extremes for their own political gain and agenda. Do not get me wrong, we do need to have debate in this country, even if it gets heated. I want people to stand up and voice their views. If more people did this, the majority moderates in this country would win the debate.  I would love nothing more than the far-right and the far-left to be taken down a peg or two.  Let's stand up for what we believe in, but remember, most Americans are not out for your destruction. They may disagree with you but they don't hate you, they just want their voice heard. We need to stop highlighting the bigots and extreme ideologues out there and focus on the debate without calling each other names. We live in a country with many diverse people, backgrounds, and ideas.  I want to hear those ideas. I want to learn about all of their experiences.  I want to understand each other.  This is not an impossible goal. We just need to stop and listen.  We can learn so much and be inspired, while allowing the hate to melt.

I challenge all of you to listen to an opposing opinion. Seek out the other side, let your mind be open. When you are open you can understand where most people are coming from.  Any hate you may have will melt away. I went through a long struggle with my sexuality.  It opened my mind which lead to accepting others, because I have listened and paid attention to the haters and bigots in this world. This discovery of myself helped me realize that I was paying attention to the wrong people. I should have been paying attention to my friends and family and the moderate majority in America where people may disagree with you, but they do not wish you ill will.  Most logical Americans do not personally hate President Obama or former President George W. Bush.  They may disagree with them, but they would never cheer for their failure.  They would cheer them on to succeed. Because if a president succeeds that means that we, as a country, succeed.  That is the realization I have made. Do not fall into the trap laid by the extremes; they just fill your heart and mind with hate and harsh feelings. They influence you to shut people out.  That is dangerous and that will lead to our downfall. When you hear an extreme view point that you may want to cheer on, do some fact-checking and make sure it is correct.  Nothing harms our country more than having hateful, incorrect information spreading across the country.  I guarantee that you will feel better about this country and other human beings if you take a moment to think and fact-check. The reality is, we may disagree at times, but we really are not out for the destruction of other human beings. If I can come to this level of awareness, you can too.

How I apply my thought to real world examples is the struggle the Mormon Church has had in the eyes of the country and the world. To be completely honest, I have no use for the church. I think they damaged themselves in the Prop 8 (gay marriage) debate in California.  The Los Angeles Times reported that the Mormon Church donated at least $180,000 to stop the rights of gay Californians from marrying (it is also estimated that Utah individuals and families donated about $20 million to support Prop 8, with 70% of that money going to fight gay rights).  I have no problem with them voicing their views against gay marriage. It is their right and I don't hate them for it. I disagree with them.  I also think they crossed the line when they actively tried to crush the rights of their countrymen (and continue to do so by signing onto legal briefs that promote same-sex marriage bans).  I cannot imagine Jesus Christ being okay with that tactic.  But, the backlash they felt in the aftermath of Prop 8 may have turned the tide.  The truth is that people within the Mormon Church (and among all religions, in general) are beginning to accept gay members and the gay community.  There is still work to do, but it's a beginning and that is a great thing. With that said, I will stand up for the Mormon Church when they are being denigrated by other Christian faiths, which I believe the majority accepts.  But I am speaking of the minority that bashes them as non-Christians. What a stupid, pointless, hateful debate. Mormons are Christians. They believe in God. Their views are different in that they accept that others can become Gods.  But who cares? They believe in God, they believe in the divine goodness and greatness of Jesus Christ. I just sit there with my jaw dropped in shock that other Christians would hate Mormons so much. Mormons have strong convictions and beliefs. I thought that would be something that other religions would revel in and not be upset about. That certainly is not Christ-like. Mormons may be the majority in Utah, but that is the only place. Mormons are a minority, like I am a minority. They are sometimes viciously attacked for their views, like I am. Me being gay is almost the same as what some Mormons encounter in other places on the globe. Mormons are torn down and mocked, like how some people tear my homosexuality and mock me. But, it is the minority thought in this country when it comes to being hateful and divisive. Most Christians accept the Mormon Church, it is just the hateful minority that will mock them and call them non-Christians. Just like the minority extremes that tear me down because I am gay. I search for examples that prove my point. This proves my point. I disagree with the Mormon Church but I love them and I respect their beliefs if they respect me as a human being and they respect my right to pursue happiness. There is always a hateful minority but the majority (most of the times, silent, which needs to change) loves me and respects me. They may disagree with homosexuality but I can't be hateful against them because I know there is hate thrown their way and that disappoints me.  I will stand up against hate, no matter where it is thrown. I'm against hate on all levels, even if it's with an organization or a person I disagree with. I seek the truth and want to stand up above the divisiveness in this country.  Divisiveness is at its highest levels in 25 years, according to a Pew Research study.  Something must be done to counter the hatefulness that is throwing this country into the gutter.

If my words do not persuade you, then I implore you to listen to President Thomas Jefferson, who said:

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Thomas Jefferson is correct  If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, what difference does it make to anyone what I do with my life?  As long as my rights do not inflict harm upon your body or inflict harm on your rights, then what difference does it make?  It does not.  Amen, President Jefferson, Amen!