Recently, it's become a cottage industry of sorts to take a widely read blog post (whether it be on how/why modesty is taught, who marriage is "for," liberal Mormons, the perceived equivalency of pornography consumption and adultery, or myriad other topics) and write a critical response in an effort to become more widely read themselves.
I find the trend a little irritating, though some of the response pieces are interesting and well-written. Turns out I'm a bit of a hypocrite, though, for while this post is not a direct response to a specific blog, I will be giving contrary opinions on a few items dealing with the intersection between family, religion, and politics and government that have had some traction in social media lately. A few things to keep in mind before I really get going:
--I do not write this blog for altruistic purposes. I choose my topics either because they interest me, or to attract readers and draw attention to myself--often both. I make this admission because that is the main thing I dislike about these "response to" posts: they too often present themselves with a "I was so outraged that I had to respond" air of moral superiority, when in most if not all cases the writer's primary purpose is actually to drive page views.
--My default position on political issues is apathy (which, combined with what I wrote above, is why I rarely write about them). So, when I express some views below that are at least somewhat libertarian in nature, there's more than a tinge of laziness that has created those views. Along those lines, while the views I express are firm, I don't think about these things as often as a lot of other people do.
--I am a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just because I feel that government should (or shouldn't) do certain things, doesn't mean I believe the Church should adjust its doctrines or policies accordingly. This will likely be reiterated at least once later on.
Boy, that was a long intro. Let's get down to business.
"IF YOU SHOP ON THANKSGIVING, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM"
Working in retail sucks. There's no getting around it. My first two jobs were at a mall and a department store and included one "holiday season." I hope I never have to do that kind of work again. But I think it's wrong to assume that retail workers have a family to spend Thanksgiving with (or that those who do all want to spend that day with family), or that working on the holiday prevents them from having quality family time.
It's unfortunate, but many people don't have great family situations, and the holidays can be a painful time for them. For most, spending ten hours on their feet dealing with frantic shoppers isn't going to fill that "happy family" void, but I think we ought to be careful not to project our values and desires onto other people.
I also contend that extended "Black Friday" shopping hours need not keep retail workers away from their families for the entire holiday. I work in the airline industry (this is a good place to point out that my blog is a forum for my views only, not those of my employer). Although it's not an "essential" profession (no rational person will argue that all doctors should have Thanksgiving off, for example), under normal conditions there's never a time when my airline doesn't have planes in the air. There's no such thing as a day off--in fact, we're prohibited from using vacation time on Thanksgiving and Christmas.
I work a graveyard shift, and have for a while, so I can relate to those who had to work odd hours this weekend. I likely have at least slightly more control over which hours I work, and working overnight works well with my school schedule, but--it can be hard. I generally sleep very poorly. But this week I worked Wednesday night into Thursday morning, slept a little, spent several quality hours with my family, then worked again that night. It was tiring, but far from impossible, to see my family this weekend.
Many are concerned with the wages and working conditions of retail employees, as well as the unnecessary violence that Black Friday "doorbusters" beget, and rightly so. But those are separate topics from simply getting worked up about stores being open on Thanksgiving.
THE PORNOGRAPHY "OPT-IN" PETITION
I did not sign this petition, partly due to the aforementioned apathy, but there were two additional reasons for my reluctance.
First off, it was far too unspecific. Would only "hardcore" pictures and videos be included? What about photos of Maxim bikini models, or reviews of Fifty Shades of Gray, or even the revealing pictures of me in my Doughboy costume? I feel the petition's intent was noble but too ill-defined for me to support.
The second reason--I believe current safeguards are sufficient to protect people from stumbling into pornography innocently or unaware. My job (monitoring tweets and Facebook posts for JetBlue) often requires me to do some Internet research to figure out the meaning or context of things people are saying, or to try to find out some background information on someone in order to respond in the most appropriate way possible. To give just one work-related example, there have been a couple of times when porn actors have tweeted questions, jokes, or non sequiturs, and in determining whether to reply or not I've noticed that Google will not autopopulate a search for adult entertainers--you have to type out the full name. Even with SafeSearch off. I'm convinced that, even with just a basic content filter, inadvertently encountering pornography on the Internet happens far less frequently than the petition's supporters would have us believe.
While filters and other safeguards can protect against most cases of "surprise" porn, the other side of that coin is that there's really no way to stop someone from viewing it if they really want to. If you haven't "opted in" on your home computer, your kid could still find a way to access porn at a friend's house, on a handheld device, or some other way. The only way to ensure kids (and adults) stay away from pornography is to educate them, help them to understand why it is evil, and to commit to avoiding it.
Make no mistake about it, pornography is evil. It tempts me more than any other vice, and it can be very difficult to resist. I wish it did not exist. But I do not think the government should be the ones imposing restrictions in this area, at least in this too-general way.
GAY MARRIAGE
Ok, this one hasn't been talked about as much lately (at least among my social media contacts) as it was a few years ago, but overall it's the hot-button topic of our era. I reiterate that I am a faithful member of the LDS Church, and accept its law of chastity (including prohibitions against homosexual activity) as the word of God. But I don't expect people who do not share my beliefs to adhere to my standards.
Back in 2008, I was very glad that I didn't live in California. If I had been urged to donate time and resources and to vigorously participate in the Prop 8 campaign, I'm not sure what I would've done. Again, there's the apathy thing, but I was also surprised that the Church chose to be so publicly involved. There are two reasons for my surprise, and for my hesitancy to say "yes, I definitely would've gotten involved had I been there."
For starters, I didn't buy the "logical" arguments that were made by Church members and their allies. I'm not married, but I hope to be in the future. When that day comes, if my wife and I end up living in a state that allows gay marriage, I cannot conceive of a scenario where I would feel my marriage was cheapened just because my gay neighbors were also married. I have no fears about my future children learning about same sex couples in school, or being friends with the children of gay couples. I will do my best to instill values and morals in my children, including my religion's teachings about families but also its teachings about love and kindness.
The other thing that caused a disconnect for me was just considering the numbers. The magnitude of the Church's opposition to gay marriage seemed disproportionate to the number of people that would be impacted, especially in comparison to divorce, cohabitation, and other issues plaguing heterosexual couples. Yes, Church leaders often preach against these other dangers that threaten family stability and the welfare of children, but it stays at the pulpit and doesn't enter the political arena. To me, the sheer difference in quantity of straight couples and marriages makes that the category that the Church ought to focus on if it chooses to become involved in public policy or ballot initiatives.
Basically, in case I haven't made it clear, on all of these issues, I generally agree with the morals and ethics of the majority of my friends who have been posting about them on Facebook or elsewhere, but I disagree with the ways they propose to effect change. I am convinced that my religious beliefs are correct--sanctioned by God, even--but I do not believe others should be forced to adopt my views and practices by public shaming, social coercion, or government intervention.
Phew. This is one of my longest posts ever. If you made it all the way to the end...well done. If you'd like clarification on any of my opinions, please let me know. If you disagree, feel free to let me know why, though I'm likely familiar with your counter-arguments already. Or, if this blog goes "viral," you can write your own response post. I promise I won't be mad.
I just read this whole thing thinking that this was the blog of someone I know. Then I saw the "about me" section and thought, "who's Jeff?" Oh well. In for a penny, in for a pound, I might as well comment too. You're right on same-sex marriage. You're right about porn too. You may also be right in general about working holidays, but you frame it very imprudently. You call yourself a libertarian (by the way, is there nothing libertarians like more than deciding who does and who doesn't qualify) and I lean that direction myself. And this attitude, you suggest, motivates your antagonism toward the facebook meme, "if you shop of Thursday, you are part of the problem." That statement, however, is not incompatible with libertarianism. As a matter of fact, it may be considered very libertarian as it is using social pressure and shame and not government coercion, to effect a change. It may be patronizing, but libertarians are allowed to be patronizing so long as they don't advocate state enforcement of their preference. If people are going to try to dictate my shopping behavior I much prefer that they do so by posting easily ignored facebook status than by legislating the trading hours of Walmart.
ReplyDeleteJeff, thanks for your thoughts. A few comments on same-sex marriage (SSM):
ReplyDeleteI agree that the opposite-sex problems should not be ignored, and I believe the church is involved in them to the extent possible. In Utah, the church meets with legislators regularly to express its views on some issues, and issues involving families arise often, such as divorce, alimony, adoption, parenting, etc. The church does get involved in those when they are significant enough. Also, the media doesn't really focus on those other issues much, so you're not going to hear about them. For example, I'm nearly positive that the church would openly support laws repealing no-fault divorce, but no one proposes those laws. Prop 8 and other state marriage amendments are current efforts that also happen to be very public. Many of the other issues aren't up for debate now, so the church does all it can through its doctrinal/spiritual channels (e.g. Proclamation on the Family).
Also, on SSM, I think the gay-marriage-won't-hurt-my-marriage argument is a straw man. I hear people supporting SSM making that argument but rarely hear people against SSM making that argument. For the latter, it's more about helping children (who can't decide for themselves) have the best opportunity possible to be raised by good parents. You can find studies on both sides saying same-sex parents are good/bad for children, but I won't get into that. It's also about protecting the institution of the traditional family as the primary unit of society. What happens when government accepts non-traditional, or should we say "modern," family units? The definition of the "family" becomes vague and likely useless and worthless. Society will continue to improve and thrive the more families maintain a traditional family structure (father, mother, and children). The traditional family is the most able to withstand the challenges that all families confront and to provide a structure for raising children to be productive members of society. The more society accepts as "normal" single-parent, broken, same-sex, or other types of non-traditional or dysfunctional families, the less the family has meaning and operates as the fundamental unit of society.
Finally, there's the issues of religious liberty conflicting with SSM. The church has been extremely outspoken about this issue in the past few years. I think there are probably a lot of problems associated with legal SSM the brethren foresee, whereas I or you and others don't.
Well said, Jeff.
ReplyDelete