Sociolitics: Sociology + Politics

Our humane justice system

2009-04-11T09:18:00.000-07:00

Many of you may know that I was recently called in for Jury Duty. It was certainly a surprise to get that letter in the mail. From the moment I got it until the day I reported to the court room, I received a lot of advice on how to get out of doing it. It was kind of amusing. But unless I told a lie (which isn't really my kind of thing to do) there was no option of whether or not I wanted to serve. And being interested in government the way that I am, I felt like it might be a good experience. And so, I am going to share the whole jury experience with you. I recognize that each state and each county may do things differently. In fact each judge can decide much about how the process is done. So if you are called into jury duty, don't be too surprised if your experience differs somewhat from mine.

Jury Selection
On the day I was to report, I was supposed to go to a certain court room at 8 am. I arrived at the court house only about 5 minutes early, and was surprised to see a large crowd around the front door. The door hadn't been unlocked yet. I believe we all waited until around 8:15 when we were finally funneled through security. No phones, no knives or weapons. I had to run back to my car to drop a couple things off, and got back in line again. After I get through security, I go to my assigned court room and find that it too is locked with a smaller group of people waiting outside of it. Once they unlock the door, we all go in, and take a seat. They hand us a questionnaire, and have us take oath that our answers are accurate. The questions are about whether or not we have heard of the case or have experienced a similar crime ourselves. They also ask a few background questions about us. Once everyone has handed in their answers, roll is called. 33 out of 35 showed up. The bailiff said that was a pretty good turn out. One of the best he had seen. We were then asked to sit in a preassigned order. I was number 7. We were then told that the lawyers and judge were going to go over our answers one by one, and if they had any additional questions that they wanted to ask, we would be called in to speak with them. They didn't have any additional questions for me, but maybe a third of the people around me were called in with further questions. We were then told that each lawyer had the option of striking 4 people off the list. They each passed the list back and forth, crossing off names, and looking at their notes. I heard the defendant tell his lawyer his opinion once or twice too. Of those still remaining on the list, the first 8 were to be the jurors for the trial. I moved from position 7 to position 3. We were reassigned chairs, and the trial began.

Opening Instructions
Immediately after we were done with the jury selection, the judge started giving us instructions. We were given papers with the instructions written on them, and the judge himself read the instructions out loud to us. The instructions specified things like "assume the defendant is innocent from the start, and see whether or not the evidence can convince you of his guilt". Those are my words of course, not theirs. Also we were told that we were not to speak with anyone about the trial, and specifically people related to the case. We were not to speak to each other about the case until the very end. And we were to keep an open mind, until all the evidence had been presented.

Opening Arguments
Once the instructions were finished, the lawyers gave their opening arguments. They each mentioned the key points to the case in their point of view. I remember feeling from the very start that if the prosecution had all the evidence they said they had, that the defense would have a hard time with the case. However, the defense did do a very good job with what they had to go with. When their statements were done, we were excused for lunch, and we met back in a little over an hour.

Presentation of Evidence
The presentation of evidence was interesting on many levels. I felt personally that the case rested entirely on just one or two points, and that the rest was superfluous. However, both lawyers seemed to fight tooth and nail over the tiniest details that had little relevance. For example, one witness described a vehicle with a black "bumper thingy". Evidently, his description of this "thingy" had changed from his first descriptions. His first descriptions of the vehicle spoke of a black "stripe", rather than a "bumper thingy". One of the lawyers eventually started referring to it as a black "molding". I believe each lawyer spoke about this item and what the witness called it several times before they let it drop. One lawyer was, I believe, trying to suggest that the witness may not be very reliable because he had since seen a picture of a suspect vehicle, and had imprinted that on his brain as the car he had seen, even if it wasn't. The other lawyer wanted to preserve the witness's validity as much as possible. I wanted to tell both of them that I didn't care. It was enough for me that he had originally said it had a black stripe, and the car in question matched his original description. But the jury can't really pipe in. The proceedings must go on. Occasionally, the judge would tell the lawyers to hurry it up, and to keep the number of questions down, but the lawyers had a hard time keeping things moving at times.
When it was the expert witnesses' turn to testify, we got a very thorough resume from each of them. The lawyers asked a lot of questions about their schooling, their history, and their jobs. By the time they got to the relevant information, I had to wonder if they would spend more time talking about their resumes than the evidence. I think it was a toss up. They spent a lot of time talking about both. The defense's expert witness was a semi retired gentleman, and I felt bad for him. His history made mention of a couple of mistakes, and things that got dragged out into the open. I felt that was less than necessary. I didn't need to know the details of his past to recognize that he was not as expert as the other two. While he had at one time ran the state crime lab, he was never fully specialized in any field, while the other two witnesses had focused on their specific jobs for at least several years. They all seemed nice, and each of them were dragged through the coals as much as their histories would permit.

Closing statements
Again we had instruction, and again we heard the lawyers' statements. Their statements reviewed the key points of interest, and both lawyers, and the judge reminded us that we should place the burden of proof the the prosecution. The defense did not need to prove anything, just show that there was room for doubt.

Deliberation
The 8 jurors were then sent to the jury room with all of the submitted evidence, and the door was locked behind us. We chose one person to be our "foreman" who would sign the statement of verdict. And then we started to go through the evidence. I felt that most people in there already had an opinion, but because we felt it was our duty to look through the evidence and see as much as we can, and to determine with as much humility and confidence that we could muster whether the defendant was guilty or not. A few items seemed to contradict the rest of the evidence, but upon closer inspection, it all worked together. After examining all the evidence that we cared to look at, we talked about what seemed to be the focal points. It didn't take long before we felt that we all agreed. The evidence was clear enough. To be certain, we went around the room, and we each stated that we agreed, and the verdict was signed. We called the bailiff in, and he told the judge. The court room was called back into session, and we were called in. The recorder read aloud our verdict. The judge asked the lawyers if either of them wished to poll us to make sure that each of us were in agreement, and one did. And so on court record, each of us in turn stated that we agreed with the signed verdict.

Our Merciful System
Our system is designed to try and keep the innocent out of jail. It doesn't always work. Their are those who "didn't do it" who still went to jail, but we try to error on the side of the defendant. I appreciate that. I also appreciate the fact that it is not left up to one person to decide the defendant's guilt. Can you image the burden it would be to be the lone juror? I was very grateful for my companion jurists. We shared the burden of deciding. If we all decide unanimously, the odds of being mistaken are much less. But not only that. To decide that someone is guilty is a burden of its own. You know that you are sending them to jail. Even if you are firmly convinced that they are guilty, you can't help but to feel bad for them. They are in your hands, and their future depends on you. That is a heavy load. Having a group of jurists is helpful in two ways if you decide they are guilty, one, you share the emotional burden with others of putting somebody behind bars, and two, it removes the temptation to declare them as "not guilty" to show them an act of kindness, or to give them a second chance.

It is fitting that we call regular citizens to do jury duty. We call people who are not calloused from the court room. We call people who are not affiliated with others in the court room. We call people from all walks of life. We help our system to be just. We give the defendant the best chance he can get. What a blessing it is to live in a country where we are judged by our fellow men. I did not find jury duty "exciting" or "fun". I found it to be tedious at times, and deeply saddening at other times. But never did I feel that I didn't want to be there. While my heart was saddened for those involved in the case, I felt a renewed sense of pride in the constitution, and the government our founding fathers set up for us. In all the tedium, and heart ache, I didn't see anything worthy of criticism within the system itself, nor in the lawyers or the judge. They were each doing their jobs to the best of their abilities, and I cannot discredit that.

My closing thoughts
I'm sure most of you who read this will some day receive a jury duty letter in the mail. From the day your receive it until the day you go, you will hear many people give advice on how to get out of your jury duty. There seems to be a culture in our society of trying to get out of jury duty. But let me suggest that while jury duty is in no way fun, it will probably be one of the most important things you ever do. Remember that somebody is depending on you, and your sound mind to determine their fate. Don't take that responsibility lightly. Serve on the jury for the defendant, and for everybody else. In the end the service will be its own reward.

The two world views surrounding Proposition 8

2008-11-06T20:38:00.000-08:00

Note: This post is not meant to argue for or against Proposition 8. It is only meant to explore the reasons behind the strong emotions on both sides.

So, I have been watching the strong reactions that have surrounded Proposition 8. If the amount of money raised by each side is any clue, there are a lot of people with strong feelings about it. And as I watch these conversations (umm... if you can call them such), I've noticed that the two sides do not seem to be able to communicate at all. It is almost as if they are not even speaking the same language. Now, Republicans and Democrats may disagree, but at least they can have a meaningful debate, but I have yet to see a meaningful debate about Proposition 8. And as I have thought about this phenomenon, I have decided that they are looking at this issue as two people who are looking at the picture below see two different things. One person sees a young girl and the other sees an old woman. (Can you see both of them in this optical illusion?)
Two people could be talking about this same picture and not at all be talking about the same thing. And that's how it has been for Proposition 8. People in the opposing camps of Proposition 8 have such different world views, that when they talk about Proposition 8 they can't begin to truly understand each other. And I have come to believe that the difference in their views can be termed simply as Relativism, and Absolutism. Proponents of Proposition 8 (I am generalizing here... I'm sure there are exceptions) believe in a world where what's wrong for one person is wrong for everybody, and what is good today is still good tomorrow. They believe in values that do not change and that are universal. Among those values is the belief that homosexuality is wrong. Opponents of Proposition 8 (again, a generalization) believe in a world were what's good for me, may or may not be good for you. The only universal law is that I can't interfere with your life, and you can't interfere with mine.

Both sides of the issue feel that the other side is trying to do something that is simply wrong. Proponents feel strongly that the sacredness of marriage needs to be protected, and that to allow gay couples to marry would suggest that that life style is equal to a traditional marriage. They do not want to discriminate against homosexuals (yes, I do believe this is the case most of the time) and yet they do not want to encourage homosexuality -- at all. Many of them really try to "love the sinner and hate the sin", thereby they try to enact laws that discourage homosexuality without (if possible) discriminating against the people who practice it. And on the other hand, opponents feel that those on the other side are breaking the one cardinal rule that they believe in: do not interfere with other people's lives. They do not (read cannot) understand why proponents would want to say what they can and cannot do in their personal lives. They really feel that the only reason people would want to vote for proposition 8 is because they hate homosexuals and want to discriminate against them, much akin to past race and gender inequities that have been in this country. To them, proponents are simply people who are full of hate towards homosexuals.

Ironically, both sides feel that they are trying to make the world a better place, and that the opposing side is selfish and sinful. It seems likely to me though, that opponents to proposition 8 feel more strongly about the opposing side being selfish and sinful, because in their eyes proponents are breaking the only law in their world view, and are doing it in a big way. Proponents also feel that their opponents are selfish and sinful, but in a Christian's world (referring to the large amount of support for Proposition 8 from Christians across the nation), we are all sinners and we all need to repent, thereby lessening the contrast between the two parties.

Now having said all of this, I would like to make a statement to each of the two parties.

To proponents of Proposition 8: Because you supported Proposition 8, you will likely receive quite a bit of flak for it. And while name calling may be plentiful, you should do your best to let it roll off your back. Christ said that we should love everyone, even our enemies, and I'm afraid that you will have many enemies for supporting this proposition.

To the proponents of Proposition 8 who harbor hateful feelings towards homosexuals: I truly hope that there are not many people who fit into this category. If there are any who feel this way and are reading this, I strongly suggest reconsidering your core values. Hate and discrimination have never brought about any good, and will only pull this nation apart.

To opponents of Proposition 8: While it may seem to you that everyone who voted for this proposition is simply being discriminatory, please understand that they voted for it much in the same way that they might have voted for a law to make smoking more expensive or difficult. While to smokers, laws that make smoking more expensive are a burden to them, the laws themselves are designed to discourage smoking, and not discriminate against smokers. We do not hate smokers, and we do not hate homosexuals, but we feel that both are bad for the health of our society, and should not be encouraged. I realize that both smokers and opponents to Proposition 8 may disagree with this, but please try not to take it personally, it was never meant to be so. We are all brothers and sisters despite some fundamental differences in how we see the world.

Note: I welcome comments expressing why you feel emotions are strong regarding this issue. I reserve the right to censor comments that do not contribute to increasing understanding between the two sides- not because I don't want to hear both sides, but because I am interested in bridging the gap between the two.

Our Religion, Our Consitution, Our Government, and Patriotism

2008-10-06T21:41:00.000-07:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Declaration of Independence)

The constitution of the United States was brought forth for that very reason. To protect our most fundamental rights, that of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. We rely on it to rule our government. To protect us from all the many crimes our founding fathers were inflicted with by England. This is a blessed land. This land would be the housing for the beginnings of The Church of Jesus Christ. President Washington openly acknowledged that providence was over this land.

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency" (President George Washington First Inaugural Address, 30 Apr. 1789).

And likewise James Madison, the father of the constitution wrote the following:

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution" (James Madison The Federalist, no. 37, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1983, p. 222).

To create this ever so important document, and to the raising up of God's church in this free land, God selected wise men that He raised up for this very purpose. (See D&C 101:80). President Woodruff describes an experience he had in the temple regarding these men:

"Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, 'You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God' " (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946, p. 160)

And so we can clearly see that this government was brought forth at a time very different from ours. Christianity was as much part of the constitution as was the ink and paper they wrote it with. Today, it is plain to see how things have changed. The ten commandments are being taken down from schools, public buildings, and any place where they have been traditionally found. The courts have ruled that to read them in public places is "unconstitutional."

For the constitution to protect us, we must also protect it, and to protect it we must seek out the Lords help. We cannot expect God to continue to protect this land when we ourselves do nothing, and the country's leaders are doing what they can to forget about America's Christian heritage. So today let's study upon the principles that the constitution was formed upon, and how we, as a people, can best go about serving the Lord in this very important cause. In D&C 98:5-8, the Lord tells us that we should befriend the constitution, and that by the constitution we are made free.

And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. (D&C 98:5-8 )

And so, we, the Latter-day Saints must stand up for our constitution. President Benson in a general conference talk addressed what we as a people must do. He listed four things:

"First and foremost, we must be righteous.

Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented.

Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice. " President Benson "Our Divine Constitution"

So, let us study in a bit more depth what these steps include.

First and foremost, we must be righteous.

The founding fathers knew this also. I have several quotes here that I would like to read to you:

James Madison, the father of the constitution, stated:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." (James Madison, " The Father of the Constitution" in 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia)

And again, John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States said the following:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." –John Adams October 11, 1798

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." [John Quincy Adams July 4th, 1821]

"From the day of the Declaration [of Independence]…they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." [John Quincy Adams July 4th, 1821]

Imagine for a moment, the repercussions if President Bush said those things today. For further proof, I refer you to The Book of Mormon. The Nephites, like us, had a government instituted by Godly men. But when was it that the reign of the judges was broken? It was when the people were no longer righteous.

Moving on to the next item:

Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

As Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be" (Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 6 Jan. 1816).

I ask you, how can we expect to protect something to which we have very little knowledge. It has been stated, and unfortunately I don't have the source here with me, that the writers of the constitution took much from the bible to create this government. I suggest that we, like those who did this great work would do well to study the scriptures. From the scriptures we can gain much. We can see the principles of Government upon which the constitution rests. We can learn to see the signs of the times, and begin to recognize our civic duties. John Quincy Adams, the sixth president, said the following:

"So great is my veneration for the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectable members of society." John Quincy Adams

Having studied the scriptures, we must then also study the constitution and other government documents. We must begin to recognize what really is constitutional, and what isn't. We can no longer be ignorant in this matter. For example, going back to keeping the ten commandments in public buildings, the courts ruled that there must be a separation between church and state. Are they correct? Is this what the constitution says? If not where do they get their opinions from? By way of note: the words "separation between church and state" are not in the constitution or any of the amendments; but the first amendment does state the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." From this, you can decide whether the courts are right.

Regarding our studies of the constitution, President Benson asks us the following:

"Have we read The Federalist papers? Are we reading the Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it?" (President Benson, "Our Divine Constitution")

Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented.

This is something that I have done very little of, but would like to do when the opportunity arrives. My friend Charles and I have long discussed our desires to become politically active. Not just to cast our vote every four years during the presidential election, but to become active in city, state, and even federal government. What an opportunity it would be to be able to stand up in front of congress, and argue before them the Laws of God. To defend the constitution from those who would attack it and to do what ever we could to renew the glory of that amazing document. I don't know whether or not God will ever afford me the opportunity to serve my country the way my dreams have. I don't know if I will ever be elected to those high and noble offices. But I assure you this: that I will ever be looking for a way to serve, and a way to give back to this country what it has so bountifully given me. Whether I make it to congress is unimportant. Whether I make it to the school board is unimportant. The important thing is that I always look for ways to serve. And so it is my hope and prayer that we will become the people that we read of in D&C 98:10 .

Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

One of the great things about being here in Provo attending school is that we came from many different part of the country, and we will go to return to many parts of the country. Imagine the influence this small group of people would have if we all became politically active, and did our parts to protect this great country.

Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice.

I suspect that it will be impossible for many of us to take positions in government. Entering into government demands time, money, and status. And if one or more of these are not afforded to us, we should still do all we can to let our leaders know what we think and feel. That is something that we all can and should do. Joseph Smith said the following:

"It is our duty to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound. 'Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it. … From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get" (History of the Church, 5:286).

And above all, I feel that we should be sure to use the one privilege that has been afforded to us that our founding fathers found most lacking: that of representation—our right to vote. If nothing else, let us stay informed on the issues, and on the people being voted into office. John Jay the first Chief Justice of the United states said the following:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

And so, in closing I would urge you to follow the council of President Benson, and study and remember the documents and principles that made this country the great nation that it is. It is my testimony that this government was brought forth by a divine hand. It's purpose was to create a land that would be safe for the rearing up of God's church. We are blessed beyond compare to live here today, and to partake of the fruits of this land. And it is my hope that we can live, as the signers of the Declaration of Independence lived, in defense of this country. I close with their words:

(Declaration of Independence)

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Religion and Science

2008-09-14T16:14:00.000-07:00

I realize that to many people, these are opposing philosophies. You either believe in religion OR science, but not both. Especially when it comes to that sticky topic of evolution. I read this article today: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259778. It was both interesting and disturbing to me. I have never understood why science and religion are always up in arms against each other. If both parties were to be honest with themselves, I think this argument is a thin veil over whether or not God exists. And if that is the case, I wonder why we spend so much time arguing over whether or not evolution is a reality. Let's look at this logically... the Bible says that God created the world. It did not say how. Now some Bible readers would suggest that it says enough to contradict evolution, but I guess I don't really see that. Besides, the story recorded in the Bible was given to a man a very long time ago. It was given for his understanding, and he gave his understanding to us through the Bible. The Bible is a record of God's dealings with men, but it is also written by men, and not God himself. And the men doing the writing were writing to people in their own time. I do not think that when the prophet wrote about the creation of life that he was either trying to accept or deny the theory of evolution. He was simply writing about the power of God in creating life to his fellow believers. This does not contradict evolution. Evolution may very well have been the tool God had used. If not, then he certainly gave us a bunch of misguiding clues for some reason that is beyond me.

Now this is where I think evolutionists get antsy. Here I am stating that God does exist, and that evolution may or may not be accurate. For the record, I do believe in evolution. But I believe in God first. And many scientists cannot understand that. How is it possible for me to believe in something that evidence does not support over something that evidence does support? In essence, how can I believe in God more than evolution? Well, I have evidence of my own. Not physical evidence, of course. No, rather, my evidence is very personal. But I do believe that any truth seeker that humbles themselves before God to ask of Him whether he exists or not can have the same evidence of which I speak. And if you are an atheist and an evolutionist, and would like to point out the weakness of my logic, I would ask you this: "What evidence have you that God does not exist?" This is a logical stalemate. There is no proving whether or not God exists. In fact, there is no proving of anything in this debate, not even evolution. Because as anybody who has ever taken a science class should remember, the scientific method can not prove any theory to be true, it can only prove them to be false. And some long held theories have been found incorrect with additional information. Is it likely that evolution will be found incorrect by the scientific community any time soon? Probably not, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth either. And as I said, I think evolution is accurate, but there is something that I am more certain of, and that is that God does exist.

I'm not the only person who can reconcile the two either. Many great scientists have believed in God, though they may or may not have shared my specific views on him. Einstein, for example believed in God, and though his beliefs and mine are quite different, it still shows how someone could be quite well versed in science and still believe in God. In a paper on science and religion, he stated the following: "a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." (For further reading please see wikipedia.com here.) And it is true. The two simply do not have any business interfering with each other. There is no need for religious people to try and insert religion into science, just as there is no need for science to try and destroy a person's faith. For me, the two co-exist in harmony, and they can for anybody. The only reason why anybody would want to pick a fight on this is simply because they do not understand the other side.

I think it is unfortunate that there is so much name calling in this debate as well. Good Christians who call good scientists names that I will not repeat here, and good scientists who like to say that Christians are somehow less intellegent than themselves. To those Christians who do call names, I'd like to say, shame on you. No good Christian should call anyone a name, even in defence of Christianity. And to those scientists, I'd like to say, of course most Christians are not as bright as yourselves. You have been through a lot of school, and the average person has not. Many Christians are uneducated. Making an uneducated person (Christian or not) look like a fool is childs play for you. Use your intellect for more constructive things, and stop trying to rub it in people's faces. It doesn't help your cause at all if you make all of Christianity resent you.

In short... why can't we all just get along?

Now, in closing, let me just tie up some loose ends. There are many unanswered questions in evolution and religion. Evolution does have some gaps that scientists are still uncertain about. And in religion, well... sometimes I just wish we could just ask God a question or two about what this or that means in the Bible, and have a good long conversation with Him about how He created the world. Unfortunately, he has only revealed so much through his prophets, and we are limited in our knowledge. And while we may believe this way or that way in regards to this controversy, we all need to be tolerant in our beliefs to others, and acknowledge that nobody (but God himself) has all the answers.

Service vs. Duty

2008-08-03T09:00:00.000-07:00

My wife and I have some friends who recently mentioned that the wife's grandma came for a visit. They have been married a little less than a year and the wife's grandma noted that the wife didn't get up by the time her husband left for the day to make him breakfast. She was chided for this, and encouraged to start making breakfast for her husband daily. Her blog noted that she did indeed make breakfast for him the next day, and that he appreciated it.

The problem I see here is that it is the wife's duty to make breakfast. I do not feel that way, nor do I think people should be made to feel that way. I do believe in gender roles, but I also think that our society (by tradition, mostly) tries to make our gender roles very confining. The gender roles I believe in are these:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."(See: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html).

This is a quote from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". It is a sacred text in the LDS church, and was sent forth from its leaders. We believe that this simple text document, if read and followed would dramatically decrease the number of divorces in the world, and make the family into a safe haven. I don't see making breakfast for the husband as part of that.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that women who do this as a symbol of their love and affection for their spouses should discontinue doing this. I believe that there should be much in the way of service between husbands and wives. But it could just as easily be the husband who gets up a little earlier to make breakfast for his wife. And there is no reason why it shouldn't be (unless he just can't figure out how to make toast). ;-) I strongly feel that the more our society tells us that there are duties that must be taken on in our marriage, the less we are capable of showing love to our spouses because we can no longer do things out of pure love. In other words, if breakfast is made a duty, it is less of an act of love.

I believe that for a marriage and family to be truly successful, a husband and wife should spend much time serving each other, and their children. Yes, there are duties to be had in the family. They are as described above in the quote. But we should not add duties to marriage that are not there. Let what is done, be done in an act of service and love. Let it be worked out among husband and wife how and when they each should show their love to each other.

If you have never read the book "The Five Love Languages", I highly suggest it. Each of us have ways of showing and feeling love that are unique to us. Personally, I'd have to say a big hug means more to me than any present my wife could buy me. And for my wife, if I make the house clean while she is napping or away, she couldn't be happier.

So to my newlywed friends, what I have to say to you is that it is good for you to find ways to serve each other on a regular basis, but do not let others (even family) impose on you and tell you how you should be serving each other. Think about your experiences with each other. Think about the things that you have done that mean the most to your spouse. Even ask your spouse what things they enjoy the most, or what their primary love languages are. Then customize your service for them. If nothing says "I love you" more to your spouse than a hot breakfast in the morning before he goes, then I would commend you for doing it. A daily reminder of how much you love them is wonderful. Just make sure you are speaking in a language that they hear best in. Because honestly, if my wife made breakfast for me, I'd thank her for it and tell her it was wonderful, and then encourage her to stay in bed the next time because honestly... I don't care for a big breakfast most of the time. I'd prefer a cereal bar or a yogurt to hold me over until lunch. It's not much, but it's all I want or need. So figure it out for yourselves, and do what matters most.

A Sad Trend

2008-06-16T09:00:00.000-07:00

With yesterday being Father's Day, my thoughts have been on the role of fathers in the family, community, and nation. Our nation is hurting. Many nations around the world are hurting because the role of father is being demeaned. Many men feel as though their role in their childrens' lives is unimportant. That as long as they send their monthly support money for the rearing of the children, that their work is finished. Many fathers don't even do that. Which tends to leave the women alone, strapped for money, raising children in an increasingly complex and difficult world.

I don't believe the men deserve all the blame, but I do believe that they deserve the lion's share.

What happened to all the men? Where did the age of "Father Knows Best" go? (There were other issues with that show, but I don't intend to go into those here.) How did we end up in an age where fathers seem to be shirking responsibility?

I don't claim to have the answers on this post, so I ask the readers of this blog (if there be any) what they think. It's a complicated issue. I'll have my input as well, but it might wait until next week.

A Broken System

2008-06-09T09:00:00.000-07:00

So, I would like to first start out by saying, I'm grateful for the USA, and the freedoms we enjoy here. This is a great country, and the political system we have here is among the best in the world. However, it isn't a perfect system, and I believe it could use a couple of improvements.

The first improvement that I would like to see is the removal of the two party system. There are other parties, yes. But nobody will vote for them primarily because nobody believes they have a chance of winning. People usually prefer to vote for the lesser of two evils than for the guy in that other party that might represent them better, but has a minuscule chance of winning. And so the cycle perpetuates. Here's my suggestion (that nobody will ever hear) for fixing it. I believe the primaries should not be by party. I think people should vote simply for whomever they like most in whatsoever party they may be. And then for the elections, the five most popular candidates (again, from any party) would be chosen from. I simply do not feel that it is possible that people in this country can be divided neatly into Republicans and Democrats. I don't agree completely with any party, and I think the only reason most politicians fall in one of those two categories is because they have sold their true opinions for the money of the party.

Ok. Moving on.

The second improvement I would like to wish for is the removal of lobbyists. I honestly think that they are the most corrupting influence in politics. It would take a person with strong morals to not be persuaded by these lobbyists who come in and say: "hey, here's two tickets for a cruse, and oh, by the way, vote 'no' on this issue." Quite frankly, there aren't enough people with strong morals in politics.

People occasionally ask me what party I am for. The answer is none. Well, I guess I could make exception for my own party. I don't know who I'm going to vote for this fall. I will vote, but it may be for somebody that isn't even on the ballot. Maybe after I see who wins this election I will be able to decide on a party. It will probably be whichever party that is not in charge of the oval office. I am not looking forward to these next four to eight years.

The Power of Suggestion

2008-06-02T09:00:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered why our society is so driven by advertisements? They are everywhere where people are. Stores, streets, TV, radio, stadiums, theaters, and everywhere else. In 2006, $260 billion dollars was spent on advertising in the US. The population in the US in 2007 was 301 million. So, roughly speaking, that's a little under $900 dollars that companies are spending on advertising to each person in the US each year. Why all the money? Because it works, and it works extremely well.

We are not just influenced, however, by ads. A surgeon named Atul Gawande wrote a book called Complications that fascinated me. In one chapter he talks about the difficulties that the medical field has with pain. We tend to think of pain rather simply. Something wounds us, nerves send signals to our brain, and our brain says "ouch". However, it isn't that simple. Some people feel pain when there is absolutely nothing wrong. Some people feel no pain when they are severely wounded. Gawande speaks specifically about one event that happened in Australia in the 90s. Australia had an outbreak of carpal tunnel. It started off with just a few cases, exploded to 1/3 of the entire population of computer workers, and then died down a few years later. How do you go about explaining this? Did Australia really have that many people with wrist problems? Or was this somehow "in their heads"? Either way, the pain for these people was very real.

I suggest that this was a social phenomenon. Just as I talked about how there are trends that effect us in a very real way in the decisions we make (like what we name our babies), there was a trend in how people felt. There was a suggestion, a strong one at that, that working on the computer all day could lead to pain in your wrists. People didn't decide to feel pain, but the suggestion was strong enough that they were influenced by it, and they felt it. Their minds believed the suggestion, and then interpreted the world accordingly. Talk about "playing with your head", eh? There is reality, and there is perceived reality, and it is impossible for us humans to tell them apart. If something can mess with our perceived reality, it doesn't matter whether or not it is real, it is real to us... the pain is real. Hypochondriacs, for example, may have nothing physically wrong with them, but that doesn't mean that they are not feeling the symptoms they claim they have.

Now, I don't know about you, but this makes me wonder, where is my perceived reality off? I'm certain that how I view the world is not exactly how the world really is. Here are a few thoughts about how our realities might be off.

I think we are likely more safe in the US that we believe we are from violent crime. The exception to this would be in "high crime areas" in big cities.

I think we are likely less safe in automobiles than we believe we are.

I know for a fact that shots for me are probably much more painful than what they actually should be. But my fear of needles plays into that.

Now of course, each of us has our own perceived reality, and therefore each of us might be off or on in differing degrees. Our perceived realities are adjusted daily, constantly. They are adjusted by the ads, the news, people around us, and our experiences. So here is to a healthy outlook in life, and a good dose of optimism! They really do make a world of difference, if not in reality, at least in our perceived reality!

My Ideal for a Government...

2008-05-26T09:00:00.000-07:00

I think most of you know that I'm not exactly a conservative, nor am I a liberal. I don't think either party has got it right. The republicans, if they had their way, would love to do very little for this country. They feel that when they are voted into office, that it is their duty to keep "big government" in check, and prevent it from doing anything harmful, or useful for that matter. The liberals don't have it any better though. They love making committees and organizations and programs galore. All with good intentions, but none of which are well managed. I don't think there are many out there that feel like the welfare program is helping the poor nearly as much as it is helping the bureaucrats that run it. But all of this is just a prelude to what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the potential both of these parties might have, if they were only in the right places.

A long time ago, when this country was new, the states had all the power, and the national government had just enough to keep everything in check. But little by little, as states did dumb things, the national government stepped in to tell the states to stop it. Each time they did, the national government got a little more powerful, and the states a little less. As my oversimplified definition of the parties above shows, this suites the democrats at the national level just fine. They like the power to be able to do stuff. But ironically, this isn't as good for the democrats at a state level, because they no longer have much power. And the republicans are just the opposite. They want to reduce government on every level, and so the national government seems a little too large to them now, but they don't mind the smaller states governments.

So, here is my solution for this big mess. Put all the democrats on a state level, and get them all out of the national government. And do just the opposite with the republicans... get them out of the state level, and put them in Washington. And once they get to Washington, they will immediately start to reduce the size of the national government, and give power back to the states. The states of course will be loving the new power because they are now controlled by democrats. And their programs will have a chance of being successful now because they are much more manageable at a state level instead of a national level.

And for all of you who are wondering about my stance on the moral issues... let's just say not every liberal is for gay marriage, and abortion. Where states feel strongly on those issues, they will simply not promote the people who favor them. In fact, that is my biggest complaint against all the conservatives who vote conservatively strictly because they don't believe that there are any liberals out there who feel the same as they do on the moral issues. I believe that if all the people out there who vote conservatively on that basis alone took a moment more to consider the other options, there would probably be more liberals in office who were not for abortion and gay marriages. And maybe the democratic party itself might begin to loosen its stance on the subjects a little if they had more people who were concerned about that who were democrats. Aside from the democratic stance on those two issues (and maybe a couple others), I really find the democrats much more appealing than the republicans for various reasons. It seems to me that the democrats want to do something to fix poverty, health insurance, and crime. The republicans tend to brush it off and say that they are not for big, ineffective programs. Neither am I. But I am all for small effective ones ran on a state level. And a few that are ran on a national level.

So how about it states? Why wait for the national government to make a mess of something that you can handle better? Why don't you (states) start trying to fix these issues for the people in your state?

Now I realize that this isn't completely fair to all the states. I know some states have had very successful programs. But many have not. And many haven't tried a whole lot either. That's why it has escalated to a national level.

It is unfortunate.

Sociology in a bucket

2008-05-17T20:50:00.000-07:00

Now, before I start, let me first recognize that I am no authority on Sociology. However from time to time, people ask me what I studied at BYU, and my answer is Sociology. Sometimes people ask "What is that?", and other times they try to act like they know when they really don't. And of course there are those who do know what Sociology is, and why it is important. There are many ways to try and describe Sociology to someone who isn't looking to take a 100 level course on it. You could describe it by saying "It's like Psychology, only it studies groups instead of individuals." This is one of my least favorite answers. Or "It's the study of groups of people." This is probably the most accurate answer that tells the person absolutely nothing useful. My answer is much longer. I will make a conversation out of it instead of giving a brief definition. I admit that some of the facts here may not be completely accurate, but I'm more interested in making the story flow for someone than trying to throw in all the details. And so the story goes:

In the 1800's there was a man (Émile Durkheim) who happened upon some interesting information. He found out from year to year exactly how many people committed suicide in his and other cities. He found out that each year the number of suicides in his and other cities remained rather constant, and yet the numbers varied from city to city. Now this is a very interesting fact if you think about it for a moment. What could be causing these numbers to be nearly the same every year. There is certainly no government program making sure that each city is filling its quota of suicides. There are no secret clubs that make sure so many of their members die off every year. So, he wondered, what could it be that is causing these INDIVIDUALS to make INDIVIDUAL CHOICES that collectively make a PATTERN that is CONSISTENT with previous years? What are the driving forces that bring individuals to follow a pattern, whether or not they are even aware of the pattern. I mean, I go to church every Sunday, and certainly that is a pattern, and I recognize that many in our society do that, and I am following, and even encouraging this pattern. But what is it that makes me follow patterns that I'm not even aware of? This, this is sociology. We study these patterns, and where the patterns come from, and how they work.

In my humble opinion, Sociology is the most under-rated, least thought of, least valued school of thought out there. By nature, we think that our decisions are our own. When I sat down to write blogs this evening, I was not following any instructions given to me by some social organizer. I was not thinking that I need to follow this latest growing trend of spilling one's thoughts onto a blog for the world to read. No! This was MY decision. It was not forced on me! And so it is. And yet, collectively, every day, more and more people sit down to write their blogs than ever have before. They are doing it with greater frequency. They are using blogs for a wider variety of purposes. They are all collectively, of their own free will, making the same decision as so many other people. In fact, here's a great way to see Sociology in action. Go to babynamewizard.com/voyager, and type in your name. In fact, type in names in your family, your friends names, and just about every name you can think of including your grandparents. And when you are done with that, try just typing in a single letter. 'G', 'Z', or even 'X'. Look at the popularity curves on those names. When moms and dads think about what to name their babies, I promise you, they are NOT thinking they want to follow some trend. Usually that is an unwanted side effect of a name after they have already chosen one. And yet, if you look at your name, or any other name of a person you know, you will most likely see that they were named that name at a relatively popular time for that name. And even if that name itself wasn't the most popular name (say it had a rank around 200 or so), you can see the trends for names that are similar. For example, 'G' names were great for a long time. George, Gary, Gertrude, Grace, all had their hay days in the early 1900's right up until the 1950s when G names started to go out of style. And then suddenly the 1990s come, and hey! G names are great again, but this time, we have new G names to go with!

Seriously?

Do people really think, "I like G names. We should name our child with a G name. They'll be happy to have one, I think!" No, of course not. People don't think that at all! Well... I suppose some might, but for the most part, that isn't at all what comes to mind for parents to-be. They simply think, I like the name 'Grace' (rank #20 in popularity for girls this year). Let's name our daughter 'Grace'. And with out knowing it, they have silently followed a trend that they didn't even know existed.

Fascinating, isn't it?

So, everyone has heard the question "Nature or Nurture?" In regards to child traits. This is something we can accept because we believe children to be impressionable. We think of them as less autonomous than ourselves, and therefore we believe that we can have an effect on them. But who effects us? Who or what is out there telling us to use more G names and less F names. Who or what is causing a consistent number of people to end their lives? And if whatever this thing is has an influence on what I name my baby, what else does it have an influence on? Oh, and here is the big question...

How much influence does it have?

In my opinion... a lot more than we are able to see. In fact, I think our personal choices have very little power. That's a very unpopular belief, I know. It rubs people the wrong way, but you must understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you or I can not make a difference. I am saying that whatever you or I do is rather predictable. We go around every day making personal choices, but those personal choices are somehow programmed in to us. In fact, most likely, somebody else, very much like you, with a similar background, a similar history, will make a similar choice. It brings the question back "nature or nurture" and applies it to all of us. How much of what we do is unique to us, and how much is simply a product of society?

I had a teacher describe it this way. It is like all of us is on a treadmill (like those really long ones that they have at airports sometimes). All of us. Every one. (Not necessarily the same treadmill though.) We have options, but getting off of the treadmill is not one of them. We can simply ride the treadmill, and go where it takes us. We can walk with the treadmill, and thereby speed it up a bit. Or we can walk backwards and slow it down, and possibly even go backwards a little if you run. But the treadmill keeps going. So, if you want to free yourself of these trends, and do things your own way, you certainly can. But even so, it is difficult. You will find that you simply do not like many names that are not currently popular. I don't see myself naming my child Florence. But if I did, I would certainly be walking against the treadmill, and maybe even running. ;-)

The Unfortunate FLDS Events

2008-04-21T20:34:00.000-07:00

So, I don't know what your stance on this is, but that's just the thing... I don't know what my stance on the events in Texas with the FLDS church is. There simply is not enough information out there to make an informed decision. The authorities in Texas have raided the FLDS compound, removing all children from their parents. It all started with a call from a distressed girl claiming she was being abused. This single phone call brought the full power of law enforcement onto a group who was trying to live under the radar. After going in and not finding the girl that made the phone call, they collected evidence of other crimes.

Now, I am not a fan of polygamy. I am entirely against it, just as I am against other alternative life styles. However, I am not for the prosecution of polygamy if they are not guilty of any crime. On the other hand, if someone is guilty of a crime, they should be prosecuted, regardless of life style. Now, the crime some of the FLDS allegedly have committed is statutory rape, and abuse of women. There were hundreds of men, women, and children in that compound. The question I want answered is does the law enforcement really believe that all of them are in danger (hence the justification of removing all of the children), or are they using the criminals in the group (few or many) as an excuse to prosecute the religion? I want to know what percent of the children had been abused. I want to know what percent of the men are accused of a crime. I want to know how many women elected to stay with authorities even after giving up their children as opposed to going back to the compound. All of these details could drastically change the story of what is going on here. I give two examples that are very unlikely but stand to prove a point:

Every man in the compound has had sex with an under age girl. And each of the men are abusive to their young wives until they submit. --In this example, the children should definitely be removed, and the extreme actions taken by the Texas law enforcement would be very justified.

One man has married one under age wife. --In this example, it would be a horrendous thing to remove the children of the families in the compound.

Surely, the truth lies somewhere in between. Neither side is giving any details. The FLDS is claiming complete innocence. The Texan authorities are making it sound like every man and woman in the compound is a criminal. I wish we could find out more of the truth. But at this time, I'm more inclined to believe the FLDS than the Texas authorities. That's not to say I think they are all innocent. That is only saying, I think MANY of the FLDS parents are innocent, and should be treated as such, instead as treating them all as criminals. While it is true, the FLDS have been acting very secretive, and have been making it very difficult on authorities to figure out what is going on, I think the authorities have brought that on themselves by raiding the compound the way they did, and removing all the children. Of course the FLDS are not going to trust them after that. Why would they? I think the authorities have been very heavy handed on the FLDS, and I think it borders on religious persecution. But that's just my guess... I don't really know... they haven't really given us enough information to make an informed opinion in the first place!

Now... having said that, if there are any readers that are confused about what the FLDS are verses the LDS, I will simply say this: read here. They are very different, and should not be confused.

Trying to keep up with all the blogs?

2008-04-20T20:39:00.000-07:00

So, this is my little tribute to Google Reader. Between family and friends, I have 17 blogs that I follow. Granted, I'm not always the best at commenting on these blogs (my family laments), but I am quite good at reading them. In fact, I will normally read any new post on any of those 17 blogs within the same day it is written. How do I do it? I use Google Reader to keep up with it all, and I have it on my iGoogle home page.

So... if this is something you are interested in, the following instructions will help you get it all set up.

Set up Google Reader

Go to http://reader.google.com, and login if it asks you too
Now open up a new window or tab and go to a blog you would like to follow (http://sociolitics.blogspot.com/)
Go down to the bottom of the blog and look for a link that says "Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)"
Click on the link
It will open up a new window (http://sociolitics.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default)
If it is a blogger blog, and you can't find the link, try just going to the feeds site for it by adding on /feeds/posts/default to the end of the address
Copy this address
Go back to the Google Reader web page
Find and click on "Add Subscription" (on the left)
Paste your link in there and click 'Add'
Do this will each blog you are interested in watching
If it isn't a blogger blog you can most likely still do this... but the link of course will be different. In fact, you can do this with news websites, or just about any website that has regular changes

Set up iGoogle

Go to google.com
If on the top right, you don't see your email address, you need to log in
If you see the vanilla google page, then click on iGoogle on the top right
Make this page your home page (each browser does this differently)
On the right, a little below the top, click the link "Add stuff"
Do a search for "Reader"
Click "Add it now" for Google Reader (Labs)
Click "Back to iGoogle" on the top left of the page

You are now all set up. This isn't exactly the best 'how to' I have ever created, but if you have any questions, I'm always happy to answer them.

Tax Day

2008-04-12T12:48:00.000-07:00

With Tax Day right around the corner, I see people around me asking each other if they have done their taxes yet. This yearly routine is a nuisance to everyone, and creates a feeling of distrust for the government. I received an email this week talking about how unfair our tax system is. I respect the person who sent it to me very much, but we do not tend to see eye to eye when it comes to politics. He is a staunch conservative, I am a moderate liberal. The email he sent likened our tax system to a group of ten friends who go out and get beers every night. The poorest of them don't pay for any beer, and the single richest pays for more than half. When the bar tender gives them a price cut, some debate ensues on who should get the money back. The bar tender suggests that they each get a price cut based on what they pay. Those who pay little get a little money back, and those who pay much get more back. The poorest who pay nothing get nothing, and are upset about this. A rebellion ensues, and the rich man is beat up for getting most of the benefit of the price cut. When the rich man doesn't show the next day, the people find that they don't have enough money to pay for the beer.

Now, the analogy does serve to remind us of a couple important things: 1) Our tax system is not "fair" 2) The poor tend to blame everything on the rich. But the analogy also falls short in many ways. For example, tax is not like beer at all. It is more like a toll bridge, in my opinion, with all opportunity on the other side of the bridge. The story should be changed so that all ten live on one side of the bridge, but the city in which they work is on the other side. Without the bridge, they could not go to work to earn a living. The poorest of the friends would not even be able to go to work if his equal due was extracted from him at the crossing of the bridge. The bridge would cost him more than the amount he earned. The richest of the friends could easily pay the price for all of them, and still have plenty of money to live a life of ease. The story suggests that the poorest of these friends are getting a great deal—free beer or free crossing. But so is the richest of the friends, if looked at in another way. Every day when he crosses that bridge, he comes home with sack loads of money (he alone earns twice as much as all nine of his friends put together--70% of all private wealth in the US belongs to the richest 10%). Sure, no man likes to give up their money… but he still has more than all the rest put together. And in a very real way, it is very fair. That bridge offers him far more opportunity that it does to the other nine, and consequently, it makes him pay more too. For the others who make a few meager dollars a day, the bridge gives free pass because they barely have enough to get by on.

Now here is the question: if a break comes in the price of the bridge, who should receive the benefit? Should the richest man get the biggest break because he pays the most or should the poorest of the friends get a break because they need it the most? This question has no answer, but it would be my suggestion, that it goes to the poor. Sure, the richest friend would be happy to take the extra money home. He would likely spend a portion of it on a hot tub or an extension to his house, and the rest would line his pockets. And if the poorest of friends received it, what would they do with it? They might patch up a leak in the roof, or (hopefully) invest it in some education that would help them get out of their poverty. I would personally prefer to give it to the poor. And in my mind, if they were really all friends, the richest man would have done that anyways.