Complex Animosities

This afternoon I was able to visit the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I was quite familiar with the events of that fateful day after reading "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard. Upon completion of the book, I blogged about it here.

Being familiar with the suffering endured by the Baker/Fancher party, visiting the monument was an emotional experience for me. It was heartbreaking to read the names of ages of the adults and children who were murdered on that Sept 11th day. Children as young as 7 were killed in hopes that the youngest children (those under 7) would not remember the events of that day and would not be able to place blame on the Mormon settlers who were responsible for this horrendous act. In 1999 the LDS church erected the monument below to remember the settlers that perished on that day.


As I stood in the peaceful valley I couldn't help but think of their party and how they must have felt safe and protected there. The cruel turn of events was almost unimaginable and yet, the monument is there, reminding all visitors of what can happen when "complex animosities and political issues intertwine with religious beliefs". (a quote from the overlook plaque displayed below)



As we drove away from the monument, we couldn't help but begin to draw parallels to present day "complex animosities and political issues intertwined with religious beliefs". We reflected on the hurt and damage inflicted on many of our dear friends due to Boyd K Packer's recent conference talk in which he said

“Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.” (The censored printed text reads: “Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.”)

Due to these kinds of statements, our homosexual friends are made to feel as if they are sinners, evil, weak and wrong. Many members of the church take such statements and use them as fodder to perpetuate the animosity towards our LGBT friends...Saying that they love them on one hand, but refusing to allow them love in this life on the other.

Instead of nurturing the animosity between "us" and "them" we need to put our differences aside and truly love one another, not just in name but, more importantly, in practice. Love that allows everyone the same rights and privileges and recognizes the value that loving relationships (no matter how they are constructed) can give to our society as a whole. Instead of following leaders who tell us how we should think an feel, we need to instead follow what our own hearts & souls are telling us. Only then can we all put the "complex animosities" aside and truly say we have learned from the horrible mistakes of the past.

Pride

Salt Lake City hosted the annual Pride festival today...And even though the rain managed to give us all a good drenching as the parade went by, it was still fun and good to support the cause. Of course there were plenty of the "out there" type of entries....


but there were also a lot of entries that were quite moving. It was awesome to see Cleve Jones as the grand marshal for the parade (he was portrayed in the movie "Milk" and has continued to champion the cause since Harvey Milk's death). It was also moving to see many members of PFLAG expressing their support as parents, families and friends of lesbians and gays. Seeing them made me think that the media should be focusing more on groups like these and less on the shocking type of entries. It seems to me that is what pride is really about anyway...loving, understanding and supporting each other.

The parade ended with this huge flag which was just cool!

It was fun to see a few friends along the route as well. Yay for Utah Pride!

I Read History Books

There, I said it. Not only do I read them, I get excited about reading them...I can't wait until the end of the day when I can take 45 minutes to an hour and dive into all those delicious facts and dates, places and well, people. All this coming from a person who didn't even try taking the AP History test in high school because she just couldn't seem to remember all those dates and places and names! And honestly, not much has changed...I still find myself getting lost in the numerous dates and names but it is the stories...the stories of the people who lived through all these different times and places, those who lived through both the tragic and the mundane that so intrigue me. At at risk of sounding cliche, I will say it anyway...there is so much to learn from what has happened in the past!

I started reading "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" a few months ago but just couldn't get past the first chapter. Too many dates, names and places and not enough story. So early this week, I somewhat guiltily decided, "Hey this is my book, if I want to skip the first 100 pages, that is my right!" and quickly proceeded to the more captivating middle chapters. I have had my nose stuck in that book in every spare moment ever since.

It's a book about a tragic event that happened in Southern Utah in the late nineteenth century. It's tragic on so many levels...tragic for the poor folks that were so wrongfully deceived and ultimately massacred, tragic for the Indians who were put in the middle of the conflict and, later, fully blamed for the outcome and tragic for many of the those who did the deceiving and killing all in the name of following the orders of their religious and civic leaders.

To elaborate on the last point, the citizens of southern utah blindly followed their leaders without question to personal morals and what they may have personally thought was good and right. In the investigation following the massacre "one man after another said he had gone to the Meadows because of military orders". A military that was led by the religious leaders of the area. Nephi Johnson, an Indian interpreter, said that "A good many [men] objected, but they didn't dare say anything". They were told it was the right thing to do, and despite their misgivings, followed their leaders into "battle". The women left behind were instructed by Sister Haight (wife of Issac Haight who was a chief leader in the planning and execution of the massacre)

"the necessity of being obedient to their husbands" and not to be fearful in these "troublesome" and "squally" times". "We ought to attend to secret prayer in behalf of our husbands, sons, fathers, & brothers" and teach their children "the principles of righteousness, and to implant a desire in their hearts to avenge the blood of the prophets".

They were told it was the right thing to do, and in the name of obedience, the Mormons in the area followed the counsel of their leaders.

Additionally, this singular event in Utah history so clearly demonstrates the dangers of the us vs. them mentality. When a group of people separate themselves so fully from another group that they honestly believe they are better and more privileged, it is a recipe for disaster. As I think about it, I am reminded of a class I had in college. The teacher had everyone stand in a line as she listed off the many things that we judge people by (and by doing so, separate ourselves from them) and for each thing (sexual preferences, religious preferences, etc. etc.) the students in the class that fit the descriptions stepped across the room, becoming the "them". It was a truly eye opening experience as I realized that people I had put in the "them" category before, were really friends, acquaintances and classmates - people who up until that point I had considered to be just like me. How could the tragic events of the massacre have turned out differently if the Mormons in the southern Utah community had attempted to get to know the families in the Arkansas train headed for California instead of considering them "their common enemies"? Surely they would have realized how similar they really were and would never have felt "justified in distroying them."

Although this event occurred over century ago the key ideas that led to this disastrous event are still prevalent today. As a society and responsible citizens we must always listen to our conscience and fight for what we believe is right, even if it is unpopular. We must embrace and celebrate our differences, instead of condemning those that are not like us.

Who Determines What is Moral?

Today in the Deseret News there was an article about Vermont's Legislature overriding the Governor's veto to legalize gay marriage. That makes four states now with legalized gay marriage. Hooray for progress! However, in reading some of the comments in the article this one really struck me...

The economic downturn is troubling but nothing compared to the immoral practices this country is starting to embrace. Legalizing gay marriage is just plain dangerous and destructive. Our society becoming immoral will destroy us. I hope for our countries sake that this trend does not continue. It amazes me how blind people have become.

As I read that it sounded eerily familiar to things I have been reading in the book "Reading Lolita in Tehran". In this book, the author describes the many freedoms that were slowly taken away from the Iranian people all in the name of morality. If you replace the words "Legalizing gay marriage" in the comment above with any number of other freedoms that were withheld from the Iranian people all in the name of morality you start to see the problem with this line of reasoning. Freedoms such as:

"Allowing people to read fiction from American authors"
"Allowing women to go outdoors uncovered"
"Allowing freedom of speech"
"Allowing religious freedom"
Etc. Etc.

So my question is: Who gets to determine what is moral and what is not? Just because the majority believes something is immoral, does that make it so? Every right that was taken away from the Iranian people (women especially) was similarly explained away as being "immoral" and destructive to society as a whole. Now, these same arguments are being used in the United States to justify the restriction of rights of a minority or, rather, the rights of our friends and neighbors.

As has been proved by history, what is considered "moral" will vary greatly depending on religious and political influences. Maybe instead we need to focus on love. If we love our neighbors, wouldn't we want them to be happy? Wouldn't we want them to have the same freedoms we have? Its time for those who think gay marriage is immoral to examine a little more closely that other Christian value... "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

Milk

So I finally saw this movie last night...(yes, I have found a new favorite Sunday evening activity...Going to the movies!)...and found it both inspiring and depressing. Equal parts of both, I'm afraid. Perhaps if I lived in a different state I could have watched and just thought, "Wow, look what this man did. He stood up for himself and fought for civil rights for all and truly made a difference." Of course the ending of this true story is tragic and disheartening, but possibly I could have looked at it as "Well at least we have come a long way since then."

Unfortunately, living in Utah, it made me leave feeling depressed that our state of Utah isn't much further along in the battle for basic civil rights for all people than California was more than 30 years ago. Just a couple weeks ago, a bill was presented to the Utah legislature that would have guaranteed that homosexual people living in Utah could not be fired,denied work or denied housing based on their sexual preference. When I heard of this bill it seemed like a no-brainer, I mean I thought it was already illegal to so blatantly discriminate against people in our community. It seemed like one of those bills that should have been added to the books years ago and was maybe just over looked and forgotten about. Sadly, this was not the case and in true Utah fashion, the bill didn't even get past committee! It lost 5-8 despite heartfelt testimony from those championing the cause. How is this possible? How, even in one of the most conservative states, could it be considered okay to discriminate in this way? While states like California have moved on to battling over the more current and controversial issue of marriage, those who care about the homosexual community in Utah are still stuck fighting for the most simple basic rights.

Today the Deseret News patted the Utah Legislature on the back for how "smooth" the legislative session went saying
"all the while, controversial issues, like gay rights ...... seemed to just fade away." How sad that such an important issue was struck down and hardly noticed by the press and general population. What will it take to bring the legislature of Utah out of the dark ages (well the '70's anyway) and get them to truly embrace the love that they so freely preach from the pulpit on Sunday?

I Voted!

So I took advantage of the early voting option since I will not be near my regular polling location on the big election day tomorrow. The wait in line and the actual voting process added up to about an hour of my time, (maybe these election people should talk to Disney about a FastPass option? Just sayin...) but it wasn't so bad because I got to be entertained by all the very interesting/strange people waiting in line. The right to vote is just that, a right of every American citizen of age to cast their vote voicing their opinion on the direction of the country and local politics. Women, men, old, young, poor, rich, everyone can vote. Its kind of cool in a way and the make up of people standing in the early voting line showed a rather interesting cross section of good ole American folk. I couldn't help but notice the guy rambling on about nothing and everything directly behind me. He was having a hard time waiting in line and finally a poll worker noticed and invited him to go directly to the front of the line to which he responds "Where is it? How do I get there?" Um, follow the line to the front? maybe? Many standing in line were smart enough to bring books or laptops to keep themselves busy in line...Since I didn't bring any of those items, I just let myself be entertained by everyone else.

At any rate, I am glad that the election will (finally) be over tomorrow. Ever since the primaries I have been worried about how the presidential race will turn out. I am thrilled that Obama is ahead in the polls and am hoping beyond hope that the polls are right! He is exactly what this country needs after 8 years of Bush, someone who thinks with his head, reasons out the issues and determines the best solutions without giving into knee jerk reactions. His inexperience does not bother me...some of the best leaders in the business world are not the ones who know everything about the entire business, but rather the ones that know who to ask for help and to turn to for advice, can listen to problems and help coordinate solutions. I think Obama can do this for our country and that he will prove to be a powerful leader.

Go Obama!

Oh and if you are in the Utah 3rd District...Chaffetz? Really? REALLY!!?!? For the record, I voted for the other guy...I'm not even sure who the other guy was, but Chaffetz is just scary, SCARY I tell you! Every time I have heard his commercials I just wanted to scream and run away to hide.

Lastly, if you are in California, please, PLEASE, vote NO on prop 8. It is just the right thing to do.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Pull up a chair, grab some popcorn and enjoy the show tomorrow as Sarah Palin debates Joe Biden about the key current political issues of today!

Well, actually, I think I need to use the term "debate" rather loosely in this context. Honestly, I cannot imagine how Palin can successfully debate Biden when she has a hard time even putting together a coherent thought on the subject of the bailout...or was it healthcare? or was it job creation? or tax relief? or trade? Really, what in the hell was she talking about?

I absolutely love the idea of finally having a woman in the White House, but Sarah Palin is an embarrassment to all of those women that have forged the path ahead of her thus allowing her such an honor. Palin perpetuates the horrible stereotypes of women that the feminist movement has fought since the 1960's to overcome. In the few interviews she has had with the press she comes off as an attractive unthinking, unknowing, and wholly uninformed woman.

I can't help but wonder how a woman who cannot answer the simplest of questions, a question that any person I know could answer without even thinking, could possibly come to have power over our lives and the direction of nation?

If Ms. Palin cannot even articulate what she reads (presuming she does, in fact, at least occasionally read) how can she effectively serve the country as vice-president?

By McCain choosing her as his VP pick is he telling us that it does not matter how smart a woman is or what or how she thinks as long as the woman looks good by his side? We do not need a woman like this in the White House. She will do more harm than good for the independent thinking women of this nation.

Yes We Can!

So Barack Obama is seriously my new hero. His speech tonight was awesome. I loved that he really dug in and talked about the issues and specifically what his plans are for America. When he talked about going through the budget line by line to make sure he could fund the important programs that will help the American people, I kind of had that feeling that I get everytime I watch my favorite movie, "Dave". Here's a normal guy who understands what the American people want and he is willing to work hard at it to make American's dreams a reality. It is so nice to finally feel that there may be some hope for our country afterall. When he officially accepted the party nomination at the beginning of his speech I actually got a little teary eyed. It is so cool to be witnessing this historic occasion. Nominating Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate for 2008 shows that we, as a nation, have effectively stamped out many of the racial biases of the past. Obviously there are still steps to be taken to ensure equality for all Americans, but this is a huge step in the right direction. The historic nature of the occasion was underscored by today also being the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. The "one day" that King talks of so passionately is now today. His dream is now a reality.

Another highlight of the week was the speech Bill Clinton gave last night. My favorite line was " People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

However, even though I am a huge Obama fan (can you tell?) I have committed to myself to also listen to McCain's speech next week. It may be painful but I think its important to listen to both sides. I'm afraid my review of that speech may not be so glowing, but we shall see, maybe he will surprise me.

Trouble in River City

Since I don't have anytime at the moment to write anything meaningful, I pulled in a cool piece I read on a friends blog. This is a topic I have wanted to write about for some time, but honestly I'm not sure I could have said it any better than my friend does in his piece. Also, since I am a musical theater junkie, he won me over with his Music Man reference...so, so fitting...

I remember the first time I heard someone politically engage the issue of gay marriage from the pulpit in church. It caught my attention and woke me up because it wasn’t the typical grace vs. works, or love thy neighbor kind of rhetoric that I was used to napping through. I won’t name names (because I couldn’t if I wanted to), but he was sort of a high-up bigwig, a 70 if you know what I mean. The short-of-the-long was that he asked us to go home and write our senators and state representatives to support the Federal Marriage Amendment of 2006, which in a sweeping motion would forever etch the status of marriage in the law books as a [sacred] union between one man and one woman. He read an official letter that a lot of you probably heard as well, but this gentleman went off the cuff with a slippery-slope argument about how we don’t want America to become like Canada, where school children are required to learn about gay couples in Kindergarten using scandalous books such as One Dad Two Dads, Brown Dad Blue Dads (which is listed on Amazon, used, with a going price of $253.94 as a result of the ordeal in Canada surrounding it). He really stirred the congregation up; there was trouble in River City on that day. I could almost hear the mantra of “trouble… trouble… trouble…” as the postlude was played and the folks shuffled out the chapel doors.

I remember our apartment managers posted the address of our Senators on the cork-board by the elevator in our building as a friendly reminder for all of us to do our homework and put our letters in the mail. They really drew a line in the sand, one which I was compelled to cross and stand on the unpopular side. Honestly, I felt pretty bothered by the whole thing, partially because I had a lot of friends, family and coworkers who are… well… gay! I did write my senator (if only for my sake, because I’m sure it fell on deaf ears) and I argued that ratifying a lock-out amendment on marriage wouldn’t make gay people or gay couples disappear. You can’t wear blinders, stick your fingers in your ears and go “La la la!” forever to ignore them or pretend that they don’t exist- or worse- that they shouldn’t exist. I argued on empirical grounds that most of them are functional, contributing, and respectable members of society, and that I believe they are entitled to some or all of the civil benefits, protection and recognition that other marriages and families enjoy.

There are aspects of a civil partnership that don’t necessarily have anything to do with God, religion, right or wrong, or sex, but have everything to do with relationship and commitment as it is legally recognized by the government. Consider this: the Oregon Family Fairness Act accords civil partnerships the same status as marriage concerning their ability to file jointly on insurance forms, their hospital visitation rights, and their rights concerning a deceased partner, among other things. If two consenting adults have a serious close relationship of any sort, and wish to share their entire lives, I see granting them a legal status to honor that relationship as a pragmatic courtesy. One may argue that they merely attain a second-class status in a civil partnership, which is exactly why California decided to go all the way with gay marriage, but my point is that it is at least a progressive improvement from the past. It is like going from slavery to segregation in the eyes of some, not an ideal state, but a step up from the status quo nonetheless.

Personally, sexual orientation has always been a non-issue for me, at least since I have actually talked with friends who are gay about how they feel about it and observed their relationships. I’m ok, and they’re ok. Their liberty and future is at stake in this matter, not mine. As long as the State where I reside is willing to recognize my marriage as legitimate, I don’t really have a problem with same gender marriage. I don’t want my marriage to be gay, so I support “the family” in that aspect, and I’m 99.9% positive that issue is settled since I feel that way and I made that choice to begin with, but I wouldn’t infringe my personal choice or preference on anyone else who isn't infringing on another's liberty. I can’t vouch for the future or sanctity of the nuclear family (which is relatively new), but I hope that people will continue to form familial bonds and children will be reared with loving care however we choose to form our family groups. I have faith that heterosexuals would continue to marry, thrive, and- god willing- coexist in a future world where same-sex couples are free to do the same. We should all hope so, because it is the only hope for those who would seek to quash the prospective rights and liberties of the gay community. Turnabout is fair play; if the majority were to vote my rights out of circulation, I could only pray that their vote would be overturned on constitutional grounds by conscientious judges committed to upholding liberty by not discriminating by gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other currently protected status.

Peace, Love & Understanding

So as promised, here is my update on my experience at the Unitarian Universalist church that I attended yesterday.

From what I could gather from the songs, ceremonies, etc. it seems that this church really is all about peace, love and understanding. You can believe in nothing or in everything. Everyone is welcome and loved and it seems the church really just provides a gathering place for like minded individuals. A place where everyone is accepted. It was nice. I think this church may be about as close as I am ready to get to religion right now. They had a "Religous Transition" group that sounded interesting and meets after the services on Sunday. I may check that out on another day.

From what I could gather, the church service is a little different in the summer months since the pastor takes a sabbatical of sorts during this time. Instead of a message by the pastor the church invites guest speakers to come in and give the sermons/message.

Sunday, the guest speaker was Takashi Hiraoka who had been a mayor of Hiroshima, Japan after the United States dropped the nuclear bomb on the city on August 6th, 1995. On that day everything within a 4-5 mile radius was quite literally disintegrated. The article from the link says that "official Japanese figures at the time put the death toll at 118,661 civilians. But later estimates suggest the final toll was about 140,000, of Hiroshima's 350,000 population, including military personnel and those who died later from radiation."

Here is a small section from the Mayor's message:

A reflection on world peace poses the following question: Is world security derived from nuclear weapons or from the abolition of nuclear weapons? Many world leaders hold that the existence of nuclear weapons deters their use and therefore justifies the possession of such weapons. This nuclear deterrence policy, however, fuels nuclear proliferation and, I believe, makes the world less secure. The elimination of nuclear weapons is the only measure that will absolutely prevent their use.

Following the presentation we were able to look at many posters that gave more information and showed pictures of the total devastation of the city after the bomb was dropped. As I contemplated the horror that these people experienced on that dark day in history I couldn't help but get teary eyed. Hopefully the remembering will help us to make sure this never happens again. Mr. Hiraoka encouraged us and all nations to put humanity above money, politics and personal gain as we strive for a more peaceful, more loving and more understanding world.

Note: If you would like to participate in a commemoration of this event, a formal program followed by a candlelight vigil will be held at the Salt Lake City library in the Main Auditorium on Wednesday, August 6th, from 7:30 - 9:00 pm.