Hi all,
So I've been thinking about creating a blog for awhile. As I've looked out at the world and what is going on, I've felt like I had something to say about different things happening and but I didn't feel like I had an appropriate forum to express them. Hence, this blog. This won't be so much about my life and what's going on in it (though I can't rule that out) but more on my thoughts on different topics in society often focused on religion and law.
I hope it's helpful and informative. I have hesitated to do this because I often feel, when it comes to discussions about developments in society and important social issues, people often hear what they want to hear and take offense when none is intended. I feel like discussions like this should really take place face to face where a person's tone and intention are much easier to discern. The anonymity and distance that the internet creates often works against their being any actual civil dialogue. The space the internet creates is a great one for dialogue but I think it also helps to perpetuate misunderstanding. I welcome thoughtful and respectful comments but I hope that this can be a place for civil dialogue if you chose to comment on the things that I write about. Let me be clear though I do not intend offense to anyone, their religious or political leanings, their lifestyle, or any other reason for which they might be offended. Also I may or may not respond to comments so please don't feel bad if I don't. It's not that I don't want to respond, life is just life.
Some of my thoughts will be discussions of LDS doctrines and beliefs and I feel the need to make the disclaimer that they will be my opinion about what some LDS doctrines and beliefs mean and the implications that we can draw from them. If they're helpful to you, great. If not then just realize that I'm just one man and don't in any way speak for the LDS church. With that being said I try to anchor my thoughts in LDS scripture and teachings. This will all probably make more sense after you see some of my first posts.
At any rate, thanks for reading. I thought in closing I would include a quote from Elder Dallin H. Oaks that he made in an Ensign article back in 1992 entitled "Religious Values and Public Policy" that I love. He discusses the shift in our society away from a society rooted in the idea that there is such a thing as moral absolutes or principles and values that do not change to moral relativism or the idea that there is no absolute right or wrong, just a persons own personal conception of what is right and wrong for them personally. He says:
"One of the consequences of shifting from moral absolutes to moral relativism in public policy is that this produces a corresponding shift of emphasis from responsibilities to rights. Responsibilities originate in moral absolutes. in contrast, rights find their origin in legal principles, which are easily manipulated by moral relativism. Sooner or later the substance of rights must depend on either the voluntary fulfillment of responsibilities or the legal enforcement of duties. When our laws or our public leaders question the existence of absolute moral values, they undercut the basis for the voluntary fulfillment of responsibilities, which is economical, and compel our society to rely more and more on the legal enforcement of rights, which is expensive.
Some moral absolutes or convictions must be at the foundation of any system of law. This does not mean that all laws are so based. Many laws and administrative actions are simply a matter of wisdom or expediency. But many laws and administrative actions are based upon the moral standards of society. If most of us believe that is is wrong to kill or steal or lie, our laws will include punishment for those acts. If most of us believe that it is right to care for the poor and needy, our laws will accomplish or facilitate those activities. Society continually legislates morality. The only question is whose morality and what legislation."
I think he hit is right on the head there. The only real question is whose morality and what legislation? It's funny to me to listen to some people talk about different social, moral or political issues who assert their opinions as if they are amoral. Or as I use that word, they assert something as true and that they're not making a moral value judgment at all- they're simply declaring things as they are. When it comes to things that deal with morals or ethics or whether or not doing something is right or wrong there is no such thing as an amoral statement-or a statement in which no value judgment is made about whether something is right or wrong. All statements on topics like that are making a determination about what is right and what is wrong. The fact that your premise for every decision about what is right or wrong is that morality is relative does not make your determination of right and wrong any less of a value judgment. But our society has become so caught up in this idea that morals are relative that it doesn't even see that there may be other legitimate ways of seeing things. You hear all the time things like "you're on the wrong side of history" or "you can't legislate or enforce your morals on someone else." The fact is there is no way to legislate things, especially things in which we're making value judgments on what is right and what is wrong, without someone's morals being legislated. So once again the question is: Whose morals and what legislation?
I could go on about this and moral relativism for a while, maybe I'll create a post for it at some point, but suffice to say that I think about this a lot and I think this animates my thinking a lot as I look at the world. At any rate, thanks for reading and I hope to have my first real post up soon.
DRB
