politics – Betsy Schow

Freedom of Speech or Freedom to be a Psycho

Current events and public sentiment mystify me. Sometimes a thing is only right and just until it blows up in your face. Here is what is currently causing my nose hairs to twitch.

Recently there was public outcry over the detention of a former marine, Brandon J. Raub, who made some off kilter and well, violent remarks on Facebook. The sentiments were anti-government or anti-establishment I believe. Something to the effect of a revolution coming, day of reckoning. Saying he was sharpening his axe to sever some heads. The FBI and local police dept had some concerns for public safety as well as the man’s own mental stability. They held him for questioning and a psychiatric evaluation. People are outraged. They have set up donation pools for him. He has had his right to free speech violated. How dare big brother step in?

Other side of the coin. Recognize this guy?
Colorado shooting suspect James Eagan Holmes sits with public defender Tamara Brady during his first court appearance in Aurora, Colo., on July 23, 2012. (RJ Sangosti/REUTERS) ‘
This is James Holmes. The man responsible for the Aurora “Batman” mass shootings. Currently there is public outcry because a month or two before the incident, he made undisclosed and vague threats against the school establishment. The threats were reported, he was kicked off campus. Cue public outcry. Why wasn’t more done? Why wasn’t this maniac pulled from the streets and locked up before he hurt someone? The police knew he made violent statements, yet they did nothing.

Have you seen the problem with these two stories? If Mr. Holmes had been detained at the time of his statements, would there have been public offense and outrage at his detention? Would his rights have been violated? Why is it only after someone follows through with the violent and awful things they say, then… then it’s no longer freedom of speech.

Here’s a crazy idea. If you say violent, radical, psycho things… people should treat you like a violent, radical, psycho. I’m no law professor. I don’t have a fine knowledge of the constitution. I just don’t think we should have the right, or as a society should tolerate, the violent rantings of madmen. Much less hold them up as torchbearers for the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should protect those who wish to oppose the ideas of the government. You can disagree vehemently without threatening to kill others or start a war. I’m pretty sure the founding fathers did not intend to the first amendment to be the freedom to be a psycho.

If you can’t say something nice…

You should always listen to what your momma says you know. If you can’t say something nice, keep your yap shut. Especially in politics.

If you haven’t noticed, there’s a pretty big election coming up this year. And so far I have no clue why I should vote for either one of these yahoos. I’ve heard an earful of why I shouldn’t vote for the other candidate though.

It makes me ill that every time I turn on the news or check Facebook, there are pictures of Romney in a KKK outfit, or Obama looking like Hitler. Come on people. How exactly is this helpful, to anyone? To swipe a line from Buddha, It’s like poisoning yourself and hoping the other guy falls dead. Because make no mistake, this negative crap is poisoning you and everyone around you with hate. If you are a person that spreads these offensive and often false images and stories, do you realize how that makes you look?

So here’s my impassioned plea to my friends and family on both the left and right… stop throwing poo at the opposing candidate. This goes for the campaigns themselves too. All we hear is how one of them is going to ruin America. I for one would like to hear what you- or your candidate of choice- are going to do to make America better.

Stop using bully scare tactics. Stop kicking the other guy in the nuts. If the only reason to vote is so the other guy doesn’t win, we are screwed.

Did the LDS church cross the line by stepping into a city dispute

Long title. I know. But nonetheless that is the question I find myself asking.

Little background info. BYU (Brigham Young University) and the LDS church are seeking to build a 9 story addition to the MTC ( missionary training center) in a little neighborhood named Pleasant View in Provo, Utah. To say some residents are a bit unhappy would be an understatement.

Normally if a company or organization wanted to build something against city code, they would present their case, residents would object, the planning council would decide. End of matter.

This story is a wee bit trickier considering the organization in this case is the church to which most if not all of the residents belong to. In fact the leader of the neighborhood resistance is also employed by the church. How’s that for tricky?

Initially when opposition was voiced to church about the matters, the LDS church stated the matter was secular and would be dealt with as such. The residents of the neighborhood were free to voice their conscience.

That ended about a week ago when stake president Chris Randall read and spoke from the pulpit on Sunday July first. He reiterated a message that is purported to come from Elder Nelson of the 12. A higher up in LDS church organization. Anyway, the message “invited” the neighborhood opposition to support and “sustain” the church leaders in their decision that the building is necessary to the church and an important ecclesiastical matter.

Hmm. Anyone in the LDS community knows that when you are invited to sustain something, there is a deeper implication at hand. Those words in particular imply certain things with a certain religious connotation.

When I related this story to my friend, she immediately said it smacked of fascism. Perhaps. I think that is a little far personally though. It is interesting to note that immediately following the “invitation” the leader of the opposition and a good many members, dropped their protests. Did the leader, Paul Evans, feel like he might lose his church standing and more importantly his job if he dissented? It could definitely be implied as such. He does not state that as the case though, let me be clear.

What about the members on the planning committee? If they are LDS will the “invitation” from church leadership put them in an awkward position? Or put undue pressure to cede to the will of a church versus the city?

I don’t know. It’s an interesting quandary to say the least. In my opinion, the notice from the pulpit was in poor taste and poor wording. But the Mormon faith is one where the needs of the gospel, God and church comes first. The view from your front window would be second. There is definitely a doctrinal case that could be made for a member of faith.

I’m not disputing that. Not questioning whether or not you can be a faithful member and disagree with the church at times. Just questioning the transition from stating it as a secular issue then changing to an ecclesiastical one when the chips were down.

Faith and politics is not a new discussion. Nor is it unique to the Mormon faith. I have seen people using this case as a reason not to vote for Romney. Because the church would influence his decisions. What about a Catholic? Would the Pope order a justice or president to strike down Gay marriage or face excommunication?

As Americans we like to point to a separation in church and state, but the lines are never drawn as clearly as we might think. School prayer, in God we trust, one nation under God, etc.

So I ask you dear reader, did the LDS church go too far bringing a civil city matter into church meetings? Exerting pressure or merely asking for help from the congregation? And the broader implications… Can anyone truly consider themselves a member of faith and not have that leak into their political decision?

Leave a comment below. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

And before the haters start hating, I am a member in good standing with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Just looking at some hard questions.