Happy Easter 2016!

Buona Pasqua a tutti! 

I hope everyone had a good day and a nice holiday today. 

I would like to talk about the Easter holiday today, at least how I see it. I often feel that in the Church, Christmas incorporates a lot of what Easter should be. Yes they are both holidays with Christ at their epicenter, both revering a type of birth (initial birth and later resurrection) but they look at two completely different times. Too often during Christmas talks in Sacrament someone mentions the Crucifixion or even the Resurrection, both events that occurred at the end of Christ's life on Earth, not the beginning. 

Easter is a celebration of life, of possibility, of hope for all who believe in Christ and in his Resurrection, or even just appreciate the symbolism of the potentiality of his Resurrection. It is not as big a public holiday as Christmas and holds less meaning to those who are not religious, whilst Christmas can stand its ground perfectly without religion. Easter occurs in the first few weeks of Spring, around the time of the spring equinox. The weather typically is improving and flowers are beginning to grow next to greening grass and budding leaves. 

Easter is the season of new beginnings; fresh starts. Just as the world begins anew, so can we all, growing from our pasts to a bright and brilliant future. This is the time that we can take and accept our pasts and make adjustments toward our futures. We can choose which Path we want to take and what actions to make to lead us there. The Resurrection tells us, symbolically. that we are not defined by who we were and the decisions that we had made. we can always make a different choice, we can overcome our past selves.

Holidays might be stressful and might not always be what we envisioned for ourselves, but it is important to always remember the possibility that those holidays promise.

No matter how your day went, I hope everyone had an amazing Easter, even if you have to think a bit before you can admit it.

Notte.

A response to hatred and terror

I have been unable to write today; unable to think clearly enough to get my thoughts down. In a way, the terrorist attacks have become routine, just as the gun violence has become routine. Some parts of me hear about these terrible things and just file the information away under the file in my brain labeled, "The World in which We Live."

The problem is, I don't want to live in a world where terror, murder, and fear are the expected and anticipated outcomes. Where the world and the people remember for a few days and then go on again. Where innocents are attacked because of the insane rhetoric of a few people who have power, People, for whom fear and respect are the same. People who make one ashamed of being human.

There have been many days in these past months where I have wondered what the point of humanity was, and questioned whether I truly wanted to be a part of such a group.

I am a Wayist by nature, I always have been. I believe that most all people search out the good in the world and try to aid others on the path. My faith in God might be lessened slightly by these attacks, but not my faith in Goodness. I wonder at times if they are any different, except by how they are perceived.

Despite my belief in the innate ability for good of all men, I must say that the Daesh terrorists, at least the true believers walk a different Path entirely; they follow the lure of darkness. Where they lead there is no truth, no love, no light. They willfully blind themselves, turning away from righteousness in favor of their own perverse desires.

These people (although I hate to call them such) represent no religion. A user on Facebook summed it up nicely, "Terroristi che uccidono uomini, donne e bambini in nome di Allah, non sono Mussulmani ma solo criminali ai danni dell'umanità (Corano 5:32). Terroristi che uccidono uomini, donne e bambini in nome di Dio, non sono cristiani, ma solo criminali ai danni dell'umanità (Deuteronomio 5:17 - Giacomo 2:11 - 1 Giovanni 3:15). Chi uccide, è solo un assassino."

"Terrorists who kill men, women and children in the name of Allah, are not Muslims only criminals to the damage of humanity (Qua'ran 5:32). Terrorists who kill men, women and children in the name of God, are not Christians, only criminals to the damage of humanity (Deuteronomy 5:17; James 2:11: 1 John 3:15). Who kills is only a murderer."

I would like to stress also, that inciting anyone to violence, discrimination, or hatred even in response to an act of terror is just as damaging as committing a second act of terror. To all of the politicians out there calling for torture, calling for hatred, calling for religious discrimination, calling for registries and identification of those that follow Islam, STOP. All that comes from your calls of hatred, bias, anger, and discrimination are more acts of terror. Only these acts may not be committed by zealous followers of a false religious crusade. They will be committed by your followers. Citizens pushed into  action by your words. And someday men, women, and children will be killed or injured by your followers and you will be solo criminali ai danni dell'umanita (criminals to the damage of humanity). You will become the very terrorists and murderers that you now denounce and threaten.

The cycle will continue. Humanity will end and only shadows will remain.

I would beg each person to break the cycle of violence and hatred. Support the victims, the damaged, the scarred, and the scared. Denounce and condemn those that hurt and those that led (Daesh). Help those that flee (the refugees), protect those that cannot protect themselves, and do no harm to the innocent.

Most importantly, keep strong that line between right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral, because if it becomes smudged, if you step too far into the shadow and shades, you eventually will loose sight of the light.

A serious response

I am aware that my last post was a bit light (if slightly insane), unfortunately that will not be the case here. An acquaintance posted her opinions on this topic on Facebook today and I feel that it is important to hear all sides of an argument and consider all opinions. As such, I cannot remain silent, however nice that may be.

The topic of discussion is abortion.

To review and respond to this topic I will reference an official statement made by the LDS church in 2006 regarding abortion the article of which can be found here. I will first explain my own views and stance on abortion and the issue before addressing direct points raised by Russell M. Nelson in the statement.

My Stance

Let me begin by clarifying that I am Pro-choice because I believe in Agency, I believe that no person should be allowed to dictate the choices or actions of another in regards to their bodies, health, or life. While I believe all people should be allowed to make their own choices and live their own lives and would NEVER judge someone for choosing to have an abortion, I do have timelines and times set up where I believe would be reasonable to ALWAYS allow for an abortion, should the mother choose one.

1. In an instance of rape, incest, or the pregnancy of a minor bellow 15 years of age.
2. When the pregnancy places the mother's life or physical health at risk.
3. When the pregnancy places the mother's mental well-being at risk.
4. In cases of poverty, extreme or otherwise, where the mother would not be able to care for the child adequately or the child may be in danger due to poverty after birth.
5. When the child has an incurable medical condition that would not allow for survival after birth (this does not include disabilities that are not life-threatening)
6. At any point before the 16th week of gestation.

I am in accord with the LDS church in my position in #1 and #2, at least mostly (they do not include an age in which abortion is an option). ALMOST no one would argue that the a woman should have to carry the child of her rapist, father/brother/uncle/grandfather or continue her pregnancy if she could die. 

Unlike the church, I believe that a woman's mental health should also play an important role in her ability to carry the pregnancy to term. Mental health should be counted just as highly as physical health. 

In cases of poverty the mother should always have the option to choose not to bring a child into the world to potentially suffer the same situation and fate of their mother, to potentially starve or worse. In such cases it is in the best interest of everyone to make their own calculated decision, which might lead to abortion.

If there is a known defect that would cause the child's death soon after birth or a severely limited lifespan after birth that has no cure, I believe that it should be the mother's choice whether to abort the child to prevent the maximum amount of suffering to all parties.

Finally, I feel that there should be no questions asked of abortions at or before 16 weeks. I am even fine with abortions later but if we are not careful we then approach the minimum age of viability (about 22 weeks, 24 for a better outlook).

A few follow up points before I begin tackling Elder Nelson's talk: Abortion is not murder. There is no "War on the defenseless.

Review of Elder Nelson's talk

Elder Nelson's talk, "Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless," concerns me slightly in the language used, the facts glossed over, and the message portrayed.

The first concern I have with Elder Nelson's talk is that he uses the term "War" as an analogy with abortion. It is used as such 6 times in the opening few paragraphs, setting the tone for the rest of Nelson's statements. Nelson then refers to a document where the church stated that abortion was akin to infanticide and feoticide. These statements show a sense of unforgiving "wrongness" to abortion, despite the concessions that there are times when an abortion is considered "alright" by the church. This tone is dangerous as could lead to both social and personal repercussions to those who get an abortion, even for an "approved" reason.

In his section, "Special Concerns," Elder Nelson does acknowledge that some abortions could be considered as options for a small variety of reasons (Medical necessity of mother, incest and rape, and potentially due to fetus disability). He states that instances where abortion occurs to save the life of the mother and those that occur to terminate a pregnancy from rape or incest are "very rare" and "also rare". There are several problems with Elder Nelson's wording of the data, as well as the data itself. In a study done in 2005, just a year before this talk, they found that about 12% of abortions were performed due to medical necessity to save the mother. While this is not a large percentage, it is also NOT "very rare" as Elder Nelson described. On the other hand, the same study found that less than 1% of abortions took place to terminate the result or rape or incest. Regardless of the facts, Nelson's wording would not only have us believe that medically necessary abortions were more rare than they are (potentially dissuading a woman from receiving a medically necessary abortion because of this belief) but would also give us a false impression on the number of abortions performed as a result of rape and/or incest.

Nelson also mentioned abortion due to congenital malformation (although there were no specifics) and then gave an example where a couple decided not to terminate and had a healthy little girl who was actually a genius and lived a full and happy life. While the story is touching, it truly downplays the severity and reasoning behind terminating a pregnancy due to some ailment in the fetus. The example he used was of a pregnancy that occurred in the mid-1960's, before ultrasound was commonly used, where a simple fear of exposure could result in potential abortion of an otherwise healthy baby. Today, with the medical advancements, if a doctor is suggesting termination, there is almost always a serious malformation or danger to the fetus if the pregnancy is continued. Nelson's "pray and trust in the Lord" method of dealing with fetuses causes shame to those who decide to terminate early and, occasionally, the decision to continue the pregnancy, despite medical risks (having a large number of multiples and deciding not to reduce the number, thus placing the lives of all parties at risk of serious health concerns is one example).

Nelson's, "Abortion on Demand" section of the talk was the most judgmental and harsh towards women, stating the consequences towards their actions, likening their pregnancy to leaving in a spaceship after choosing to become an astronaut. The astronaut reference is referring to a woman's decision to have sex (it does not clarify protected or unprotected), implying that one this one choice if the definition of the rest of her life because "the ship has sailed" at that point. The problem with this analogy is that 1) not all sex lead to pregnancy and so there is no reason for a woman to prepare for and anticipate pregnancy every time she has sex and 2) there are no "astronaut" repercussions for the men that have sex with the woman. 

The main argument for Nelson is that a fetus is already a person, he follows the belief that life begins at conception, so the mother's decision to terminate the pregnancy is effectively terminating the entire unlived life of a full human being, whom she has no right to make decisions for. The problem with this argument is that it creates an equality between the mother (a person with years of experience and life) and the fetus/embryo/unborn child (a potential person). It also discounts the fact that the mother's life is required to give life to the potential person, meaning that it is her decision on whether she desires to fulfill her "task" as incubator. His argument is also lessened by the fact that abortion is not treated as murder by the church (where you can simply repent and it is forgiven instead of being a thing that cannot be forgiven), so his analogy of the potential person being equal with that of the mother is not even supported by the doctrine he is quoting.

There is no scientific age where a potential person is considered to be a person, for that is the discussion of morality and religion. However there are statistics that make abortion a great deal less "horrendous" than the implications of war and murder might lead us to believe. According to the CDC, in 2009 91.7% of all abortions occurred at or before 13 weeks gestation (within the first trimester) and 64% of all abortions occurred at or before 8 weeks gestation. I am sure that Nelson would not be concerned by the semantics of where in the pregnancy abortion occurs, it is merely more of a comfort that dissuades others from over-reacting to false videos and information. 

Nelson goes on to mention that adoption is always an option for an unwanted pregnancy and this is true. If a woman does not mind carrying the pregnancy to term but does not want the infant after birth she could always place it for adoption. However, there are risks to this process as well. Going back to the data in 2009, there were about 784,507 abortions that took place. If none of these abortions occurred and all the children were placed for adoption, that would be 784,507 babies needing homes. Now, in America in 2009, there were 421,350 children in the foster care system a the end of the year (the number fluctuated throughout the year). The infants not aborted would then add to that number, leaving 1,205,857 children in the system to be adopted. The probability of all of these children being adopted is next to zero, even the majority of the infants would remain in foster care, potentially their entire lives. Living within this system would mean that most of these children would not go to college, if they even finished high school. Most would end up in jail at some point and have children themselves that may end up in the same system they did. This number of unadopted children in the system increases at the Church's insistence on two parent households. The entire narrative is a ridiculous improbability if not impossibility that would require taxing an already underfunded system beyond its potential capabilities.

Nelson's insistence and referral to 2 parent households will be addressed in a future post.

Wrap-up 

It is obvious that there are differing opinions in the country about whether women should be allowed to abort potential people from their bodies. Perhaps one way to overcome this difference is to encourage teach safe sex practices, including birth control and protection. It is also important to fund health clinics and parental support within the country to help aide with the care of infants and teach parents about the best options to guide their choices.

Reflections on the Ides of March

This is one of those posts where most who read it will scratch their heads whilst thinking, "What the heck is this crazy nutter on?" Good news is that response is fine and respected.

Anyway, the Ides of March; 15 March...

I have been absolutely fascinated by this date since I was 12 years old and first 1) read Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare and 2) took my first year of Latin. Over time, my fascination has turned into something a bit more refined and deep, although no less intense.

To me, the Ides of March is one of the great turning points in history.

The way I see the event (as well as what followed), if the Ides of March had not happened we would not have the religion we have today nor the world we have today because Caesar's death led to the Roman Empire. The Empire in turn led way into Christianity as we know it today.

Caesar's death created the Roman Empire (with real Emperors) 44 B.C., which was in place at the birth of Christ and eventually led to (at least some of) the events leading to the Crucifixion (and subsequent Resurrection) of Jesus. This led to the rise of what would eventually become modern Catholicism, which was eventually adopted as the main religion in Rome, and throughout the empire, by and emperor of Rome. With this spread of Catholicism the rest of History as we know it fell into play, overzealous churches, reformations, crusades, religious wars, emigration, forced conversion, religious freedoms, and eventually the modern world (which is sometimes not all that different).

I know that claiming that all "recent" of History was defined by one man getting murdered by his coworkers is a little ludicrous, and I am not saying that History would not have worked out the same had Caesar survived, but Caesar's death marked a turning point in the fabric of time that allowed for certain important events to occur (such as the unification and spreading of one culture throughout most of Europe which eventually led to Christianity spreading also through all Europe.

Nothing in the world is free from impact, all of History and Time is caused by a domino effect, each event happens because of something (a choice/action/butterfly wing) that has happened before.

While Shakespeare might have had his seers tell Caesar to "beware the Ides of March" I hardly see why. For, even though Caesar died, his death sparked the chain of events that led to some of the largest events in History within our recollection of events. Really, had he not died, Julius Caesar would not have nearly as much with his life nor be nearly as famous as he now is.

My thoughts on the eternal battle

So today, whilst scrolling through the realm of Facebook, I stumbled across this picture with a quote by Holland:

Don't get me wrong, I love Elder Holland as much as any member and usually look forward to his talks (although the Adam and Eve talk from last year was strange for reasons that I am sure someday I will explain here). My problem is with this particular quote, most specifically the beginning sentence

"The future of this world has long been declared; the final outcome between good and evil is already known."

Now, it doesn't seem like a bad quote in the beginning, it is nice to think that good will always triumph over evil and even nicer to believe that there is hope for the future. Only that isn't how I read it. I see this quote as standing in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Church and I do not see it as any hope for the future, at least not the future for any mortal and earthly human.

I learned (and I could be wrong because I am not perfect) that there is no predestination, that is the stance I BELIEVE the Church supports. Yes, God is all knowing, but we still choose our own paths. He hasn't orchestrated our lives. He might have a plan for us and he might put opportunities in our paths, but we still get to choose. If we didn't choose 1) we would not have agency and the reasoning for Jesus would be null and 2) He would be the cause of the evil/bad/sinful deeds we perform.

This is of course on a personal scale but if we widen it to a larger view, God cannot control the future of the world without controlling the future of the people who live on it, since we are very good at screwing it up. Even if his plan for the future is ingrained in the natural processes built into the planet, we have found a way to destroy those as well. Just as in our personal lives, He can have a PLAN for the future of the world, but cannot implement that plan without removing the agency of the people.

Later in the full quote described in the picture it states that one power (presumably good) has already beaten evil. The battle is over and has been for a long time. Now I assume this is possible. It could be like a star whose light only reaches us after it has been dead for a millennium. While this may be the case, I do not believe it is, as the battle of good and evil is still being waged. The physical embodiment of one or the other might be gone/destroyed/whatever but the abstract ideology of good v. evil is within each sentient living thing. The eternal, large scale victory might have been decided, but as long as the ideological battle continues we cannot declare the conflict finished.

I feel as if Holland's quote is, on this subject, narrow-minded. Obviously there is a plan for the future and God, our understanding of the good has a plan for how good triumphs over evil, but it is only a plan. There is no way to fully implement this plan unless He has full control over the lives and decisions of every person, which is in direct conflict with the beliefs of the Church as a whole.