The Supreme Court Nomination

I remember an interesting conversation I had with friend's family. It took place before the 2008 presidential election. The father expressed his view that he would be voting Republican mostly because he wanted conservative judges to be appointed to the supreme court.

I thought this was interesting. I guess I had never really factored that into my vote for president. Maybe it is because I wear these rose colored glasses that believes the supreme court acts impartially and makes it judgments based on precedent and what's in the constitution.

However, maybe this view is not so rose colored. Now I am not an expert on the Supreme Court, but I feel like there is an incredible respect for the constitution among the judges. In addition, I feel like it is extremely, exorbitantly, and remarkably rare that the Supreme Court drastically changes moral or social values.

So how much does the Supreme Court nomination's political affiliation matter to me? I guess it ranks low, unless I had reason for concern.

On a second note, I am actually pretty excited about Sotomayor mostly because President Obama picked her. Why? Because of this introductory paragraph from a NY times article about the Sotomayor nomination:

When talking about the Supreme Court, Barack Obama has resisted the familiar ideological categories that have defined our judicial battles for the past several decades. He has made clear that despite his progressive inclinations, he is not a 1960s-style, Warren Court liberal — someone who believes that the justices should boldly define constitutional rights in an effort to bring about social change. It’s true that Obama has cited Chief Justice Earl Warren as a judicial ideal, emphasizing that Warren, a former governor of California, had a sensitive understanding of the real-world effects of Supreme Court decisions. But at the same time, Obama has suggested that liberals in the Warren Court mold may have placed too much trust in the courts and not enough in political activism. “I wondered,” he writes in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” alluding to Senate battles over George W. Bush’s court appointments, “if in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy.”

President Obama has an excellent grasp on what the court's role should be. Let's not forget that before his presidential career he taught constitutional law! So I'm excited for who ever he nominates. I know this sounds dumb but... President Obama is awesome.

Atheists, yawn

I just read an Op-Ed from the Los Angeles Times by P.Z. Myers called "Why is Charlotte Allen so mad at atheists?".

I can't answer as to why Charlotte is mad at atheists, but I can share why I am mad at atheists: they don't have all the answers.

I will tell you about my experience meeting atheists. It is always the same arguments. The best way for me to convey this is to make a list of these boring, redundant arguments:

1. God doesn't exist because the world is older than 6000 years...
2. God doesn't exist because he wouldn't allow this suffering...
3. God doesn't exist because there's no evidence of his existence...
4. God doesn't exist because of all the various religions and their non-consensus...
5. God doesn't exist because [insert evolutionary science]...
6. God doesn't exist because [insert morality argument]...

Yawn.

Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Yawn.

I'm religious. I believe in the existence of God, wholeheartedly. Do you think I have not asked myself EVERY SINGLE question you write about, speak about, and think about? It's very insulting that you think I haven't.

I do not have the time to write out my answers, but my is this: Stop sitting on your high horse acting like you have this bag of "doozies" to stump the "believers".

Notre Dame Abortion

Do you remember when Cheney came to BYU? Well reverse the side that reacted. One of the big deals headlining the president's visit was the issue of abortion. Before I begin my little opinion on the matter, I just want to convey as to how INEFFECTIVELY the religious right conveys their message/viewpoint.

Dear cross-carrying-acid-spewing religious right,

Look I'm religious, but don't you realize how badly you alienate people without AND within your faith by doing this. Do you want to reverse Roe v. Wade or continue to sit on your prideful high horse casting aside any possibility of meaningful dialogue.

You can't fool me. What you do is self-gratifying? You do it to make yourself feel better. I'm the sinner because I'm not "Christian" and your going to heaven. I get it. Does it make you feel better to vilify people?

Now back to the issue of abortion. Is the issue of abortion black and white? Well from a Latter-day Saint perspective it is not. In cases of rape, incest, or in the interest of the life of the mother: abortion is an option. Notice I said option, as some Latter-day Saints will vehemently push their personal opinion that NO FORM of abortion is acceptable.

As for me. I go by what I listed earlier. Abortion can be considered in special situations of moral and physical dilemma. So do I advocate abortion for unplanned pregnancy: no. Absolutely not.

But, do I advocate turning over Roe v. Wade? No. This boggles lots of my friends in the LDS church.

Point One: I don't advocate overturning Roe v. Wade because I'm sincerely interested in the health of women. I think there should be a safe option for women who wish to have an abortion. It doesn't make what they do right. But think of the severe emotional and mental duress many women are under when they have an abortion. Think of that desperate girl who sees her life crumbling before her. Yes of course, I advocate counseling and support for these prospective mothers, but ultimately some will choose to have an abortion. I would prefer a safe option, as some will choose a very unsafe option because of desperation.

Point Two: I believe in separation of church and state. Many arguments surrounding abortion revolve around this idea of when the spirit inhabits the fetus. What if the prophet definitely said "When the baby takes its first breath, the spirit enters its body." Would your opinion of abortion change? If not, good stick to your guns. If it does, does this make your stance against abortion a religious issue? I want a just and moral society, but I believe this should be done without creating a theocracy. So I hesitate overturning Roe v. Wade if it is JUST a religious/spiritual issue.

Anyways, I'll stop there. Once again, I think it is terribly wrong for women to have abortions merely because of family-planning or as a way of rectifying an accident. Terribly and horribly wrong. There are so many who wait, and wait to adopt. But I think the best action to take is not to overturn Roe v. Wade but to continue to do our best to influence and sway society (show them why abortion is a harmful choice) and provide a support network for single mothers (especially one that encourages adoption for single teenage mothers).

Wait, wait, wait...

I watched something interesting today. And I want to explain what I felt. When I watched the Story of Stuff, I initially felt "This is just a radical environmental agenda." and "Are they showing this to kids? This is way too political. It is going to make parents angry." And arguably, I am pretty left leaning politically.

But the message of the video rings true. It is unarguable. Industrialized nations over-consume. Is this not true? I'm not saying go back to living in straw huts. I'm saying, is every dollar you spend necessary. Is every dollar you spend at least on things you really, really want? Or sometimes are you buying, just for the sake of buying: over-consuming.

That specific message is one that Republicans and Democrats, not corporations, can all agree with. We all need to save more money. And by doing so, we are actually helping the environment. I know that I unnecessarily consume... and I am LDS. Of all religions, we should know that owning stuff doesn't bring us happiness. I have never seen that in the Book of Mormon or the Sunday School manuals. Unlike many churches today equivocating righteous living with boats, cars, and houses.

Nature vs. Nurture: Homosexuality

During a break in class, I was reading a Huffington Post article about Joe the Plumber and his (extremely) ill-spoken views on homosexuality.

However, what I thought was most interesting was a comment from a reader who sought out to argue for the GLBT (gay-lesbian-bisexual-transexual) side. He tore into Joe the Plumber's comments by citing research from U.S. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, which found that most "homophobes" have gay tendencies.

Basically I believe the study sets out to get in the"Nature vs. Nurture" argument over homosexuality. Now the reader on Huffington Post definitely thought it to mean "See, we're born with it. And sometimes the people who hate it most, are actually gay and upset and confused."

But to me, this actually WEAKENS the GLBT cause. To me this study says, "Many men have these urges, but they choose not to indulge them."

Once again, I am far from being an expert, but like many people I am just trying to answer the question as to why some people are gay and some people are not. Why is it this way? Maybe what I just wrote about is part of the answer. Possibly, it enrages people who think differently.

Either way, I think both the religious-right and the GLBT community have not definitively answered the question surrounding sexual orientation. Something to think about.