Paradox of Liberties and Freedoms

As a child I was raised in a very polemical environment.
I recognize that is a very broad statement, but my point in making it is that nearly everything was questioned and contended against.  Arguments abounded over everything from what the proper way to tighten nuts on bolts was to the meaning and purpose of life.  The source of this atmosphere, I would have to say originated with my father.  This is not to say that my mother didn't argue, but she was much less desirous to argue or hear your argument about anything.  My father however would tell you on Monday a certain kernel of knowledge about the proper way to herd sheep, and later on Friday he would over hear you imparting that to another and would interrupt to argue with you about the truth of what you were teaching. 

Despite these many arguments hurt feelings were hard to come by.  We were raised with a strong discipline to not pout, or feel bad for yourself.  If you had something to say you quickly learned that you would say it irregardless of who you were saying it too.  By the by, this attribute won me some admiring friends growing up as well as consternation from teachers and other adults.

As a young man I didn't realize that my views would evolve over time.  It was no uncommon occurrence for me to feel the need to teach someone -not infrequently an adult- the error of their ways.  I usually mistook their silence as my success at teaching them of their error.  I now recognize from those younger than myself who posses a desire to teach me that such silence is usually an indicator of the opposite of your success.  For me this recognition results in many embarrassing memories.

Back to my point: When I realized that learning more throughout my life would necessarily lead me to enhancing my views in some areas and altogether changing them in others; well I can tell you that this realization was tough to handle.  It eventually brought me back to the understanding of one of those polemical points that my father would frequently bring up regarding there being an opposition in all things.  Or as he put it: everything that exists, creates its own paradox in the moment that it is created.

Guns shoot bullets which kill people; but they also defend against those who would otherwise seek to kill or at least exploit the innocent.  Children are the bringers of the greatest joys in our life, and yet they are also the harbingers of our greatest sorrows and pain.  Laws protect our freedoms and they also take away our liberties.  You...whoever you are can seek whatever you want in this life.  What you seek is one of the elements that define you.  Yet if you seek for riches to ensure security for you and your family, you must accrue a certain amount of risk; which risk is the opposite or paradox to security.

The Fight For Religious Liberty

Currently there is a great struggle in the United States between Religious Freedom and Secularist ideals.  This, in and of itself is not so news worthy in my opinion because it adds up to the same old 'Left vs. Right' battle that has been going on since the days of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.  However what is unique is the precarious situation that I see that we are in as a result of the rock and a hard spot that exists between the two choices we will be left with.

The Fight

The fight is raging on several different fronts.  First on our tour of these fronts I want to highlight an incident that is going on in Oklahoma.  It started roughly in August 2013 when Oklahoma was sued by the ACLU (Obviously a Anti-American, Communist, pro-liberal organization when you find 'Liberty' in the title) for erecting a granite replica of the Decalogue tablets on the State Capitol front lawn.
Well being that the monument was largely funded by a private, albeit State Representative the lawsuit ended in Oklahoma being granted the right to maintain the monument on its front lawn as a gift by a private citizen.  However, there is more to this story.  The proverbial box of Pandora was opened with this legal interpretation and in walks a group from, "The Satanic Temple" with their desire to erect a 7 foot tall depiction of Baphomet and that's not all.  In addition to this mystical statue will be a couple of children looking unto the Satanic depiction, smiles on their faces and adoration in their eyes.  Not to be outdone, PETA said that if the State of Oklahoma is opening up advertisement space on its front lawn, they want to hang a banner discouraging People's Eating of Tasty Animals.  Then there is the Universal Society of Hinduism and their deity Hanuman, and don't forget about the ever obnoxious Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster with a desire to insert some kind of pasta devotion -however an early impediment may already exists between PETA and the depictions of meatballs in the pasta, (are tofu balls a real thing?)
Well without a clear way of what to do, and the average Oklahoman possessing a complete disregard for the average Satan worshipper (what with their usury taking, defecating on holy Christian symbols and sacrificing of small children and all) that live among them, they decided to vote in a moratorium on all privately funded statues/monuments/billboards/banners/ or anything at all remotely offensive to Christian ideals -as interpreted in the minds of Evangelical Christians of course- on state property.
Surprisingly a lawsuit is pending against the seeming bias of Oklahoma and I won't be holding my breath for the outcome on the Supreme Court's decision.

Case#1- Religious freedom of Satanists/hindu's/ Spaghetti worshippers Vs. Evangelical Christians

Another front exists in the Affordable Care Act's portion of proscribed birth control dispensation to all employers that fall under the ACA's governing jurisdiction.  Surprisingly this battle is even stickier than the former.  It involves Hobby Lobby (wouldn't you know...an Oklahoma based for-profit company) suing for the right to not have to provide such services to lascivious women hell-bent on owning their own bodies.  The question this case seeks to solve is whether for-profit companies have a right to exercise religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law passed in 1993.  That law states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."

Well as fate would have it, Hobby Lobby isn't a person!  But, you say, the Green's (owners of Hobby Lobby) are people and therefore should have the right to refuse violating their religious beliefs.  This is true.  However ACA isn't enacting power over the Green's individually, but rather over employers who offer insurance.  Hobby Lobby is a corporation.  Corporation's are embodiments to be sure, but not people.  Well that's the way it was originally.  However, over the ensuing 238 years since the founding of this country and the creation of the Constitution of the United States, legal definitions have begun to change regarding the individual/person status of corporations.  If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the interpretation of the Green's and their lawyers, it will be decidedly taking another step towards corporation's having the same rights as individuals.  Now as never before would be an advanced step toward Corporations having Religious Freedom.

I realize that for many people the notion stands that the more Religious Freedom that exists the better.  However in the case of granting more individual rights to corporations will effect the citizens of this country and primarily in negative ways.  The Justices considering this case know that to be the case, and even questioned the defending attorney, "The employees are in a position where the government, through its healthcare plans...is allowing the employer to put the employee in a disadvantageous position?"  In other words, "What your suggesting is that what we should do is put the employers religious interests over that of the individuals interests?  Even though the employer is a corporation?  And the employee an actual person?  So you're saying a corporation has religious interests?"  In fact when asked this the defending attorney answered, yes: "[A]n employer right now can put some burden on their rights because [The Employees] have to listen to religious music or whatever. That's not as serious as a burden that's coming directly from the government."  Essentially saying, yeah but employers put burdens on their employees all of the time.  Included in this case is Hobby Lobby playing religious music over the speakers in their stores which could be considered a burden.  However that burden pales in comparison to the burden the government is placing on....The Corporation's religious beliefs.

Case #2- In Defense of the Religious Freedom....of corporations.

The Abomination of Desolation 

The final destination on our tour of this war-torn battle of the mind...and internet, is going to be the Queen Mother of all differences between perverse and righteous, destruction and creation, apostate and martyr, etc.  I'm talking about: SAME SEX MARRIAGE!
Previous to this week I was pretty steadfast in my opinion regarding this issue.  It was another non-issue blown up by political parties seeking to strike fear into the hearts of independent voters like myself against even the very thought of contact or assemblage with the opposing party.  I had it all figured out.  "Just kick all government out of the marrying business, and create a civil union for all desiring parties.  Then let any religion do whatever they think it is that they are doing."  Easy enough, right?
Well then I came across an article on Facebook that made me rethink things.  You know the type...a Chicken Little type author running around trying to scream out loud how the sky is falling, all to the arrogant mockeries in my head figuring her to be an unwed 38 year old Mormon, that just needs to get married, have a few kids and stop worrying about it all.  Well, for the most part my arrogance still stands but my mocking has dispersed (what with the Lord referring to those who mock as fools, and all of the talk about them mourning.)  A statement near the bottom caught my attention, "Civil marriage provides the entire basis for presuming the rights and responsibilities of biological parents to raise their own children."  Can it be?  If a resolution to the matter were enacted that brought about the end to civil marriage, could there possibly be a interpretation left open to say that parents don't have the right to screw up their children as they choose, but must submit to the will to the government (i.e. Society at large?)  Of course you could always write the right to raise children into the civil union clause...however, a skeptical view should always be owned by any who seek to alter an age old institution.  Whereas the civil union would be drawn up by far right, far left and everything in between, I'm not so sure that modern views wouldn't be inserted into the clause to define the necessity of governmental interests being enforced to ensure proper cultivation of the proceeds from the union.  Providing the government didn't feel that those interests were being met, then what?  Remember that politically both sides will decide what those interests are, and then ask yourself -whichever side you are on- whether you think the compromise that is created is something that would be for your good and the good of your children?

Case#3- Entrance into the Nanny State as composed by conservatives

 Hegelian Dialectic

For some years I have been aware of the Hegelian Dialectic of Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.  Whereas when things are created automatically there exists an opposition and a paradox between those two things, all things come prepackaged to fit this dialectic model.  Providing that you weren't aware of it I hope that this post has begun to bring up the conundrum that exists in 'fighting for' Religious Freedom.  
Today Elder Dallin H. Oaks held an interview on KSL.  I did not listen to the interview in it's entirety.  However I was not surprised to hear a retired attorney arguing that the way to defend Religious Freedom is to have more lawsuits.  Now seems to be the great day of the power of attorneys.  They seem to rule from the rivers to the ends of the earth.  And there are none who will molest or make them afraid.
Yet I stand unconvinced that the way to defend Religious Liberties is to fight lawsuit with lawsuit.  In my life I have seen far too many legal burdens placed upon the people, albeit by an unseemly judicial ruling that sets precedence and by doing thus effectively creates law.  My problem with this system of precedence is that we have imperfect judges.  From what I have seen, judges usually hate to rule all for one side or another.  As a matter of personal experiences I have usually witnessed that judges like to find a compromise where all parties involved win a little but nobody gets what they want.  Often times in scripture judges are compared to God, but in this our model, I liken them more to the devil.  Where one asks for a fish, he is given a stone.  Another asks for bread and is given a serpent.  The judge looks upon it all and says "I am just!"

Speaking of the Devil  

Whether we understand it or not, man's pathway in this realm is not one that is guided easily by God's Good Light.  He makes it affordable to all.  Because He asks no price, only belief.  Yet due to our corruption, pride, arrogance, deafness and blindness it is often that we, in this world reject His glory and seek to walk the pathway of the Hegelian Dialectic.  It is a crooked path.  God does not walk in crooked paths.
We often desire the Hegelian Dialectic because it offers us someone to hate and blame all of our problems on, and then it offers us a sense of personal accomplishment when we arrive at our destination synthesis.

The Way out

If we truly desire Religious Freedoms, we must repent.  We must practice what we preach.  Turn the other cheek.  If a man sue thee for thy coat, give him thy cloak also.  We must reject contention and seek to persuade by our pure knowledge, long suffering, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned.  We must be Christians!  If we claim to inherit God's covenant that He made with Israel, we must seek and follow Him!  Not just some interpretation of what He said in the past.  We must believe that like Israel of old, we are entitled to the blessing of His presence.  We must seek for and embrace truth in all of its form, irregardless of its origin.  In a phrase, we must come to God.

He, and only He, can lead us into true freedom.  In this life, and in the world to come.