I would like to begin by saying I do not write this with any attempt to argue a point hereafter. I do not have the clout to stand up as an authority on the subject, I am not an historian, nor am I talented in rebuttals on-the-fly. However, since we are in a socially-bound world and all share the same freedom of expression, I feel completely justified in sharing my thoughts on my personal, but publicly accessible blog.
There are many issues in the world that disturb me, from human trafficking to poverty to warlords to drug cartels. I don't feel alone in knowing that those things
ought not happen. This conviction stems from a secularly inexplicable core of values that most humans hold to be standard for all of the human race. In religious terms, it is considered a moral compass or the light within.
The world's history has seen many, and I mean
many, a time when delusions and justifications have built upon each other to the point when what seems utterly wrong was completely acceptable and sometimes even viewed as necessary. The first (and most obvious) thing that comes to mind is the leaders of the Axis nations during WWII, specifically Adolf Hitler. Hitler was a man who instigated mass slayings in the most abhorring ways, and to you and me and most of the world during that time those things
ought not to have happened. Yet, how did it happen? Did a man who had a little power just decide one day to attempt to take over the whole European world? No. He joined the Nazi party during WWI and spread his power fever among those who leaned toward Socialism. Eventually he wrote a book explaining that he was unjustly imprisoned when he tried to take over Munich with around two-thousand other Nazis. He blatantly disregarded the group of people he was trying to lay siege upon and for that, he was imprisoned for treason. In essence, he was denied what he thought should have been his. What do you think? Was it his for the taking? Was it Bavaria's for the keeping? All I see in review of this event was a power struggle that was lost and we all know what happened next. Hitler resented those who imprisoned him. He used a lot of martyrdom in his speech, claiming he was only thinking about his countrymen. He used the law as his script, slightly turning ideas in the direction he was aiming for--anti-semitism and total domination. He tactically used his personal "struggle" to persuade others into thinking that it was the religious values that were contributing to Germany's post-war weaknesses. Bold speeches occasionally coupled with threats cornered those who didn't agree with his thoughts, all the while using "the law" as his mark. While there were surely problems with the current state of Germany, Hitler was enticing people to join him to fix those problems with an experimental governing force. It had not been accepted before, but it could work, right? After all, it was he and his fellow Nazi followers (who were growing more in number daily) who had felt the harsh judgements of Tradition. Once given a voice and essentially undeniable power as Chancellor, there was no limit to what Hitler could enforce. He had plenty of people following him, willing to go to any length because it was a cause they believed in. The vast majority of Germany was left to suffer from this minority's decisions because they didn't stop it earlier.
We are quite aware of what ensued, so the question begs to be asked: How did something so blatantly wrong become diluted in such a way that it was embraced by millions? It came as it has come many times before; through arguments that could not quickly be refuted; through a talent of speech; through personal attestations of oppression; through willing audiences whose participation created a justification for review of the law; and through a group with an agenda to gain recognition.
This
same process is happening now in a very real way, although it has come in a completely
different form (please don't misinterpret this; the comparison is to the general process alone, not the result.) I feel like the propaganda of it all is spreading a new ideology in this country--that is, the ideology that every single person has the
SAME rights,
regardless of what they've been inherently given.
Indulge me for a second. The word EQUALITY used to mean that every human was to be treated as such--a human being. I doubt there are many people who disagree with that. However, the term has been spread now,
diluted within the current legal limits, to mean that whether you are a man or a woman, parent or child, Priesthood holder or not (in the case of my own religion) every single person should have the SAME authority, that there would be no distinction of roles, that there would be the SAME responsibility across gender lines, cross-generationally, and ecclesiastically. (As a side-note: please draw your attention to the word SAME. It is a completely different word than EQUAL. Yet, we speak of equality now of being the SAME. Why on earth would you want to be the SAME as someone else? I have such a hard time explaining to my daughters that although they get to do
different things they are still equal. Although one gets to have play dates while her sister is in school, her sister gets to go to recess with lots of friends every day. They are different, but they are EQUAL. Differences are good; it is when we look at what we
don't have that gets us into the mindset that we have been shortchanged.)
But back to the process I mentioned before:
Not even a century ago, most people in the United States believed in marriage solely between a man and a woman. This has changed. 60 years ago, nobody batted an eye that only men held the Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This too has changed. In such a short time with information traveling faster with each decade, the
dilution of those standards changed. People stopped relying on their own compass within and put more faith in the convincing words of others. Once again, arguments couldn't be quickly refuted; there were personal stories of those who had been poorly treated (using those stories as arguments that every person who didn't align with their views would act in like manner;) and because of the strength in numbers to attract attention, we are shifting into an iconoclastic society. Certain things
ought not to happen, yet they are being touted as completely acceptable and viewed as necessary. The majority is shifting into the minority because they don't stop to ponder all the implications of these arguments and that group will quickly lose its voice unless they speak out. It is no longer sufficient for people who have traditional convictions to sit back and let this run its course. We see what happens when things are left to work themselves out. It is similar to a car pointed toward a long stretch of road with no hands on the steering wheel....
.jpg)
