I am sure it is well known to the readers of the blog how I think of fundamentalist thinking. Today is no exception. The strangest thing happened today. We live in an upscale neighborhood by the Oquirrh Mountain Temple in Daybreak, South Jordan, UT. We moved into this home about 8 months ago. The house has a flag pole. It had a flag on it with tattered edges. We replaced that flag with our own. The flag has not weathered the winter sun well. It became tattered and faded and bound itself around the flag pole.
I was sitting in my office proofing a paper that my lovely wife had written. I saw a shadow flash across the blinds of the window that faces the porch. There was a thump like a package had been delivered at the front door but no knock at the door and no door bell. I have been waiting for a text book that was supposed to be delivered today and I assumed that was it. I did not immediately get up and go to the door instead I continued to proof the paper. Several minutes later I got up and went to the door. There was a package on the door step. I was a distinctive red white and blue box. I opened it and found our tattered flag inside with an advertisement to have the flag repaired and the care and proper handling instructions for the American flag. There was a new flag on the pole.
Oh how nice right? Wrong! Passive-aggressive self-righteous behavior is never nice. I am aware that some people wear their patriotism on their sleeve and know in their heart that this is the greatest country in the world! I know to them our tattered flag is an insult to their patriotism. Such an insult that they were spurred into action to replace our flag and to rub our noses in their patriotism. This chicken shit act of anonymously replacing our flag, coming on to our property, and self-righteously depositing our tattered flag on the porch with "protocol" instructions doesn't make you a patriot it makes you an ugly-American.
Ugly American is an epithet used to refer to perceptions of loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless and ethnocentric behavior of American citizens mainly abroad, but also at home.
As we have walked in our front door over the last 6 weeks or so, we have been aware that the flag needed to come down. We have had a couple of conversations about that. However, with the demands of our family, my school load, and the extra care my ill mother has taken..... the condition of that flag has ranked last on my priorities.
You might be tempted to say that nice neighbor did you a favor. They didn't! My wife has been humiliated by the thoughtless act. She has told me that our next move will take us out of Daybreak and out of South Jordan. She stated unequivocally that she hates living here. She cried for the better part of an hour. She already felt like a misfit because was we don't assimilate into the local culture. This was the straw.
The American flag is not a sacred symbol to me and I refuse to bestow a piece of cloth with any amount of adoration. I am not a chest thumping patriot. I don't think that America is beyond reproach. I think there are several other countries I could live in and thrive in. I am as much as a citizen of the world and humanity as I am an American. I won't ever say if you live in America you had better learn goddamn English. I don't give members of the military extra respect because they served the "country". I served the country for 25 years domestically as a police officer. I have been shot at, physically assaulted and willing put myself in harms way to protect the very thing that was taken from my wife today.... the right to live peacefully the way she chooses.
I don't know who was responsible because they didn't have the personal integrity to knock on my door. The net result of their action is that my wife feels more isolated than ever. I personally resent their fundamental patriotism and would have no problem telling them that to their face!
I attend Salt Lake Community College where we received this email:
IMPORTANT
SLCC Measles Exposure Notice
On April 11th, 2011 you were potentially exposed to a person who was infectious with measles. This exposure occurred at the Nicholas Kristof presentation, held at the Salt Lake Community College (SLCC) South City Campus.
In an effort to help reduce the possibility of spreading the measles to others, the Utah Department of Health (UDOH) is requesting that you as a recipient of this email contact the Utah Department of Health at 801-538-6191 if you begin experience signs and symptoms of measles.
Signs of symptoms of measles include: (People generally become ill from measles 7-18 days after exposure to the virus)
Fever of 101 degrees or higher
Cough
Runny nose
Red, watery eyes
Rash (The rash usually occurs about 14 days after exposure and begins at the hairline and spreads to cover the face, trunk and arms.)
Sensitivity to light (symptom for some people)
Additional important information regarding measles:
If you develop symptoms of measles, please contact your healthcare provider immediately. Call ahead before visiting your healthcare provider or any medical facility so precautions can be taken to avoid potential exposure to other patients.
Measles is very contagious, 90% of people exposed to measles who have not been vaccinated against measles will get measles.
Measles is spread by close contact with an infected person. Just being in the same room as an infected person can be enough for a person to get infected with measles, even after the infected person has left the room. The measles virus can live on surfaces for up to 2 hours.
If you have never received a MMR vaccine or only one dose of the MMR vaccine it is strongly recommended a first or second dose of MMR vaccine immediately.
If there are people in your home who are not completely immunized, it is strongly recommended that they receive their first or second dose of MMR immediately.
If you have had prior measles illness you are protected and need not do anything.
Additional information on measles can be found at www.cdc.gov/measles
Utah Department of Health
Office of Epidemiology
PO Box 142104
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2104
801.538.6191
801.538.9923 (fax)
To report a disease or outbreak
1-888-EPI-UTAH
This outbreak coincides with an outbreak on the eastside of Salt Lake County in the Granite School District. According to a study outlined in the Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics parents who are most likely to skip vaccines are mothers who are educated, white, with above average incomes. The Oprah generation who get their medical advise from Dr. Oz, Deepak Choprah, and Dr. Phil. The same parents who bought off on the Wakefield study and who continue to practice this dangerous abstinence.
Because of the MMR vaccine learning and physical disabilities such as congenital and acquired deafness have a much lower incidence. If you are a teen or young mother who was not immunized and you get rubella there is a 60% likelihood your child will be deaf. If your infant gets the measles there in a likelihood they will suffer from hearing loss. There is NO chance they will get autism. None. ZERO.
Fundamental thinking is bad for humans with or without a god! If you deny your child vaccines against childhood diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, polio and pertussis you should not only not be allowed to keep your children but you should be voted off the island as well. You have no business endangering your children or the herd. In exercising your right to abstain you impair their right to life and happiness.
I have not posted in over a month. I know that is no way to keep a readership nor is it keeping the goals that I set at the beginning of the the year. I know that you are wondering 'what happened to curmudgeon?' Okay I know that I am not really weighing on your minds but I like to have my own fantasies.
In January I made a radical change in my life. I ended my 25 year career with the State of Utah. I retired 5 years prior. I was double dipping in a job that really met none of my needs much less contributed to happiness. After my friends Matt's suicide and some other financial trials I reevaluated my priorities and decided it was time to make a radical change and to live out my remaining 30+ years pursuing life instead of money. I reentered Salt Lake Community College taking 17 credit hours to complete my Associates Degree in General Studies. I will graduate in May. I will return to the University of Utah mid May to work on my bachelors degree in Theatre Performing Arts Design. Once completed I will follow that up with masters in education. I can complete half of the M.Ed. while an undergrad.
So the title of this post is "The Things We Do Not Teach." At the community college I have taken two courses this semester that have been wrapped into the conservative fabric of this state. The first is Human Biology. In Human Biology we discussed, as we should, evolution. I was a bit disturbed by the fact that when it came to discussing Macro Evolution the instructor stated we would be skirting the topic so that those who believed in a higher power would not have that belief challenged. There is one person in the class who noted the text book is not as sensitive and directly discusses macro evolution. This is a guy who has made jokes about democrats being parasites in the class when we discussed the immune response system. He also accepts state offered and paid for assistance in the form of a note taker as provided by IDEA. A Democrat supplied program. I found it frustrating that we are in a class full of adults and we have to skirt the topic of evolution because, although there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution, it might offend someone's fantasy about a god created earth. In fact there is more evidence for evolution than there is for a god. We are adults. Provide the evidence and the data in an objective matter and let us make the conclusions from that. If you want to entertain the idea of a god at a collegiate level take philosophy .
The second topic that bothered me was in my Human Sexuality Course. When we talked about sexual satisfaction and guilt we were told we could not discuss religion in that context. Now I agree that we should not bash religion in the context because there is some evidence religion contributes to delay of risky sexual habits in teens. There is also the evidence that practices like teen sex and masturbation are normal natural processes in sexual development and the religious programing can be harmful in the healthy development of adult sexual experiences. Religion in this case became the 1,000 pound gorilla in the room. Again, we are adults. We can handle the truth in an evidence and socially responsible conversation regarding the entire spectrum of the topic of sex and human sexuality.
I have to say as a whole these courses have been exceptional. I have enjoyed the instructors and their approaches to the topics. I just think in a higher education institution the truth should be discussed as supported by evidence in classes that demand it.
The covered Cosmopolitan (left) is a common sight here in conservative Utah. This was was photographed with my iPhone at our South Jordan Harmon's grocery store. I really enjoy our Harmon's grocery (as much as you can a grocery store) They have friendly employees and the store is clean.... for the most part. They have a good selection of produce and meat in general. I struggle to understand why a market that is open 7 days a week and only closes on Christmas is willing to pander to religious fundamentalism and to cave to the "morally" outraged prudes who push this type censorship and control. The reality is that the magazine covers on Cosmopolitan and Fitness magazines as well as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition do not show anything that you will not see if you go the pool, dancing at a night club or on the patrons shopping inside your Harmon's. Yet we have the 'Coalition for Decency' determining at what lengths we have to go to see the bylines of those covers because they might be surrounding some cleavage.
So we cover this magazine because we are afraid someones's husband may think that Lea Michelle is the standard by which we judge what is sexy or because her cleavage might be titillating to little Johnny increasing the likelihood that he may explore his sexuality while he is alone.
Of Course there is the argument what is being shown is not real and it gives our daughters and women in the community a standard that is unattainable. While I agree that may be the case are we doing anyone a service? However we don't think much about breast augmentation which is as common in Utah as it is anywhere else in the country. When you cover it up you also close off the opportunity for any type of healthy discussion. Discussions like 'your realize that the cover has in all likelihood been airbrushed and she doesn't look like that in real life?' 'Do your think that is a shirt or dress you could wear and feel comfortable in?' 'Do you think the views about sexuality that are discussed on the cover of that magazine are healthy representations of what sex is about?'
I am the father of 5 kids: three boys; 23, 19 ,13 and two girls 20, and 11. The conversations that went on in my home over the weekend included questions about anatomy: 'What is a clitoris.... what is a douche for?'; A statement: 'Just because a girl likes anal sex doesn't mean she isn't a nice girl'; and concerns about pornography use by underage children. As adults my wife and I could have brushed the topics under the rug or overreacted making discussion impossible or we could do what we did and address topics head on in a non-threatening educational way that quenches the curiosity and leaves the child feeling empowered to control their own sexual identity and destiny. The STD rates are increasing in Utah. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise again. Sexual dysfunction inside of marriage is high. It certainly is not because information and attitudes about sex are free flowing. It is because we have restricted the information and attempt to create a taboo around sex and sexuality.
Two days ago I posted my commentary on Lavar Christensen's proposed HB 270. While I still mean everything I said in that post it has come to my attention I may have been distracted by the shiny keys being jangled. It appears this is one of three bills designed to not directly, but in a round about way, void the progress made by local municipalities to give equal protection to homosexuals or any other fringe group not specifically protected by the federal anti discrimination laws.
This article written by Peg McEntee outlines what she call may be unintended consequences of the HB 109, HB 270 and HB 182.
Given the way the Utah Legislature works, there is no such thing as an unintended consequence when it comes to piety. Mr. Christensen has put together a strategy to very callously strip away any inroads we have made toward equality and to affording all of our citizens equal protection under the law no matter what they believe religiously or who they love sexually. What he will be successful in accomplishing is the further insulation religious bigots from consequences for their actions.
For some reason, Christensen finds it necessary to beef up protections for “religious liberty and freedom of conscience” that already exist in the Utah and U.S. constitutions.
But at what point does religious liberty collide with more secular protections against racial, gender or any other manner of discrimination?
Your religious principles allow you to refuse restaurant service to a person of color? You object to a woman with children working outside the home, so you won’t hire her? You won’t rent an apartment to two single women or men because their possible sexual orientation might be an affront to your faith?
Christensen has an answer: “The free exercise of religious liberty is a recognized exemption to otherwise generally applicable laws and a valid defense to claims of discrimination by others.”
So if you believe that Black Americans are inferior based upon religious dogma you are free to exercise that here in Utah without consequence. If you want to deny housing, in Salt Lake City, to homosexuals, where the denial would be illegal you are free to do so under his additional religious expression. If you want to refuse to teach principles in the class room that have been proven by science you are free to do so.
Equally disturbing is his amendment to 13-8-6 makes a law that violates "public policy" unenforceable. If paired with HB 270 it makes it so the no fault divorce option may be unavailable to couples who fall out of love and don't want a long messy divorce. It further prevents gay adoption, marriage, and perpetuates legally protected discrimination when paired HB 109.
As an outspoken Militant Atheist the idea that religion needs additional protection is absurd. You have the right to practice what you will as long as you don't injure someone else in the process. Denying someone housing based upon what they might do in their bedroom is causing injury. Denying a child a loving parent because that parent loves someone of the same sex is injurious. But it is not just on the gay rights front that this is dangerous. It is single mothers, unmarried couples, and potentially mixed race couples that will run afoul of the cleverly disguised trifecta of hate proposed by Rep. Christensen.
There is a question that often runs in atheist circles: "Do we have to show tolerance to that which is intolerant?" Does religion deserve the respect it demands and that is constitutionally protected? More importantly, does it deserve additional protections that alters the playing field and gives it a "better than" status. I submit the answer to the above questions is no.... not when it uses it protections to force the rest of us to live in its shadow and harms any member of our populous in the name of its distorted world view. Mr. Christensen is using his piety to influence public policy even though the result will ultimately be harmful to our society. Unfortunately most Utahn's will nod their heads in agreement or are too busy watching the Super Bowl or American Idol to pick up a local news paper to educate themselves the impact of the legislation. We know we want a democratic republic but we are unwilling to participate in the process.
Write you local Representative and Senator and let them know you find this group of bills unconscionable. Let's give no public forum for hate.
A couple of days ago the local Salt Lake City questioned Rep. Lavar Christensen (R) about House Bill 270. This was his response if you can call it that....
Here is the bill:
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
Section 1. Section 30-1-4.2 is enacted to read: 30-1-4.2.Public policy in support of family.
(1) The institution of marriage and family, consisting of the legal union of a man and awoman and children conceived and born to, or adopted by, the married couple as father andmother, is the fundamental unit of society and the optimum environment in which to nurture and raise a child.
Sure.... when the marriage works and both parents love each other and when there is sufficient money and education and when the rainbow touches ground where the unicorns walk. But what about those equally beautiful alternatives. When two people love each other and they are same sexed? What about the times when the traditional family mode does not work?
This is a public policy statement. That means the rules the agencies provide services under are free to dismiss the alternative lifestyles people may choose. That is why this is more concerning than the typical non binding resolutions that the Utah State Righteouslature passes. Additionally, let's acknowledge that this law only restricts the legal union to a man and a woman here on earth.... not in the three kingdoms of glory where polygamy is still practiced and polygamous marriages are still sanctioned and sealed for eternity in the temples of the lord and this is where the hypocrisy lies.
(2) Marriage and family predate all governments and are supported by and consistentwith the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World,affirmed in the nation's founding Declaration of Independence.
This is where the law runs completely off the tracks constitutionally. You cannot canonize the existence of any god in state law. It violates the separation clause of the Constitution. Nor can you claim a creator exists in the natural law without proof.
Marriage and family do not predate any goverments. Marriage by definition is: "The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Whether controlled by religious or legal expression the institution was established by a governance. The government may have been religious dogma or secular laws but it is a government none-the-less. Before the establishment of governments (either religious or secular) there was no legitimate basis for marriage. This clause as a policy statement represents logical fallacy and a supposition that there is really a God and that he give two hoots in hell what we do.
Finally, when will creationists stop using the Declaration of Independence as a basis for our governance. The declaration was the document that plunged the new American Society into chaos. It did not establish an interim government and was not meant to. It merely vented our grievances to the dictator that oppressed us and was really today's version of a middle finger. The Confederate Papers where the first for of governance and they were replaced by our secular constitution that says nothing about a god.
(3) Marriage represents the legal sanction and approval of society and is essential to ordered liberty and public virtue.
The bold highlight is what this is really about. However our constitution is designed to protect even those who are minorities. That is why Utah and it's predominant religion has survived. Because if it was subject to the approval of society it would have never been able to thrive. As a legal sanction, one that is the be mediated by our courts, it must be a secular exercise. In fact, the marriages provided justices of the peace are equally binding as those performed in a church and the only thing that makes a marriage binding is the marriage license signed by both parties. Not the ritual.
The claim that marriage is essential to ordered liberty falls flat when you consider that 50% of all marriages fail. Of the 50% that survive it is unlikely that all are "happy".
(4) Procreation within marriage links generations and is fundamental to the perpetuity of humanity.
Linking generations has nothing to do with the perpetuity of humanity. Procreation does.... but our humanity is not determined by our ability to procreate or our attachment to a ritual that was developed to lay claim to property. It is determined by our ability to engage in compassion and nurture and care for all members of our species without prejudice based upon tribal bonds. Marriage does not serve all of the species nor should it bind two people who no longer desire to be together.
(5) (a) Families anchored by both a father and a mother, fidelity within marriage, and enduring devotion to the covenants and responsibilities of marriage are the desired norm.
Until it no longer works for both parties.
(b) Cultures and societies where laws, practices, and public policies protect, preserve,and promote such enduring and time-honored family values and principles are happiest,healthiest, and most stable.
Show me how this is true... besides you say it true. Cultures and societies who value each and every individual no matter what their orientation, isn't that what this is really about, are the happiest and healthiest and most stable. Cultures who look critically at religion and it's claims are happiest and healthiest. Cultures who have an evidence base not superstition and supposition are really exercising the time-honored tradition of using our intelligence to further the species.
(6) The furtherance and protection of order and public morality are legitimate andsubstantial government interests.
Marriage does not protect the public morality. In fact before we declare it does please define "Public Morality." The idea of public morality is an intrusion on the individual in this context. We are not talking about public sex, public nudity, or public sacrifice. We are talking about giving everyone the same rights and acknowledging that homosexuality is no more prevalent now that it has been historically and there is significant evidence that it has a genetic component. Truth is at the center of our substantial government interest not the nonsense contained in this bill.
(7) To the extent social problems arise that adversely affect the desired optimum familycondition, such as the dissolution of marriage, crime, poverty, immorality, violence, and other conditions that place added responsibilities on individuals and communities through publiclyfunded and administered social programs and government services, laws and regulations shallbe carefully scrutinized to determine how they impact the family and the protection of children.
We already have public policy and laws that deal with violence and immorality as it applies to a child that cannot consent. We do not need the government to determine what is immoral between consenting adults. It is foolish to declare society as a victim where there is no proof this is the case. An unwed parent reproducing has no greater effect on society than a married couple reproducing 8, 9, 10 times without the ability to support the child they bring into the world. One is not more sacred or more moral than the other. Unless we are willing to control when and how all people reproduce this statement has all the vibrato of a one handed golf clap. If you are serious about improving marriage as an institution then promote sex education that discusses, frankly how babies are made and how to prevent them and how to best engage in a relationship with another human that reflects the real world not your ideal version of it.
In this paragraph the item of most concern is the alluding to controlling the dissolution of marriage. The representative even alludes to this in his interview. He doesn't want no fault divorces. To bind two people together, when one does not what to be in the relationship, assigns the disaffected person to the role of property. That is immoral.
(8) (a) The laws of the state shall, to the fullest extent possible, strengthen, safeguard,and sustain families.
Again..... sex education... comprehensive sex eduction required in middle school and all 4 years of high school.
(b) They shall respect and promote the essential and complementary roles of both afather and a mother and uphold this public policy for the greatest public good.
The greatest public good comes from respecting the individual and in helping them reach their potential. Not by dogmatic laws that are designed to strip the rights of a valuable class of our species. Mr. Christensen this law is immoral and indefensible. Come to us with the specific studies that support your claim, not sound bites from the last General Conference. You have failed to do your due diligence. You were asked to provide justification for this bill by the reporter. Start by answering the questions and providing the proof and then draft a bill supported by evidence. Your personal morality may work for you but it does not work for anybody else.
Atheists have been the subject of a couple of high profile articles in the Deseret News Mormon Times Section. The most recent article was by Daniel Peterson.
Trying to make their view seem merely a minor logical extension of my own, several atheistic acquaintances have assured me that there is little difference between us: They just happen to disbelieve in one more god than I do.
Mr. Peterson, We are not trying to make our beliefs a logical extension to yours we are just pointing out that you do not believe the other religions manifestation of god is equal to yours and in fact you have been taught they are false.
They seem to imagine that being a Latter-day Saint entails rejecting all non-Mormon religious experiences and disbelieving every doctrine of every other faith. This, however, is not true.
You are guilty of revisionist history. The official record shows:
Joseph Smith said, "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.)
And scripture says this:
The Book of Mormon says, "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10).
Given that. How can you justify saying this:
When Joseph Smith learned that the then-existing Christian churches were corrupt, that didn't mean that they were totally wrong. To say that something is "corrupt" means that it has been damaged. We speak of "corrupted texts" or "corrupted files," intending to say that they have been infected or tainted — not that their original content has been replaced by something completely different.
In fact, many mainstream Christian doctrines were and are substantially correct. There is indeed a God. He has a divine Son who came to earth, atoned for our sins, rose again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of his Father. Those who taught prayer, preached of the Savior and translated the New Testament during the centuries between the early apostles and the Restoration preserved and transmitted many central gospel truths.
But what about non-Christians? Do they worship false gods?
Jews certainly don't. Believing Jews accept the Old Testament, venerating the God who brought Israel out of Egypt, spoke through the prophet Isaiah and was proclaimed by Jesus (a Palestinian Jew).
According to Brigham Young they do:
"I would rather undertake to convert five thousand Lamanites , than to convert one of those poor miserable creatures whose fathers killed the savior... Yes, I would rather undertake to convert the devil himself, if it were possible... I would say, leave them, and come home, the Lord does not require you to stay there, for they must suffer and be damned... [L]eave them to live and die in their sins and ignorance... [T]hey take pleasure in their wickedness..." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 143, 1854)
But what of Islam? Isn't "Allah" a false god? No. According to the Qur'an, Allah created the earth in six days, placed Adam and Eve in Eden, and then inspired prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Sound familiar?
"Allah" is simply the Arabic equivalent of English "God," related to the Hebrew "Elohim." Moreover, Allah is the God not only of Muslims but of all Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews. "In the beginning, (Allah) created the heavens and the earth," reads Arabic Genesis. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (Allah), and the Word was (Allah)," says the Arabic version of John 1:1. "We believe in (Allah), the Eternal Father," says the first Article of Faith in Arabic, "and in his Son, Jesus Christ."
Muslims, Christians and Jews disagree about God, but that doesn't create numerically different gods. My neighbor regards Senator Foghorn as the greatest orator since Daniel Webster; I think he's a noxious windbag. But there is, mercifully, only one Senator Foghorn. Our different opinions don't spawn multiple senators.
There has been less said about Muslims. But much has been said about dark skinned people and people of other races. In fact while not officially supported by the official doctrine since the late 70's it is still supported in attitude among a significant number of members.
But what of the non-Abrahamic religions? Are they too far wrong? It seems presumptuous to declare that mistaken but sincere devotion means nothing to our loving Father in Heaven.
In fact, Christians have been quite willing over the centuries to equate Zeus, the supreme ruler and father of the Greek Gods (the Romans' Jupiter or Jove), with the God of Christian belief. Shakespeare's Juliet chides Romeo from her balcony with a close paraphrase of the pagan Roman poet Ovid: "At lovers' perjuries, they say, Jove laughs." The great medieval Christian poet Dante says that it was Jove who died on the cross ("Purgatorio" 6:118-119).
When the apostle Paul, preaching on Mars Hill, sought to connect with the pagan Athenians (Acts 17:24-28), he identified Zeus with Israel's God: "For in him we live and move and have our being," he taught, quoting the words about Zeus of a sixth-century B.C. Cretan philosopher. "As some of your own poets have said," he continued, citing a third-century B.C. philosopher's verse about Zeus, "'we are his offspring.'"
In the final volume of C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia," a Calormene soldier named Emeth (= Hebrew "truth") has been a sincere worshiper of the false god Tash all of his life. When, at the end, he meets Aslan and recognizes the true God, he expects severe punishment. But Aslan graciously reassures him that "all the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me," explaining that, although Emeth had been unaware of it, his honest devotion was actually to Aslan, rather than to Tash. "No service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him."
The last three quotes paragraphs are comical at best. Mr. Peterson you are quoting works of fiction as a support for your argument. The worlds of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and the works of Dante were fantasies. The world of C.S Lewis' Narnia did not exist and Zeus according to common theological thought was nothing more than an invention of the men who worshiped him.
God's sheep recognize his voice, even when it's in a different language or imperfectly heard. They follow him as best they can and will not lose their reward.
If this last paragraph is true then the plan a salvation is a hoax. The time and service you demand from followers is a hoax. Baptism for the dead is a hoax. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim the as atheists we are wrong and rally the other folks of faith together telling them that you were just kidding about the whole abomination thing.
Here is the reality Mr. Peterson; as we look at the history of the LDS Church with a critical eye the claims made and promises offered appear to be absurdities. The men who made those claims were even more suspect in character. We spent years searching for comfort in the plan of salvation and when we discovered the church was not what it purports to be we left. Not only was our faith no longer in tact but neither was our ability to believe in any god. Through further investigation we discovered the claims of Islam, Christianity, and Jewish faiths were equally suspect. We believe in one less god than you do. You do not hold the gods of other faiths in the same regard as you do your own. They are not minor doctrinal issues but major chasms in which your members have been taught they are better than the others and they have the only plan of salvation. The rest are "Whores of the Earth."
