Recently I watched a pair of movies which although a few years old, still have significant relevance and paired together had a profound impact on my thoughts.  The two movies were “Monster’s Ball” and “American History X”.  If you haven’t seen either, I recommend you do.  The main point of both focuses on racism, specifically white on black racism but there are so many other subtle points which tie into what really feeds those irrational thoughts.

Which leads me to the real point of this post.  Racism, Stereotyping, Religion and Supremacy, believe it or not all of these things are deeply intertwined and too often used as an excuse to behave a certain way.

Just because I drive down the road, daily and see a group of black kids in the road acting like idiots doesn’t make me a racist.  I understand just like many of us they are a victim of their surroundings and environment.

Stereotypes are there for a reason, not because someone is a color but rather because statistically there is enough evidence those minorities suffer from that particular issue in their group.

There are also positive stereotypes for each.. I mean think about the assumptions if you are black and tall you can play basketball.  If you are black you can sing, if you are latino you are fiery and a good lover.  Does this mean every black man who walks down the street is a basketball playing singer, or every latino man is a good lover with a fiery latino girl who scorns his every move?  To assume such nonsense is ridiculous.

However, it is true of ALL people no matter what race, creed, religion etc. to be wary and cautious until trust is built and you actually KNOW the person.  Yes I can assume statistically a portion of the black people I run into are musically talented or that Mexican man on the street must sell tacos, but like anyone I have to take the time to sort that out myself. I have friends of varying colors and races.  They are people I have gathered around me for one purpose, they fit within my criteria for people I choose to be my friend.  Does this then make me a supremacist (not to be confused with WHITE supremacist as my views on supremacy do not distinguish between white, black, yellow, green or even purple) ?  Absolutely with one significant difference, I won’t be attacking other groups who don’t choose to conform with mine.  I understand everyone has their own hangups, their own ways and their own choices.  I’ll leave them to their devices as long as they leave me to mine.

Too often these areas are used as a means of doing something bigger, better than yourself.  Elitist groups who shun others and who don’t have a general care about humanity to begin with.  They snub their noses at you because you aren’t as good as they are, they look down on you with pity for your small mind and treat you as an imbecile simply because you don’t agree with their point of view.   Sometimes even go as far as committing acts of violence against others simply because of these differences.

Sometimes it is said or used we ARE defending ourselves, our country, our right to our freedoms and these “people” are infringing upon those.  Reality is, that’s a ridiculous notion but beyond that it does not allow or excuse vigilante justice.

In the movie American History X, Edward Norton’s character goes into a very interesting tirade about Rodney King.  He makes some incredibly valid points and his argument is sound, to a degree.  Until he loses his temper when he runs out of things to say and loses control.  Unfortunately that happens all too often, loss of control because someone is either not following you in your party or you’ve run out of arguments.

In Monster’s Ball, the correlation is made in how the father, the son, then the grandson all start to suffer from the same affliction.  When the son tries to break the cycle and has a heart, it is discouraged.  So he escapes in the only way he knows how.  As wrong as that is, too often it is the way people feel, trapped by their own conflicted feelings, feelings of betraying those we love, and even moreso being haunted by the things we know we should do but cannot because of fear.

It takes this extreme action to wake up the father in this story.

Another poignant example of realization comes in American History X, while people tend to tie Derrek’s behavior to his father’s death by two black men – the truth is the conditioning started a lot earlier than that.  Derrek’s father had subtle ways of teaching racism without actually coming out and saying he hates blacks.  How it’s unfair he has two lesser experienced men on his team just because they are black etc. because of affirmative action.  We are often the product of our own upbringing and although there are situations which have profound impacts and even life-altering ones, too often our parents’ influences stick with us into adulthood and even into the next generation.  Cycles upon cycles of repeated behaviors, some good and others not so valuable.

Belief and change are about perception, they are a perceived view of the world around you and how you fit into it.  Many people are looking for validation for their behavior rather than enlightenment and increased awareness.  Transcending and rising above what we learned as children, see in our lives, and experience is what life is about.  Turning a blind eye in ignorance only serves to cripple us and our progress.

I recently posted this response to Mormons and figured it belonged here as well.  Religion is a very sensitive subject in general and I feel very passionately about it.  Anything related to Mormonism and its ways is of particular interest to me as I understand it intimately.   FYI the snippets I responded to are his REVISED talk, not the original.  The revisions are not any better and a web search will help you to find the original if you desire. Now, on to the posting:

There has been a lot of chatter floating around Facebook and in the media regarding a talk Boyd K. Packer gave at the recent General Conference session. This is the quote below from his talk and before anyone decides to flame me for taking it out of context, this is pasted verbatim from the talk and I encourage anyone else to read the whole thing to see what inferences I may have missed.  So the quote to start with (link to the entire talk is at the bottom):

“there are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature. A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do?

There are both moral and physical laws “irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world” that cannot be changed. History demonstrates over and over again that moral standards cannot be changed by battle and cannot be changed by ballot. To legalize that which is basically wrong or evil will not prevent the pain and penalties that will follow as surely as night follows day.

Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it. We cannot change; we will not change the moral standard. We quickly lose our way when we disobey the laws of God. If we do not protect and foster the family, civilization and our liberties must needs perish.” – Boyd K. Packer – General Conference 2010

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html

I guess I feel the need to speak out, knowing it may be a heated issue simply because of the irony and contradiction it poses.  How can a church which claims in the Articles of Faith (the summary of what as a whole they believe) first:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. - Church of Jesus Christ, Articles of Faith http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/12#12

Really?  Because in reading the above, and knowing how many Mormons support the statements made by your President it kind of sounds a little outside the scope of what you claim to believe.  Note the “of our own conscience” part.  Just because you believe these laws were decreed in heaven and your conscience tells you otherwise does not mean my conscience tells me the same thing.   You see, I have a conscience too and it tells me something completely different. I understand it might not “jive” with yours but that does not make it wrong and even if in your eyes it IS wrong, your beliefs claim to accept me as I am and to let me worship in my own way and as I see fit.   I suspect that “allowing” of others doesn’t extend very far, however it is a right and privilege afforded to me not only by your own claims of belief but by the laws of this great nation in which we live.  Which brings me to the next point:

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. – Church of Jesus Christ, Articles of Faith http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/12#12

How can one claim to support the law when so obviously opposed to it.  Our forefathers decreed, in writing there should be a separation of church and state in this country. This includes changing and enacting laws which are voted on by the nation.  This is why we have the RIGHT to vote in this country so it is representative of our nation as a whole.  This includes people from all different belief systems and is representative of that belief.  When it doesn’t mesh with your philosophy of life, so be it.  Don’t participate in it.  No one is asking you to like the law, nor is anyone asking you to change who you are or even support it – simply to obey it or to let others have the rights which may be afforded by it.    By your own statement of belief, you support the laws of this fine country.  Even the ones you don’t agree with.

My absolute favorite quote within this talk is

A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do?

The statements made by Boyd K. Packer indicate laws against nature will be impossible to enforce… kind of like gravity and yet we have airplanes don’t we, we have space shuttles and space stations which defy those laws do they not?  Sure they are outside of this earth but don’t we have simulated gravity chambers here on this earth?  So the laws of gravity can be adapted and bent.

I suppose it’s left to the reader to interpret which laws of nature are up for debate here but I suppose off the top of my head I can think of one big one – gay marriage; and since homosexuality according to most religions is clearly a sin and against God’s will, it therefore must be against nature.  God didn’t design his creations to be homosexual, they are meant to be heterosexual.  Then that begs the question, why is there homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Approximately 1,500 species are known to have some form of homosexual interaction - http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx –  doesn’t it then stand to reason homosexuality may actually be PART of God’s design?  Or are all of these animals also unnatural creatures?  They don’t have the same “free agency” as humans do, nor is there a “devil” tempting them.  So again – how is that not natural?  Again just because it doesn’t fit with your way of thinking doesn’t make it unnatural.  There are also other variations of sexuality and dichotomy within the animal kingdom all of which go against the heterosexual theory.  Just to address the argument before it is made, “marriage and relationships are between man and woman and you are talking about animals who don’t wed.”  You are right, animals don’t wed.  That is a human ceremony we invented for our own edification.  Animals have relationships, just not that piece of paper to solidify it.  This argument is merely to dispute the nature of things. There are a variety of sexual orientations in the animal kingdom.  Of course this doesn’t even take into account the numerous studies on heredity and genetics which have verified the “choice” it is to be gay.

Okay, so maybe this talk isn’t referring to homosexuality.  Maybe it’s referring to something else – maybe the current state of marijuana becoming legal in California.  But somehow considering marijuana is by all rights natural, I suspect that’s not it.

If someone else can enlighten me as to what else it “could” be, I’m more than happy to discuss that as well.  What this all boils down to is hypocrisy, misdirection and misinformation.   I’m perfectly fine with people who don’t agree with some of the same concepts as I.  I’m also okay with people who wish to believe in whatever religion they choose.  But please, at least keep it consistent and respect what you believe.  Don’t disguise intolerance under the umbrella of Religion and claim it to be God’s law especially when by your own admission you believe otherwise.  Credibility is lost when what you preach and what you practice contradict each other.

I have no doubt there will be some heat over this from those I know and love.  I promise it’s not personal, it’s just my opinion.  Sometimes the other side of the fence needs to speak up a bit.  I’m not supporting any particular entity or organization, merely pointing out what I see as fundamental flaws in something I’m intimately familiar with.

With California now allowing same-sex marriage; the dispute between religion, government, and choice once again seems to be the forefront of conversation in communities large and small.  Many on the religious front feel it should be outlawed: however occasionally within this group a voice or two of reason shine out.  The cries of injustice and intolerance are emitted from both sides of the argument.

With such a divided topic who ultimately has the rights to determine such a thing?  Many make the claim since our country was founded on a basic belief in God and our forefathers believed God should be watching over us, shouldn’t we then follow what religion claims is “God’s” path in marriage being between man and woman for the purposes of procreation?  What about our forefathers’ request of a separation between church and state?  Should that then be ignored in the favor of religion?  Our country was founded on the principle of freedom and equality for all.  For those who have their right to religion and freedoms, those same freedoms should also be extended to others including gays, inter-racial couples etc.

Often the argument is brought up regarding others rights including pedophiles etc.  If we allow gays to marry why not allow pedophiles to do what they wish, murderers and the like,  since there is after all a fundamental belief being gay is “harmful”?  This is absolutely ridiculous.  Those situations involving forcing and/or harming other individuals.  Gay marriage or even just a gay relationship is a choice by both parties to entertain, just like straight couples.  It is an attraction and a love mutually agreed upon by adults who are fully able to make that distinction.  They are not causing themselves or others harm by their choices, other than potentially offending those with religious beliefs that differ.  Although I would say this has more to do with the religious side allowing themselves to be offended rather than gay side inflicting offense.

My question for those of the religious sect is where are your scriptures and beliefs truly?  Although there are references to same-sex relationships in them, I’d venture to say there are far more references to treating everyone fairly, loving everyone, judging not and so on.  According to scripture, it is GOD’s right to judge and not anyone else’s.   However, even putting that argument aside: this is YOUR religious choice and preference NOT everyone else’s.  They have a right just as you do to believe in God or not.  There are enough arguments on both sides of the fence to prove or disprove his existence.  Regardless of whether or not YOU may believe God is the overall end, our laws and regulations allow for other beliefs.

According to Webster there are several definitions for marriage. I was pleased to see same-sex marriage listed in the definitions list, but I will go with the more general marriage definition “an intimate or close union”. A marriage of two people is simply that, a union between two people or things belonging together regardless of their differences.  In our world we have many opposites in both worlds that mesh together nicely no matter how strange the match may seem.  Banning or disallowing gay marriage will not stop unions or the love between same-sex couples.  It merely tells them we don’t think they are as good as the rest of heterosexual America. This is unfair. We as a country often recognize the rights of common-law marriages and yet I don’t see anyone disputing that validity despite not having a legal basis.   How are gay unions any different?

It appears we have some very hypocritical views in this country.  Freedom for all who fit in our little mold: but not for those who don’t.  This is wrong and not what this country was founded on.

I personally believe gay marriage should be sanctioned in EVERY state and recognized everywhere.  Who am I to say who another person can or can’t love?  They should be afforded every opportunity straight couples are currently given.   Everyone regardless of religion, orientation or race deserves to find true happiness in this world as long as it is a mutual love and understanding between adults.  Everyone deserves to have the same opportunities to advance and progress in this society without being impeded by outdated social views and religious ruling as was the purest most basic founding principle of this country.  Our forefathers fought to keep the religious tyranny they faced out of our country.  Don’t bring it back by trying to force religious views not shared by all on the entire nation.

I am sure the argument will be made, as I have heard many times before regarding allowing gay marriage essentially forcing those views on the religious of the nation. Again this is ridiculous.  You yourself do not have to participate in this, nor do you have to believe it is right just as the other side does not have to participate in your religion.  You simply have to do what you must in respecting those individuals’ rights and leave it be.  Your freedoms are given in expressing your own opinions and choosing not to accept what is put before you.  This does not include infringing on others freedoms by putting a stop to their rights.

I applaud those individuals and companies who have already accepted and made room for unions of all types in their world.  You are the ones who will help to change the face of our society for the betterment of all.  I only hope the rest of our country catches up.