Defining Political Extremism

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure if this is the best place for this, but since I don’t have time to venture outside this forum very often, it seems like as good of a place as any. I just created a long post on my blog about Political Extremism. There were some great quotes from Apostle Hugh B Brown that I wanted to share. I don’t care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat, and neither did Brown. Here are a couple of quotes, and I wanted to get your reaction. You can read more at http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/07/15/defining-political-extremism/

I’m going to rearrange the order a bit but these quotes come from http://unicomm.byu.edu/president/documents/brown.htm

Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: An excessively simple diagnosis of the world’s ills and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all. . . . Blind belief in one’s cause and a low view of the morality of other Americans–these seem mild failings. But they are the soil in which ranker weeds take root . . . terrorism, and the deep, destructive cleavages that paralyze a society.

As these antagonisms become more intense, the pathology is much the same. . . . The ingredients are, first, a deep conviction on the part of the group as to its own limitless virtue or the overriding sanctity of its cause; second, grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others; third, a chronically aggrieved feeling that power has fallen into the hands of the unworthy (that is, the hands of others). . . .

[T]he possibility of coherent community action is diminished today by the deep mutual suspicions and antagonisms among various groups in our national life.

In his famous speech, “Profile of a Prophet” from 1968, Brown said,

First, I’d like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who guide the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all.

Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which will enable you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. I’ve found by long experience that our two-party system is sound. Beware of those who are so lacking in humility, that they cannot come within the framework of one of our two great parties.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for your post. I have to be very honest, I went inactive out of sheer frustration with political extremism. I couldn’t function as a human being. It was like a part of my spirit wasn’t free anymore, like I was confined. It was as if I was being forced to give the “right” answer before I could even ask the questions.

I am so sorry for being so off topic. I guess I am just venting.

Years ago I received a special certification from the EPA to work on the “Information Collection Rule” which was to determine biological, chemical and other contaminants present in our water supply. I trained in the Utah State Department of Health’s Water Lab and enjoyed it. As my career progressed, I was given the opportunity to work as a technician doing bone studies. I loved it. All of this gave rise to a question: is water fluoridation safe and effective? I spent months researching this topic, learning and yet craving more knowledge. I felt that somewhere out there, there would be answers. How to reduce dental disease in children, how to build stronger bones in adults, what causes osteosarcoma (bone cancer) and can we prevent it?, I want to know. I loved both sides of the debate, sometimes I would even debate myself, weighing evidence, sorting through paradoxes and contradictions, all the while learning more and more.

I was told that I was a “pawn” for the government, that I hadn’t studied enough, that Ezra Taft Bensen said that, “water fluoridation was a Communist plot to poison Americans” etc. etc. I know it sounds really stupid, but I couldn’t conduct bone studies with biased individuals who had forgone conclusions. I began to search for “fresh minds” to work with me, to teach me, inspire me and help me find the truth. I needed to be around those types of people because that is who I am. I have epilepsy, I sometimes suffer bone fractures due to seizures. I have weak teeth from taking many years of the anti-seizure drug, dilantin. This year, my knee cap fractured. I started to realize that fluoride helps my fractures heal faster, but that the bone isn’t as strong. There is another piece of the puzzle still out there. Fluoride isn’t a demon to me, it is a small part of the answer and I think God wants me to find out what the other parts are.

Extremism is “knowing something you don’t know”, not just closing your mind, but locking it. You can’t grow anymore. You aren’t free to change your mind as you gain new knowledge or insight because you have already “proven” that you are right and everyone else is wrong. It is like locking your soul in a room with no windows. I don’t know if anyone understands. This is just a very small example, I have dozens more, but I’d bore you to death. Thanks for listening.

[Anonymous]

Hmm… not sure about this. Many major parties have simple explanations – the other lot did it. Who needs politics when you can have mud slinging?

Of course there are villains. There are numerous people in this world whose sole objectives are money and power, and to hell with anyone or anything who gets in their way. The villains in this financial crisis are there for all to see. A few years ago they were supposed heroes.

I think Americans are wrong to term someone “unAmerican”. There’s no such thing. Someone may hold extreme or objectionable views, but they’re still American if they’re from the USA.

[Anonymous]

I disdain the the two party system – and I find it “insulting” that a church leader would say…

Quote:

I’ve found by long experience that our two-party system is sound. Beware of those who are so lacking in humility, that they cannot come within the framework of one of our two great parties.

Yes, granted, this was said in 1968. I hope to NEVER here this kind of rhetoric from a GA in my lifetime.

I think the church REALLY needs to stay out of politics — I was saddened to hear about the letters from SLC urging Argentina to vote against legal gay marriage… (just another example – don’t want to get off topic.)

I don’t know about 1968 – but I believe that both parties are in themselves “EXTREME,” and like Wallace stated, it almost seems like they have a ready made answer before the question and debate has began. There is very little “original thought” or “political discussion” in the two party system. I think it is interesting that during my Stage 3 era when I was in my 20’s, I was a die-hard Republican. I hit my 30’s, sunk head first into stage 4 — and all of a sudden the Republican Party didn’t work for me anymore. Coincidence? I doubt it? Government and “church politics” or church government have a lot in common. I mean, what is the difference between political extremism of a party that already has the answer before the question, and BRM stating “It is my providence to define what the doctrine is. It is your providence to repeat what I say or keep your mouth shut.”? Or another example that Spock talked about, “why pray to know if the church is true if there is only one possible answer to the question?”

I’m going to guess that much like Fowler Stage 3 folks are religiously extreme — they are going to be the same folks that primary make up the D and R parties? Stage 3 mormons are almost certainly die-hard Republicans. Yeah? I’m just going to venture that most of the folks here ARE NOT die-hard republican. I mean, Ray even admitted to voting for Obama for goodness sakes! 😮 I personally did NOT vote for Obama, but I didn’t throw in with McCain either. I would also venture that stage 3ers in the environmental groups, gay rights, animal rights, abortion etc. etc. are generally going to be die-hard Democrats. ????

[Anonymous]

We have multiple parties here, and are moving away from the old Tweedledum/Tweedledee system and are better for it. Variety is better, and I don’t think two parties reflect an entire population well.

It’s like our religion. The world is not just divided into Mormons and anti-Mormons or potential converts vs devil worshipers.

Quote:

I’m just going to venture that most of the folks here ARE NOT die-hard republican.

For what it’s worth, my politics are light years away from either of the two big American parties. I wouldn’t vote for either of them. I’m glad Obama won, I suppose, but thought McCain came over as a gentleman. It was the thought of him getting replaced by a trigger happy Palin which disturbed me. Even if, like many other red blooded males, I found her physically attractive. This planet has survived by the USA not having a war with Russia/the Soviets or the Chinese. I don’t deny that the Russians and the Chinese have political systems which put the faults of the USA in the shade, but all out war would have dire consequences for the entire human race.

[Anonymous]

Cwald,

To be honest, I would really like to have a major 3rd party. In past presidential elections, I’ve supported Carter, Reagan (I was too young to vote for them), Bush Sr, Perot, Ralph Nader, Bush Jr, and Bob Barr (the most recent election.) I really think it would help to have a viable option outside of Repulican and Democratic parties. But I don’t understand what you mean when you say you “disdain the the two party system.” What would you prefer?

Your points about stage 3 republicans and democrats are right on the money, IMO.

As for whether the church has a right to voice it’s opinion about political matters–well, I think we all have a right to express our opinions. The church is a special interest group just like MoveOn.org, ACORN, the Tea Party, and the Minutemen. I doubt you agree with all of these groups, but I hope you’ll agree that they all should be allowed to have an opinion about specific issues, whether you agree with their position or not.

The fact is that you disagree with the church’s position on Prop 8–I have no problem with that. But when you say the church shouldn’t be allowed to take a position–that’s a stretch, don’t you think? Baptists, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims all have political opinions which you are free to agree or disagree with. I don’t think a democracy is healthy when it says religions or tax groups, or immigration groups, or pro/anti abortion groups shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions on various issues. If you are honest that you think the church should stay our of politics, then that looks like censorship to me. I don’t think you support censorship, do you?

[Anonymous]

MH – you’re sounding like a lawyer? 😮

Perhaps I’m just paranoid, but I don’t want to go back to the days where groups like the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope ran the world. Those WERE NOT good days! i don’t want to go back to a time when laws of Islam dictates what and how a senator can say and act. I don’t think it is healthy for religious organization that claim to have the keys to exaltation and salvation controlling government, freedom and individual rights. Power and and authority are a terrible thing in the hands of the wrong men — and when you add “authority from god” to the mix. Ouch.

Interesting – you said you voted for Bob Barr. Bob Barr is “the man!” I suppose if I had to claim a party, it would certainly be the Libertarians. with the system in place right now, there is NO CHANCE that I guy like Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Perot would ever get elected. Won’t happen – that is why I disdain the two party system. One has to conform to the party platform in order to get elected — and the party platform stinks.

I don’t have any problem with any religion speaking and proclaiming their belief. No problem — but it does cross the line, IMO, when they start “encouraging” members to donate and vote a certain way. I think members have a right to express their opinion. I’m not sure CHURCH LEADERS from SLC have a right to tell you what your opinion is though. Why not just say, “we believe that marriage is between a man and woman, and is ordained of god… and you members need to vote your conscience on the issues?…Teach men correct principles and let them govern themselves…use your god given free agency to do what you feel is right…” I don’t think that is unreasonable?

mormonheretic wrote:

Your points about stage 3 republicans and democrats are right on the money, IMO.

Thank you.

Quote:

The church is a special interest group just like MoveOn.org, ACORN, the Tea Party, and the Minutemen.

I don’t see it that way. I don’t see any group that claims to have authority from GODand have the only keys to your and my salvation as a “special interest group.” If it is, and SLC thinks it is, and the general membership believe it is — than I’m going to have some serious faith issues on my hands.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: An excessively simple diagnosis of the world’s ills and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all

the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism

MH, I found the quotes you shared deeply important, spiritually speaking. In particular, the passages above reminded me all too much of myself in the 1990’s.

As a budding pacifist, I find that it’s easy to love people from all parties, and to see good and bad in all philosophies.

[Anonymous]

Cwald, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. 😆 I am a statistician by training; I did take 1 business law class in college, so that’s the extent of my legal training, and I don’t watch LA Law or any other of those shows….

If we both like Bob Barr, perhaps we are politically closer than initial thought. As I look at the political/religious history of the US, the founding fathers put it into the constitution that there would be a separation of church and state, so there wouldn’t be a “Holy Roman Empire” or Islamic Republic, or any other “State religion” supported by the federal government. When we look at the original 13 colonies, however, each colony was a religious colony with a dominant religion. This stand by the founding fathers was essentially a compromise so that no colony’s religion would be persecuted, but all the fathers saw the need for religious prinicples. I can’t remember if it was Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin that wasn’t a fan of organized religion, but one of them created his own “Deist” version of the Bible, showing the biblical principles he supported. All the fathers found religion to be a good thing, but none of them wanted religion to dominate.

In Sarah Barringer Gordon’s book, “The Mormon Question”, Sarah discusses these church/state issues, and the evolution of church/state issues. Frankly, polygamy was the first restriction on religion ever put forth by the government. So, the fear of a church sponsored government in the US government is a bit overstated, IMO. I agree with you that I don’t want a theocracy government run by religionists, but I don’t want a government without ethics either. Religion has proved to be a good ethical force over the years, and I think it is one of the best ethical frameworks. Frankly, while I know there are ethical atheists, I am not aware of any atheistic organization that does as good of a job promoting honesty, integrity, etc as religion frameworks do. (Yes, religion can be bigoted too, so it isn’t all cake and ice cream.) I don’t want a government where religion is shunned either.

The founding fathers wanted the idea that we all have a voice. One of them said that they would defend someone’s right to say something they disagreed with. That’s an interesting choice of words. When you say you want to silence the church, I don’t think you’re as accommodating of dissent as the founding fathers.

I understand why you are saying the church is different from a special interest group because of the “salvation” aspect of religion. However, from an outside perspective, the LDS church is no different from Catholics or Evangelicals, or Minutemen, or Tea Party, or Pro-Life, or Pro-Choice groups. Pro-Life or Pro-Choice groups really feel just as strongly about their position (and God’s approval) as any other religious group. We all think God is on our side (or if we’re atheist, we believe that God is on nobody’s side.)

[Anonymous]

MH – I can agree with and live with everything you said in your last post. Yeah – perhaps are religious/social-political views are closer than we thought.

Bob Barr is the classic Libertarian. I generally find myself leaning this way — fiscally conservative and social liberal. I absolutely believe in good morals and ethics, but I’m just not sure it is the government’s place to define what that means and to enforce what they believe it to mean. Liberal in the old classic sense – LIBERTY. Laws are there to protect the indivicual – and if one is not hurting another person, than the law really is not needed. That is why I have issues with laws dealing with gay rights, abortion, pot etc.

The problem I see with Libertarians, is just like the other two major parties, they can tend to become “extreme” as well. Example – if the government has no right to make laws restricting ones freedom of smoking pot (which i agree with) than the government has no right to make laws making meth illegal (not sure I can go that far).

[Anonymous]

I like the idea of Libertarian, but I’ve never seen any candidates as viable. As for marijuana, you may find this conversation about legalization to agree with your point of view. see http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=307

I must say I was a bit shocked to see how many here favored legalization, and I think I have softened my stance a bit on this topic. I’m not sure where I stand on this issue, because there are some serious lung cancer issues associated with marijuana (just like tobacco), but perhaps the drug war is failed and we should treat it like we did with prohibition and regulate it. I’m not sure what to think.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

I must say I was a bit shocked to see how many here favored legalization, and I think I have softened my stance a bit on this topic. I’m not sure where I stand on this issue, because there are some serious lung cancer issues associated with marijuana (just like tobacco), but perhaps the drug war is failed and we should treat it like we did with prohibition and regulate it. I’m not sure what to think.

Perhaps another better example would be our (Oregon’s) Death with Dignity. I have some personal moral issues with it and the church leaders were VERY opposed to it. I voted for it anyway — just don’t see why it is MY business to make a law prohibiting it.

I will check out the pot links in the morning. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Just checked out the link about legalized MJ. Interesting stuff. I would probably just add to that discussion this comment – “What JMB said.’

[Anonymous]

Wow, we are strange bedfellows. I totally support Oregon’s Death With Dignity on moral grounds. Here’s some more reading material for you. http://mormonmatters.org/2009/04/05/whats-your-position-on-euthanasia/

[Anonymous]

Libertarianism is the trendy thing just now.

The trouble with this form of right wing Anarchism, like the left wing form of Anarchism is that nature abhors a vacuum. When you remove government and influence over people’s lives, something else will step in.

This might be religion, or it might be television, and commercial music, fashionable clothing and women’s magazines, radio etc etc

Suddenly the idea that you’ve got all of this freedom is counteracted by the fact that you have all of these other hidden, and not so hidden, influences on your life.

Power is always there, controlling you, or attempting to control you. Libertarianism claims to do away with some of the more obvious aspects but it will never do away with all of them.

Most people follow the herd, I’m afraid which undermines any form of pure anarchism (libertarianism included) as much as naked individual tendencies undermine communism.

[Author]

Posts