Perspectives

There is a scene in Inherit the Wind (my all time favorite stage play) where Colonel Drummond, the defense attorney, in speaking to Colonel Brady, the prosecuting attorney who is currently a witness on the stand, and the people of "Heavenly Hillsboro"...

Drummond: "I object, I object, I object."
Brady: "On what grounds?  Is it possible that something is holy to the celebrated  agnostic?"
Drummond: "Yes!  (His voice drops, intensely)  The individual human mind.  In a child's power to master the multiplication table there is more sanctity than in all your shouted "Amens!", or "Holy, Hollies!" and "Hosannas!"  An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral.  And the advance of man's knowledge is more of a miracle than any sticks turned to snakes, or the parting of waters!  But are we now to halt the march of progress because Mr. Brady frightens us with a fable?  (Turning to the jury, reasonably)  Gentleman, progress has never been a bargain.  You've got to pay for it.  Sometimes I think there's a man behind a counter who says, "All right, you can have a telephone; but you'll have to give up privacy, the charm of distance  Madam, you may vote; but at a price; you lose the right to retreat behind a powder-puff or a petticoat.  Mister, you may conquer the air; but the birds will lose their wonder, and the clouds will smell of gasoline!"
-Inherit the Wind  Act II Scene II, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee
I think the Internet has helped us fall into one of Colonel Drummond's points.  We can have information instantly, but we have lost the characteristic and quality of patience.  With loosing patience, we have lost the ability to research and understand concepts.  The Internet has also blessed/cursed us with so much instant information it is almost information overload.

One of the hot topics right now, in the Presidential debate has been about Mitt Romney and his religious afflictions, mainly being a Latter-day Saint, also known as a Mormon.  A pastor from another denomination has accused the Latter-day Saint faith to be a cult, a non-Christian faith.  There are many definitions of the word cult.  And the word was specifically used to create confusion.  While there is a tiny definition, "a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies" which can fit to any religious reasoning.  While that is a tiny definition, the mainstream and widely accepted definition of cult is, "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."  (Both definitions obtained at dictionary.com) 

In the days following there have been many articles coming out on both sides of the spectrum.  Both articles of support for the Mormon church and articles of support for the religious pastor.  Many links could be set up on this page showing my support.  (From the get go, this blog has known I am an active member of my church.)  But as I sit back and look at what is going on, I personally feel that I do not need to advertise my religion any more.  Every person who knows me, knows of my love for Christ and how I try to center my life around my Saviour and His teachings.  People in my circle know that.  I don't need to put many different videos on my facebook page or logos on my cars to demonstrate this. 

So, I then wonder what is the difference this time?  What is the perspective to be gained?  What lesson can I learn and apply to me today?

Back in 1830 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored to the earth.  While a church is not "created" as different religious followers and leaders will insist their truth has been around since time, the Mormon church is no different.  The church was organized in New York and met all legal requirements to establish a church in the United States of America and the State of New York.  Like any other religion, the Mormon church was persecuted.  However, the Mormon church is the only church in the United States with a legal, government order to be exterminated.  (Thanks to the wonderful state I love and call home, Missouri.)  How did the hate come so?  In the early to mid 1830's many Northern, poor, destitute, new "fanatical" religious people (Mormons) came to the Southern state of Missouri, just miles away from the edge/border of the wilderness/United States.  The balance of power in the United States was constantly a hot topic and precariously balanced.  Several compromises were made to keep the balance of power with Northern/free states and Southern/slave states.  As the country was young and did not know fully know what to do, the Mormon church was first kicked out of Independence (city) and Jackson County, Missouri and sent to Caldwell, Carroll, and Ray Counties, with Clay county a buffer between the two groups.  These counties were specifically set up by the Missouri government to be Mormon counties.  But as the Mormon population continued to grow and the Mormons created a militia (for Mormons - the idea was protection since they had already been driven out of New York and Ohio, for Missourians this was a threat where the Mormons could come and threaten the locals and try and take back their lands) the tensions built.  The Southern state and Southern way of life was threatened.  Then came the Mormon War and the now infamous extermination order issued by Governor Linburn W. Boggs.  The Mormons were officially the first, and last, religious sect to be ordered by the government to be eliminated in the United States, a country built and established for many things one of which was religious freedom. 

How does this apply.  Well, I am personally not in support of illegal immigration.  While I will not get into reasoning or a political debate, I fully understand how the Missourians felt when the Mormons threatened to take over.  To feel your very way of life, your culture, in a way the identity was crumbling down.  To tax a state, through no advertisement or fault of its own, to try to assist the poor.  To change the balance of power both locally with the sheriffs and courts and to threaten the balance of power.  I get it.  I don't like it nor do I support it or the war.  But I get it.

The connection to back to the religious leader calling my church not Christian.  I think the root is exactly why we are seeing all the issues with the current congress.  We have instant information built on tiny facts which are  published before the proper research is completed.  We have people who take offense quickly (on both sides) without looking to see if something was sent out of context.  We have insults coming at not the fact or the issue or the policy but at personal cores (such as values, religion, beliefs).  That is why the pastor's comments have become personal.  It felt like a personal attack against the man in general, but also against every member of the religion.  Problems arise when people put attacks to allow them to become personal but they also attack with out looking with an open mind to what the other side may say.  When we close ourselves to listening and trying to understand, there will be no room for compromise and each side will lose.
I think it wise the church not get involved in the skirmish.  As the Bible teaches, "by their fruits, ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:16).  I'm just sad with the instant and tiny fact articles people will become offended/passionate without knowing what the full issue behind the comments/stories are.

Fame is a fleeting thing.  Only a few people and events stand the test of time, and surely this will flow and be forgotten as well.  Several casualties in the mix, but it will pass.  I invite those who want to know to research for themselves to please complete your own research and come to your own conclusions.  Go straight to the source, do not take 2nd or 3rd hand stories.  Watch the people who profess to be of the group and see what they are about.  And I mean this for any group, political, religious, or social.  I invite those to wan to learn more about what the pastor has accused Mitt Romney of to learn more by clicking here to start.

To end, I go back to Inherit the Wind, Act III Scene I.  The trial is over and we are in the concluding minutes.  Restitution has been paid, amends are taking place.  The man on trial, his fiance Rachel, (the local school teacher, who was considered innocent and slightly backwards) was examined under oath and was driven to tears.  Rachel later lashed out for feeling like a pawn and made poor accusations.  Says she:

Rachel: "Mr. Drummond, I hope I haven't said anything to offend you.  You see, I haven't really thought very much.  I was always afraid of what I might think - so it seemed safer not to think at all.  But now I know."