Cambridge

In effort to satisfy my family (mainly Michele) I have opted to post various pictures describing my Cambridge experience thus far. As many of you already know, I am studying for a term at the University of Cambridge- a visiting student at Kings College. I am exploring the relationship between law, morality, and religion. More specifically, I will be evaluating government's role in determining and enforicing morality.

Cambridge is celebrating its 800 year anniversary as one the world's premier academic institutions. I am constantly challenged to both think, respond, and write critically.

The ladies naturally gravitate towards me. I haven't been able to decide whether it is because of my dashing looks or dazzling personality?

Cambridge approaches education uniquely. The system is structured to build upon the relationship between professors and students. Following each lecture, a small group of students generally ranging from 5-7 students discuss in detail the previous lecture. Oftentimes the professor attends these seminars and fields questions.

Judicial Activism

The nature of the U.S. Supreme Court is a distinct and separate from the other branches of government. Unlike the Executive or Legislative offices, justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Because justices are appointed rather than elected by the people, justices, as intended by the Founding Fathers, are to serve as "interpretors" of law, not creators of legislation. An Appeals Court Judge, Sonia Sotomayor, is now being considered as President Obama's top of the list Supreme Court nominees. Sotomayor is not quite sure what role a judge plays:

A “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

I'm not sure I do know, Judge Sotomayor. Both a woman and a latina, Sotomayor clearly affirms that she does not advocate or promote the making of law. Yet interestingly enough, she described her minority status as one where her “gender and national origin may and will make a difference in her judging.” Undoubtedly the experience and cultural of one will determine to some extent the values which they hold. But the law is the law. Words are words. And unless Judge Sotomayor intends to create legislation, such status should not influence or "make a difference in her judging". This is what I like to call judicial activism; uncontrolled and unwarranted power a judge seeks to distort law to his of her liking. A small group of unelected officials with no direct connnection to the American people creating law according to their life experiences, culture, and superior wisdom? Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?

The Sanctity of Life

Although national attention has recently been directed towards defining marriage, the legalization of abortion continues to politically-stimulate the masses. Divisive in its’ nature, abortion becomes a pressing societal concern as it violently attacks perhaps the most vulnerable popultion; the fetus. The validity of the arguments both for and against abortion rest on one underlying question: are the unborn in fact “persons worthy of rights”? If pro-life advocates can sufficiently prove that unborn humans are “persons worthy of rights” than the mother’s “right to choose” would arguably be trumped by the fetus’s right to life. Nearly all methods of ethical reasoning would find in favor of the pro-life argument IF it can be shown that the unborn are “persons worthy of rights”. If pro-choice advocates can sufficiently prove that the unborn are not “persons worthy of rights” than there is no way to justify forcing pregnancy on unwilling women. Immediately upon conception the zygote becomes a complete being. In the contrast, a sperm relies on an egg, and an egg a sperm. Furthermore, owing to the completeness of the zygote, it becomes recognized as a self-directing being in that the zygote begins to pursue its’ own survival and protects itself as it travels through the women’s body. In the case of brain death, a human is considered dead not because we no longer consider them as a living person, but rather because of the irreversible loss of autonomy and the unitary pursuit of survival. Having proven the zygote as life, it ceases to be categorized as “potential life” but “life with potential”. Now recognized as a person, the fetus is granted specific rights. Several advocates for a woman’s choice identify the fetus as life, yet deny the fetus rights equal to the mother. The primary defect in this argument is that it would attempt to bestow rights at varying degrees dependent upon accidental traits, traits that one may or may not acquire throughout his or her life such as consciousness, independence, or intelligence. When we begin to bestow rights based on accidental traits, it begs questions which force arbitrary questions. For example, at which level of intelligence do we cease to acknowledge basic rights? Would a partial mentally disabled individual qualify for basic human rights? The only rational approach to bestowing basic human rights is one based on the “type” of organism rather than the “level”; granting the zygote the same rights all humans are granted, fundamentally the right to life. Whether abortion should or should not be illegalized must be left for the people to decide. Unfortunately, much of public policy addressing abortion stems from the Supreme Court’s landmark case Roe v. Wade. With the passing of Proposition 8 in the state of California regarding marriage, the court evidently did not align itself with public opinion. It was not until democracy overruled the court’s ruling, maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. Similarly, a democratic process must be applied.

The Case for Marriage

Owing to the passing of Proposition 8, many have approached me regarding the highly-controversial topic of same-sex marriage. I am currently finalizing a draft which will outline basic philosophical arguments as to why same-sex marriage is not in the nation's best interest.
All throughout my childhood I dreamed of becoming a professional NBA basketball player. Unfortunately, reality checked my unreachable ambitions, leading me in another direction. Everyone has an equal right of becoming, in this instance, a professional NBA athlete. The only requirement is that you meet necessary qualifications. Such qualifications are inherent in the definition of what constitutes a professional athlete. Similarly, one must meet the requirements for marriage. A marriage, as defined by law, is between a man and a woman. Homosexual activists argue their "rights" are being infringed. What rights? They, like everyone else can marry a member of the opposite sex. They, however, choose not to meet such qualifications and consequently are not categorized as a married couple by law. So what's the problem? Furthermore, if homosexual couples were only concerned with rights, they would be content with civil unions. Civil unions grant all rights married couples enjoy. So it isn't about rights, is it? Ofcourse not! It is about homosexuality being accepted in contemporary society.
Perhaps the first example was difficult to understand. Here is yet another: We have dogs and we have cats; two completely distinct animals. If all dogs are now classified as cats. Then what originally was a cat, is not longer a cat by that definition. More exactly, if homosexual couples are now married couples, the very definition of what originally was marriage, not longer exists.
Activists will use the example of the 1967 inter-racial marriage laws. Such laws prohibited, for example, a black man marrying a white woman. Clearly this is bigotry. You are proposing that one race is superior to another. This is a civil rights issue. In the case of same-sex marriage, this is not a civil rights issue. As stated previously, all citizens enjoy an equal right as under the definition of marriage. All can be married under law.
So what is the definition of marriage? Same-sex marriage activists will answer that it is an institution which recognizes one's love for another. If we base marriage on this premise, then why can't three people love each other, and thus be defined as married. Or four? Or Five? Why not polygamy? For this reason, marriage by law is based on the possibility for a couple to pro-create. Moreover, marriage as a bodily union contains an intrinsic good. Not only does the institution of marriage act as mechanism to "bring the sexes together", but it functions as an intrinsic good in that "one flesh" can flourish. Thus, even if a couple (man and woman) are instrumentalzing sex, rather than for the purpose of pro-creation, an intrinsic good (one flesh, joining of sexes) occurs. Additionally, other common intrinsic goods only come from marriage as an institution. For example, marriage by law is the only form to which children are legally bound to their biological parents. Also, marriage channels the act of sex into a common good (children) for society and not merely of instrumental purposes.
Interestingly enough, as Proposition 8 has passed, the same group (homosexuals) who champion the cause for tolerance have resorted to bigot acts and even hate crimes. Propaganda against the LDS church, burnings of Books of Mormon, and public, personal attacks against Proposition 8 supporters are but a few reactions towards the democratic grass-roots effort of Prop 8 supporters.
I have not identified the sociological effects same-sex marriage would impose. I have not referred to even theology to validate my arguments. There is nothing more frustrating than an individual who states; "Well same-sex marriage doesn't really affect me." My response; it will and it does.
I will conclude with this point. An evangelical church owns beautiful property in the state of New Jersey. Because of their religious beliefs, they do not permit same-sex marriages to occur of their private property. A few months ago the church politely rejected a same-sex couple's request for marriage. The result; a law suit which accused the church of exercising bigotry and as a result, lost tax exemption from the government. Imagine now, all private, charitable institutions losing their tax exemption. The Boys and Girls Club, how would it survive? What about the Boy Scouts or even the LDS church? Such institutions protect individuals from vice and harm. They are fundamental to human flourishing and virtuous lives. The case for same-sex marriage is not about rights. It is about infringing upon our rights to believe what we choose to believe, and what we deem as morally appropriate. Whether or not these activists intend to destroy America's institutions, I do not know. I do know that it is in America's best interest to protect the establishment of marriage as an intrinsic good for society.

BYU Students and Welfare

My comments apply particularly to students of Brigham Young University, who are mostly members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The subject I’m going to talk about can be especially touchy and provocative, so hold on.
I don’t think that married students with children should accept government welfare. Many students here at BYU do accept it, and some vigorously propose that it is good for BYU students to accept welfare. Consider the following reasons why married BYU students shouldn’t take welfare.
Firstly, welfare should be reserved for people who can’t help themselves. Some people aren’t always capable of doing that. Sometimes people experience things that are totally beyond their control, such as death or sickness. So when people find themselves in that position, welfare should be available to help them get back on their feet. In addition, some people, like those with serious mental disabilities, will never be able to fully provide for themselves and therefore may need to rely on public assistance. But most married BYU students with children don’t fit any of the above descriptions. Healthy, able-bodied couples should provide for themselves and any children they choose to have.
Secondly, if a couple wants to have children they should assure that they can reasonably afford to support them. Of course, couples shouldn’t postpone having children until their finances are perfect. However, a couple should take full responsibility for children they have. That responsibility includes providing for their child’s physical and spiritual well being as well as their child’s financial needs. Indeed, President Marion G. Romney said, “No true Latter-day Saint, while physically or emotionally able, will voluntarily shift the burden of his own or his family’s well-being to someone else.” A couple would never voluntarily give responsibility for their child’s spiritual or physical well being to someone else. So why would a couple be willing to give the financial responsibility of raising a child to taxpayers?
Some justify students’ use of welfare because students often face great pressures as a result of school and work. As a result, they may not have the time or energy to put into providing financially for a family; so welfare is the natural solution. The problem with this argument is that it ignores students’ choices. Being a student is voluntary. Many students are poor while they’re in school because they choose to be in school full time rather than work full time. Being married is also a very conscious decision and so is the choice to have a baby. The pressures of school, marriage, and parenting aren’t thrust upon anyone; rather, they are the results of free decisions. And nobody can or should make decisions and then ask someone else to be responsible for them. As stated in chapter 27 of Gospel Principles, “Parents work together to provide for the physical, spiritual, and emotional well-being of their family. They should never expect anyone to take care of this responsibility for them.”So married students should carefully consider their options. It’s very possible to go through school, work, and raise a family without government money. This author’s parents did it, as have countless others. BYU students are capable, talented, and smart, that’s why they were admitted to the University. And that’s why they can be their own supporters.

Derek Kirkland

A Thankful Heart

Some of the most upsetting days of the semester stem from goodbyes to the missionaries I teach. Naturally, I grow to sincerely love each district, each missionary, as they pass through the MTC. As tradition, on the last day before their departure, we organize a testimony meeting. Perhaps this event becomes the most spiritual and most fulfilling. The spiritual development of these 19 year old boys is indescribable. While listening to their testimonies, I noticed an evolving trend. Each elder expressed his gratitude for three specific things: 1) The power of prayer 2) the Savior's Atonement 3) the opportunity to serve a mission. I could not help but think of the impact a mission has on a young man or woman. More specifically, I was reminded of "a thankful heart."
I hope this Holiday season we take in account three of the English language's most meaningful yet neglected words: Thank you, and Remember. Looking back on history, as America divided on the moral issue of slavery, President Abraham Lincoln reminded citizens of the eternal principle of gratitude and of its unifying, peace-binding power:

" We have been the recipients of the choices bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown; but we have forgotten God.

We have forgotten the gracious land which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God who made us:

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

All this being done in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the divine teachings, that the united cry of the nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace."

Abraham Lincoln

Gratitude and humility are interchangeable. As our country currently encounters division, strife, pride, and impatience, I hope we "remember" to say "thank you" not only to family and friends, but more importantly, to our Creator.

Jefferson and the Enlightenment

Influenced by Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and Addison, Thomas Jefferson attributed much of his political ideology to these great thinkers. Truth, according to Jefferson could only be discovered by means of nature or reason. The following quotation given by Jefferson in a letter to his nephew:

"Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."