Zion

C.S. Lewis discusses how the Moral Law determines when and how to play the notes on the piano of our instincts. Meaning, evolution gives an explanation for our instinct to strive for our own survival (individuals who don't strive for survival die out). Evolution also gives an explanation for our herd instinct, our desire to help others within our species (species of creatures who don't help each other, or try to kill each other, die out).

How is it decided whether we heed the selfish instinct or the herd instinct? C.S. Lewis argues that it is the Moral Law that often tells us that the selfless choice is the better one. "The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys."

In more spiritual terms, we have a drive to create Zion. We have an innate desire to trust and be trusted and hence have intimate relationships.

The Book of Mormon says "if they should have charity they should not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish" (2 Nephi 26:30-31).

I have seen this in my own situation in Provo, Utah. Those who live around me want to do well in school and someday make money, but they put being kind and serving in the Church first. I think that makes our little part of the world a beautiful place to live in.

God knows that for us to have lasting success we need one of our top priorities to be Zion, a society of people who want to help each other. I believe that striving for this will lead to more individual and community excellence.

Religious Freedom Laws and Gay Rights

Recently some of the states in the South have passed bills which protect religious freedom. Most people presume that the purpose of these bills is to ensure that religious people won't have to offer services for same-sex weddings or support homosexual activity if it violates their conscience.

One particularly aggressive interviewer on CNN interrogated a woman who didn't want to offer services at a same-sex wedding. He asked her if she would serve to somebody who had violated one of the ten commandments, like committing adultery or not honoring their parents. She said yes, and so he asked what the difference was. Under pressure, she said it just seemed different to her and had no other explanation.

However, there is a viable explanation for why serving at a gay wedding is different than serving gay couples in general. Supporting those events is more closely connected to supporting certain behavior, rather than just supporting people. A better comparison for that interviewer to make would be serving at a party that celebrates adultery or a party that celebrates dishonoring one's parents. These businesses would not condone that. They may want to help gay couples, but according to their beliefs, that would mean that they won’t encourage them in homosexual activity. The exchange should not happen from an efficiency standpoint either, since the cost to the firm (including the cost to their conscience) exceeds the willingness to pay of the gay couple.

The current gay rights discussion is also frequently compared to the civil rights era for African Americans. However, withholding service from people based on who they are is much different than withholding service based on what the service is.

Someday I would like to be a public defender. I think that it would be very fulfilling to help people, even guilty people, to be put in the most free position that our laws allow. But of course this desire does not extend to me wanting to support anything wrong that they have done. Some people don’t believe business people who say they love gay people but don’t want to serve at their weddings; yet society does believe that public defenders care about the accused without supporting their crimes.

Referencing Jesus' love for the sinner but not the sin is not just an excuse of these business owners to avoid serving gay people. Many really are happy to serve gay people if it does not involve supporting homosexual activity.

People with stronger religious consciences have been less likely to join in the mocking of homosexuality, even when mocking it was more common, which was the case even just ten years ago. Yet now that their conscience tells them to withhold support from an activity that they find morally wrong, they are sometimes labeled as the worst discriminators. While I am not sure about the answer to the legal dispute, I think that an accurate view of those opposed to gay marriage will lead to better policies, and hopefully we can also work to have an accurate view of those who support gay marriage.

How sure should we be?

O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of killing his wife in a criminal case and yet he was found liable for her death in a civil case. This is because the burden of proof is different in criminal and civil cases. The burden of proof is the responsibility (burden) of giving evidence (proving) that what you are saying is true. If you don't have any of the burden of proof, then as long as the other side doesn't do a good job of proving then you get what you want. In criminal cases the state must show that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, but in civil cases (suing-related cases, involving money not jail) the plaintiff (the person suing) only needs to show that a preponderance (over half) of the evidence indicates that the defendant did what they are accused of. So it isn't unreasonable for there to be enough evidence to find someone "not guilty" in a criminal case but "guilty" in a civil case.

Though we might not like that O.J. Simpson didn't go to jail, it is comforting that the state can't put me in jail simply because there is some random evidence that makes it look 51% likely that I commit a crime. We generally think it is better to occasionally let a guilty guy off than to occasionally put someone innocent in prison (though I could finally find time to write a book if I went to prison).

The point of all that was to show that it matters who has the burden and how high the standard of proof is. Now I'll talk about how that applies to government programs and to keeping God's commandments.

With regard to implementing government programs, I believe that the burden of proof should be on those advocating the program. Those who are advocating an expansion of government will tend to recognize and feel the benefits of the program more clearly than they recognize the costs that are imposed on everyone in their country as a result of the increased bureaucracy and taxes.

This doesn't mean that advocates of government programs are always wrong, but that we should expect evidence that shows that it is really likely that the program will be effective before we implement the program. Unlike most organizations and individuals, government is forceful, and so we should expect more than 51% certainty before expanding its power. For example, there are a lot of ways that people can become educated, ways that don't involve extra taxes, and so I think that it should be very clear that additional funds to public education will work before the funds are given. The lack of clear evidence that increasing funds to public education always works makes me wonder if we are too quick to accept the implementation of more of those programs.

When we are deciding whether to live our lives more in harmony with God's teachings, what is the burden and standard of proof? How proven does a commandment need to be before we decide that it is worth doing everything I can to live it? Do I need to prove for myself that the commandments are meant for me, or does God need to prove it to me?

I have never regretted an attempt to put my life more in harmony with God's teachings, even when it has required some sacrifice. Deciding to take time for God and swallow my pride has always brought me peace, expanded my knowledge, and created deeper relationships in my life.

It is important to ask questions so that we are not misguided, but expecting that every commandment will make sense beyond a reasonable doubt may not make sense if we already have a deep testimony that God loves us and wants what is best for us.

This past week I had to decide whether to prepare for and be attentive to a general conference that my church had. I really was not sure that doing so would pay off, and had to decide to prepare and go despite God not proving to me the importance of doing so. In God's goodness, He blessed me with great spiritual knowledge during the conference.

I know that God lives, and that by pressing forward (going to church, keeping the commandments, etc.) during times of trial we will learn far more than if we always place the burden of proof on God.