

"For the Good of..."
I was recently reminded of a pattern I've observed over the years in academia, when professors sneak to a chair or a dean complaining about the acts or behavior of a colleague, citing their interest "for the good of the students." In no cases have such individuals actually talked to their colleague, even when the complainers are fully tenured and risk nothing, and in the majority of the cases, they don't even know the facts surrounding their complaint. Their sole interest is not in the "good of the students" or solving the problem, but in creating trouble for a colleague.
The problem with this kind of behavior is that, unfortunately, it's not confined to academia. Remember, there was a fellow named Hitler who engaged in genocide and created something called the Holocaust "for the good of" the Reich, the Fatherland, and the purity of the Aryan race. And there were some folks in the
In the United States, as a result of a single terrorist attack, we've endured all sorts of restrictions and infringements of civil liberties for our own "good" and security, even when subsequent acts by airline passengers, for example, have suggested strongly that repetition of the 9/11 methodology is highly unlikely to be successful a second time around.
Most recently, we've had the leadership of the Church of the Latter Day Saints pouring millions of dollars and thousands of volunteers into the effort to support Proposition 8 in
In all these cases, and doubtless hundreds, if not thousands of others, those who have professed to be "for the good" of something really weren't. They were using the argument of "good" to oppose, if not to kill or destroy, that which they opposed, and most of those using the "for the good of" argument have in mind restrictions and punishments of others, and not solutions to problems.
I object strongly to this tactic. It's hypocritical, devious, misleading, and unethical. If you believe something to be wrong, say so, and be prepared to explain exactly why it's wrong, and why you need to destroy, restrict, or otherwise infringe on the liberties of others, and why there is no other better solution. There times when that may in fact be necessary, but I'd wager that those cases are very few indeed, especially compared to the number of times when "good" is trotted out to harm others.
It seems to me that the Church's interest was far more weighted towards protecting itself from legal issues than harming the LGBT community. Certainly California already has a law guaranteeing civil unions the same right as heterosexual marriages.
Furthermore, Proposition 8 was already overwhelmingly passed in 2000, but since it wasn't at that time a constitutional amendment, judges overturned it. Mormons make up a small percentage of the California population, and the numbers are fuzzy, so depending on who you believe, more money was spent by opponents of Prop 8 than supporters. Scapegoating the Mormon Church for Prop 8 seems a little bit silly to me; they were hardly the only organization to support the proposition, they just happen to be the best organized.
The anti-gay marriage amendment passed in Arizona, too. The people here went straight to the amendment form after stating that if they just made it a law, the court could overturn it like they did in CA.
When did the government gain the power to legislate morality and life choices?
Nowhere in America is there a law requiring any religious institution to perform or recognize any marriage it does not wish to. The only areas where religious institutions run into conflicts with these laws is when they extend into secular areas such as hospitals or EOE, and if the statement Curtis quoted is an accurate representation of the LDS Church's position, then there's no issue.
Yet still, members spend millions (completely on their own and without any direction from their clergymen, no doubt) to defeat such laws, and the always trot out the "traditional family" argument, which is patently absurd. Explain to me how any couple's rights are infringed upon by the existence of the same rights for other couples.
Perhaps I'm not directly addressing Mr. Modesitt's point of people doing things "for the good of x;" I sort of zeroed in on his attack on the Mormon Church. If you are interested in verifying my quote, you can find it here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/
I find two things wrong with the arguments about prop 8. Under California law, no legal rights were terminated other than being able to call a civil union a "marriage." Because of this, I have difficulty seeing this as a civil rights issue. Certainly Martin Luther King Jr. marched for more important things than a piece of paper. There was serious oppression of black people in the 60s, and I just don't see the parallels today. No one is out putting burning crosses in the front lawns of gay or lesbian couples. Quite the opposite if anything, as people have been vandalizing property of the LDS church.
Second, it's silly to say that the government can't legislate morality. What is the basis of our laws if not morality? Laws are nothing but the reflection of the morals a society holds dear. For supporters of prop 8, a moral held very dearly is that sexual relations should be confined within a legal, heterosexual marriage. Over the last 50 years, society has deemed that many laws related to this no longer reflect the majority's values. In this instance, the majority of people in California still believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Some of the ads in support of Prop 8 may have used the phrase "For the good of the traditional family," but the proposition really came down to a majority of Californians saying they have different values than the LGBT community. This was never about using the anthem "for the good. . ." to oppress.
The LDS church isn't being " hypocritical, devious, misleading, and unethical," they have clearly stated that they "believe something to be wrong" and have stated why they need to "destroy, restrict, or otherwise infringe on the liberties of others." In 1998, the late Gordon B. Hinckley (then president of the Church) said,
"In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.
People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.
We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families. "
Part of the reason, of course, is that the federal government has yet to recognize such, and states have no control over federal taxes, naturalization, et cetera. It's why I am thoroughly baffled when someone claims that "separate but equal" isn't anything but. There is a legal status called marriage in this country which is not allowed to same-sex couples, not in any state in the union. They do not have equal rights anywhere.
Your difficulty in seeing this as a civil rights issue because crosses aren't being burned suggests you need to look harder. In 2006, 910 incidents classified as anti-homosexual hate crimes were reported to the FBI. This was not the number of such crimes committed, firstly because reporting hate crime statistics to the FBI is not mandatory, secondly because twenty-seven states either don't include sexual orientation in their hate crime laws or simply don't have hate crime laws in the first place. And of course this doesn't cover crimes which aren't recognized as hate crimes, or simply aren't discovered or reported at all.
In other words, just because today's violent bigots lack the theatricality of the burning crosses and white sheets of yesteryear, doesn't mean they don't exist.
It seems that if civil unions don't currently have the exact same rights, then that's where the LGBT community should start. Certainly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is on record saying it does not oppose that.
And if adults who happened to be members of a particular religion were denied equal access to marriage rights, I presume that neither of us would disagree that the fight to obtain equality was a civil rights issue, regardless of the presence or lack thereof of burning crosses, correct?
Assuming that we're in agreement on that hypothetical, how is it again that you don't consider equal rights for same-sex couples (which will not exist until every level of government recognizes such and every legal benefit and protection that is afforded to opposite-sex couples is available to same-sex couples) to be a civil rights issue?
That's fine. If you're not confined to just the LDS Church, I wanted to know why you singled them out. Comparing them to Fascist Germany and the Spanish Inquisition is a strong statement. Again, the Mormon Church did not put Prop 8 on the ballot, they merely supported those who did. A diverse coalition of people took the trouble to make a stand on a moral issue and the people of California had a democratic vote. If you want to lump everyone who voted for 8 and every organization that supported it into a group with the Holocaust, that's your moral decision.
Nathaniel, I was merely supporting my assertion that the opposition to blacks in the '60s cannot be compared to what the LGBT community is facing today. There will always be hate crimes as long as humans exist, no matter what we legislate.
You're also making the leap that "gay marriage" is the only way to remove inequality from our laws. I've said several times that patching up the civil union laws would take religion out of the equation.
If there were a ballot initiative proposing to amend the constitution to deny equal rights to religious people, I would have opposed that as fervently as I did Prop 8.
The belief that we can provide equality in marriage laws by taking 'marriage' out of the equation in reference to same-sex couples is as misguided as the belief that banning guns would solve the gun problem in a country with over a hundred million guns. There exists in our society a status known as 'marriage', one with many codified legal rights and benefits, almost all of them having nothing whatsoever to do with one's religious beliefs and organization.
Marriage is not solely a religious institution, regardless of the attempts by churches to claim dominion over them. Marriage benefits are conferred upon couples regardless of their ability or intent to have children, so the claim that same-sex couples aren't marriages because they can't reproduce is simply ridiculous. To attempt to deny a portion of our society access to marriage is institutionalized bigotry. To attempt to create a separate but equal status for same-sex couples is as misguided, and as doomed to failure in creating equal status, as Jim Crow.
I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. When the arguments against same-sex marriage are stripped of other pretenses and fallacies, (slippery slope arguments, irrelevant references to reproduction,) but there's still the avoidance of admitting to overt bigotry, the final effort is typically 'because it's always been that way'.
Invoking the legal principles of the era of Justinian is a bit more colorful than this usually gets, possibly because the more experienced debaters will recognize the pitfalls in holding up a centuries-dead oligarchical society which in its latter years was a hereditary autocracy with a slave-based economy as the pinnacle of enlightenment and the apparent model for which our society should be based.
My original reason for entering this fray was to understand Mr. Modesitt's reasons for singling out the LDS church. His most recent comment illustrated that quite clearly for me.
I never made references to "slippery slope" or "reproduction." Since you brought those up, I believe that's what's called a "straw man" argument. I have contended time and again that a homosexual couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple, but if they want the same legal rights under the law, I won't oppose legislation for a civil union. You are certainly entitled to feel differently.
It's also especially true now that when someone uses those words; when someone says "it's good for you" and initiates some process that affects an individual's life, that individual is at least partly to blame for taking the justification at face value and letting it happen without even trying to look beyond what may be no more than a simple platitude.
Anyway, as you often point out in your novels, there are nearly as many perspectives in the world as there are people; a number of those who claim they are acting "for the good of" others probably do believe it. In some cases it's doubtless true. Even at its worst, though, when an individual knowingly uses the phrase as part of a message of subjective "good" to promote an agenda of subjective "evil," it is nothing more than a justification, and only one among a countless number of such. It's unfortunate, but everyone who has lived or will live for the foreseeable future will falsely justify their actions at some point in life, whether it's for their own peace of mind or because "the ends justify the means."
It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid; you rail out against false justification, but it cannot be eliminated. The damage those unethical individuals do who utilize such in the public domain can be mitigated, of course, via ethics and oversight committees, information campaigns, and other methods of which you are doubtless more aware than I, but the crime itself is endemic to our people and is here to stay. The world is learning to be wary of proposals advanced in the name of its own good, but there will always be other phrases and those who will make use of them to deceive.
I suppose it's possible that because of your ideals (and I do identify with those), you find the phrase especially revolting on an emotional level. When I think of Native Americans receiving as gifts blankets contaminated with smallpox, it arouses much the same sentiment I imagine you feel, an especially strong sense of revulsion and foul play at those who conceal something malignant in a gesture of good will. Emotion aside, though, phrases like the one you're talking about are all justifications; they are all the same phrase. They advance an agenda, whether that agenda is for subjective good or ill.
It is, of course, the duty of those interested in the proceedings to scrutinize the facts and illuminate any errors, deception, or potential results that may be adverse to their way of thinking; otherwise, they give control of part of their lives - they give a portion of their lifetimes - to another who may not be acting in accordance with their interests. The upside of all of this is that as people, we're already used to looking for deception and potential adversity, and in the public domain, whether it's as part of a proposal or a review - in any forum, really, that requires one justify one's self - what is being justified is, in one way or another, already in question, and under examination by professionals on the subject. Deceit and adversity still happen, of course, but experience with such along with other measures at least generally keep the damage to a minimum.
As an aside, those who - like the academics in your first example - appeal to authority to resolve their petty differences give up responsibility; they deserve the precedent of interference in their affairs they have thus set.
<< Back to all Blog posts