Category Archives: Thoughts on Social Issues

My opinions and thoughts about current events and topics

A Mass of Confusion

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

How could such a fundamental, universally understood truth, which stood unquestioned for eons of time, be dismissed and replaced with confusing lies, that have in a short time become not only accepted as doctrine by so many, but also forced upon the rest of us? How did an ideology that runs counter to truth and contradicts itself gain such momentum? Why are so many otherwise intelligent and reasonable people not only accepting the lies, but defending them and vilifying those who dare speak the truth?

When I started blogging in 2015, one of the first things I wrote was titled “On Being a Woman”. It was a reaction to something in the news then. I confess that it violated a principle I adopted later to not call out specific people in my posts, but to focus more on principles. I was also very passionate in that piece and have tried to be more calm – less ranty – since. But I still stand by everything I said there. The truth is still the truth. Women are women – women can only be women – men are not and can not be women.

Biological Truth

This is Truth. It is a biological reality that men are men and women are women. Men have an X and a Y Chromosome which results in physical characteristics and male sexual organs, among other things. Women have two X Chromosomes which results in different physical characteristics and female sexual organs. These differences are imbedded in every cell in every body. They exist independent and regardless of any surgical removals or enhancements or hormonal treatments. The extremely rare biological anomalies are exceptions that really do prove the rule. Humans are sexually binary. These physical differences make it possible for us to reproduce and therefore perpetuate humankind on this planet. That is the biological explanation.

Spiritual Truth

The spiritual explanation is that we have a God who is all knowing, all wise, all powerful, and all loving. In His love for us and his desire for our progression and happiness, He created physical bodies for us to learn and experience this physical world He created for that purpose.

God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:27

In 1995 the living Apostles of Jesus Christ issued a Proclamation to the World which states:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

This affirmed that gender is an eternal element of our identity. In plain words, we existed as spirits before we came here to gain a physical body and our spirits were already either male or female. Our spirits entered into physical bodies corresponding to our identity – God created them male and female. When we leave this world we will still be either male or female as we were in the beginning.

Of course, among men, and also among women, there is great physical variety – sizes, shapes, colors, etc. There is also great variety in personality, abilities, aptitudes, interests, etc. But there are those core characteristics that differentiate two very distinct sexes.

Ideology Rather than Individuals

Before the accusations that my words are hurtful, and lectures about “isn’t it more important to be accepting”, I would like to separate out individual human beings from the ideology. Yes, I care about people – very much. Yet, it is the very people that some would accuse me and others of offending, oppressing, or victimizing, who are actually being used and harmed by the ideology, and will be tossed aside when their usefulness to the cause has run it’s course.

Progression Downward

I wrote another blog post in December 2018, but never posted it. By this time, the transgender movement had advanced from a few prominent people bringing attention to it, to becoming more accepted and widespread and influential. I wondered then whether this focus and promotion of transgenderism would be the downfall of the whole liberal movement.

This was my question then: Are liberals really oblivious to the contradictions, conflicts and actual undermining of liberal causes by this focus on the T in the ever growing acronym LGBTQIAXYZ+? How could a movement at odds with itself – essentially with components cancelling out each other – continue?

But continue it did and somehow the T has become supreme. Transgenderism presents the optimum as far as oppression points (especially when combined with racial minority). It has become more in our faces. It is forcing changes to our whole social environment and is affecting the liberty of Americans.

A wise man posed a very good question:

The idea that anyone, even children, can snap their fingers and become the opposite sex is, objectively, crazier than fretting over nuclear war, and much crazier than anticipating the impending arrival of aliens. And yet, for most of the past decade or so, transgenderism somehow only grew more influential, and corrupted more institutions, the more unhinged it became. How could that be? 

Matt Walsh  The Trans Ideology Cult Is Collapsing Under The Weight Of Its Own Absurdity, Daily Wire 8/16/23
 

Destroying Feminism

First, I might point out that this whole LGBTQ+ package is part of a larger liberal package, which supposedly includes feminism.

I remember the beginnings of Women’s Lib in the 1960’s and 1970’s. There was bra burning and tossing of dresses for pantsuits. Clothing with gender specific meaning – especially somehow associated with being dominated, sexualized, or objectified – was thrown out. Yet, preferences for that demeaning feminine attire is exactly what men who now want to be women want to wear. But women aren’t supposed to want that if they want to be equal to men. So, we have men wearing dresses while women wear pants. Maybe we just need to switch the stereotypes and clothing departments?

Women fought for the right of girls to participate in sports. It was a badge of equality. I remember as a girl playing softball with boys in the field behind our house. I couldn’t play little league with boys and there were no girl leagues. What an advancement to have sports programs for girls, where they can compete against other girls on equal ground. But now we have full grown men who call themselves women so they compete against and dominate much smaller women. How does this advance the cause of women’s equality if men take over women’s sports?

Then there is that glass ceiling. Will it finally be broken by men who think they are women or by women who think they are men? Throw in enough of either or both and it could skew the numbers. How would we then know if women have arrived? How can a woman even be a proper feminist these days if a man can be one too?

Offensive Cultural Appropriation

Drag shows are becoming more popular recently and are now being presented as “family friendly”. I am still confused about drag queens. We used to call them transvestites. It is kind of a sexual fetish, so are they just deviants? Are they gay? They used to be thought of as gay. Are they transgender? How many have actually transitioned or do they really want to? Is this simply a temporary transformation for entertainment and attention?

Drag shows are essentially the same in nature to performers in Blackface. People are outraged and very offended at even the idea of Blackface these days. Individuals have been cancelled when very old photos have shown up. I, as a woman, am very offended at the idea of a bunch of full-grown men parading around in stereotypical slutty clothing most women don’t wear and thus mocking women and womanhood. I am all for comedy, but political correctness today makes it hard for comedians to mock many really funny truths. But somehow mocking women in this way is celebrated.

Gay vs Transgender

For years we have heard the mantra from gays – “we were born that way”. Same sex attraction was declared to be something that no one had any control over. It is just the way they are. No choice involved. I have heard many accounts of gays and lesbians who related that from early childhood that they knew they were gay and cited a connection with things associated with the other gender as evidence that this was inherent: girls who hated dresses and pretty things and like to play sports and do rough stuff; boys who did like girly stuff and drama and were un-athletic and nurturing. Stereotypes? Yes!

Now those who promote transgenderism, convincing vulnerable young men and women that they are the other gender, use those very same stereotypical preferences as evidence that they are really the opposite gender. Then they influence them to make irreversible changes to their bodies to fit their “real gender.” This involves a choice (though not fully understood by children) to change what already is.

If we are born with specific chromosomes, doesn’t it involve a conscious choice to change one’s gender? So, we are supposedly born with sexual orientation before we are sexual, yet can choose to change our gender based on how we feel? Is it about choice or how we are wired? I am confused – and I think they are too. And I wonder why gays are not upset at this undermining of their “born that way” argument?

How did this happen?

Now transgenderism is appearing to be an epidemic among young people. It has become the flash point for political and cultural debate. It is the issue upon which many lives are being forever altered – both among those transitioning and for those who dare to speak out against it.

How did something so blatantly untrue and counter to other liberal ideas, become the central focus of the whole movement?

I know that truth is consistent with truth. But lies are varied and can and often do conflict and contradict each other. Knowing the source of lies – the father of lies – this makes some sense. He doesn’t care whether his lies are consistent. His intent is to keep us from The Truth, in whatever way he can. If some will believe and support one lie – great for him. If others discount that lie or promote another – that is great too. Somehow, he has managed to create a coalition of lies with the real purpose being to unitedly fight against truth. Silly me to think the lies might actually fight against and undermine each other.

Yet, I wonder what has happened to people’s brains. Do people really believe that now after all these centuries of human life being perpetuated by two distinct sexes, we have now advanced to multiple genders that actually cannot perpetuate human life? Are people so devoted and faithful to the liberal cause that they blindly accept the whole package without question? Is it all about power – social and political? Certainly, there is money to be made in promoting expensive hormone treatments and surgeries. Or is it all evidence of the influence of the adversary in this fallen world?

The Emperor’s New Clothes – Today’s Version

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

You might remember from childhood the Hans Christian Anderson tale of the Emperor who was sold some clothing that was so amazing that only the enlightened could see it. In his vanity, he parades around naked until a little boy points out that he has no clothes. In the original tale, the Emperor was obviously deceived by those selling him the clothes and revealed as the fool that he was. The people finally see the truth after this child speaks up.

We are now living this story, with a new twist. And without the insight that comes to most children who hear it, or the happy ending of everyone finally seeing the truth.

The Emperor is Naked!

Yes, the Emperor really has no clothing. He is naked. This is the truth. He is also a he, showing very plainly his man parts. This is the reality.

But this is not what everyone believes. They, like the vain Emperor himself, have been convinced that not only is he not naked, but he is really a she. The enlightened ones see a beautiful woman, clothed in the most amazing ball gown, with glorious hair and makeup, and accessorized with high heels, jewels, and a tiara. She is gorgeous! And they fawn and rave. They call “her” a Queen, of course using the preferred pronouns.

One must wonder, who it is and how they have been able to convince the Emperor that clothing that is in reality not there, not only exists, but is beautiful. And more significantly, that his manly body has somehow been transformed into a female body by these magical clothes. But this is what he has come to believe.

Those in the crowd all want to be not only in the Emperor’s good favor, but also to be seen as on the right side of things. Even though they don’t see any clothing themselves, they insist that they do, so as to not appear to be unenlightened. They get caught up in the praise of the Queen’s amazing attire, even trying to outdo each other to reaffirm that they are on the right side – or maybe to keep trying to convince themselves.

One Little Boy

But there is this one troublesome little boy. He sees the Emperor’s man parts and knows what they are because he knows he is a boy and has them too. He dares to speak the truth.

At first, the crowd tries to educate him. He is obviously not enlightened like they are. He apparently is getting some misinformation from the wrong sources – meaning he is not listening to them. They point out to him all of the invisible details that prove that before them is the most beautifully dressed Queen. He doesn’t see it, because the clothing is not there. And the man parts are.

When he doesn’t get enlightened, they try to shame this boy. He is bad for not affirming the Queen’s beauty. If he doesn’t join them in showering compliments, then he is harming “her” – how horrible of him. How disrespectful, even hateful. As if he, a little boy, has some power over the one with all of the power.

When he persists, they turn to making him the problem. He is crazy if he can’t see what the enlightened see. And it is their duty to shut him up. They can’t allow him to cause anyone else to question what they are seeing – or not seeing. So they must convince him, and everyone in the crowd, that he is delusional, and thus dismiss him. They may convince the crowd that he is crazy, but this little boy knows that he is not. He knows what he sees.

He is persistent. So now they turn to threats. If he doesn’t shut up, he will be removed and punished. They must maintain the illusion to maintain order and power. So they finally remove him, but he leaves behind questions in the minds of some of the crowd. They really also see a naked man. They know the boy was right. But they don’t want what happened to the boy to happen to them, so they go away quietly.

Until maybe one day, after some quiet conversations between members of the crowd where they can admit among themselves that they were wrong and the boy was right, some might gain the courage that this little boy had.

Maybe?

Thoughts on Freedom of Speech: The Right to Disagree

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 1

After posting something once, I was told “Not everyone agrees with you.” If the only reason to post on social media is to get lots of Likes, I guess we should just limit posts to things everyone agrees with like pictures of beautiful scenery, flowers, food, and pets. (Even though it might be surprising to know that not everyone agrees that cats are wonderful.)

Expressing an opinion about something is rather risky these days. Unless we are all so secure within our own echo chambers preaching to the choir, there will be people who will disagree with almost anything we might say. With the country so polarized, too often others disagree loudly and not very nicely. It can be tough to hear criticisms, accusations and negative labels.

Foundations of Freedom of Speech

Have Americans forgotten, or have too many not been taught, that the founding of our country and government was accomplished with much disagreement? Those great men who spent a hot summer writing our Constitution disagreed, constantly and strongly, about almost everything. That amazing document is the result of heated debate and compromise. Even after it was written, the debates and disagreement continued through the ratification process and beyond.

The founders realized that all needed to have a voice. That right was included in the Bill of Rights. Free Speech is a protection of the minority. The right to speak up and be heard enables minorities to let those in power know that not everyone agrees with what they do. It is a check on their power. Citizens are more likely to accept legislation that they do not agree with if they are allowed a voice in the process. We all need to feel protected from retaliation for expressing criticism of government policy or action or simply stating an unpopular opinion.

I do take exception to personal attacks. I doubt the framers’ intent was to condone labeling, name calling, insulting, or condemning others, though the framers themselves flung a fair share of creative insults at each other. The sad reality is that such personal attacks are used most often by those attempting to silence others and deprive them of this constitutional right.

Non-Governmental Censors

The First Amendment restrains the government from restricting free speech, but we now see organizations and those wielding social influence exercising power to silence voices contrary to their preferred narratives. We have social media censorship, not to shield citizens from that which is profane or obscene, but from that which is not politically correct or the preferred position.

Sadly today we see people losing their reputations and often their livelihood because they said something contrary to the accepted narrative. The label of “hateful” is thrown about to silence and condemn those who disagree. This only results in more polarization and bad feelings.

From Social to Governmental?

The First Amendment constrains the government from silencing citizens through laws, but private corporations have some ability to be selective in what they allow on their platforms. That might not be a problem if they were unbiased, and allowed various views which adhered to established standards. It might not be a serious problem if they were clear and upfront about their actual bias, while still allowing contrasting views. It becomes a serious problem when contrary views are not allowed at all.

What is really alarming is the thought that if the political party whose positions media is biased toward, gains full control of the government. Will that in effect become government control of speech through complicit media? Laws restricting speech would not be necessary with social media monopolies allowing only the messages that one party wants to be heard.

A Challenge

If you are brave enough to listen to voices you disagree with, you might find that your disagreement is not so much with the ideas or principles as it is with the expression of them. You might even find some common ground, something within the argument that you can agree with. You might actually gain some insight into a different perspective or an aspect of an issue that you were unaware of. You might begin to understand where someone else is coming from, why they happen to see things the way they do. It is very likely that you may still disagree, but there is hope that you might see their position as legitimate and view them as a person with value.

So I claim my right to speak my mind. I acknowledge the right of everyone else to do the same and to openly disagree with me. That is Okay. It is possible to disagree and still respect each other as people.

The End of Roe V Wade

Posted on by Karen Stark
1

Seeing “pro-choice” people so hysterically upset about the June 24, 2022 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, makes we wonder whether they just don’t understand what the ruling does and does not do, or whether there is something more than the argument for choice going on.

This ruling did not create a nationwide ban on abortion. Abortion is not going away. No one is, or ever has been, “forced” by the government to bear children. Women still have control of their bodies, or at least as much self-control as they ever have had. As there has always been choice, especially all of the choices made which led to the situation seeking this particular choice, the “choice” to have an abortion is still there. There may be some other choices to be made about the where and when, but there is still choice.

About Choice

I always thought the real issue with choice was more about the desire to separate it from accountability – to remove the consequences of choices already made, which is what abortion essentially is. Now I see in these reactions that there is more to it than just this. People want to make selfish choices, but they also want affirmation that their choices are right, good, even virtuous. Even those who do not, or cannot (in the case of men) choose to have abortions themselves, want to feel that they have chosen the right side of this argument. The choice of language is to make one feel good promoting what is really bad: Pro-choice – as if anyone is really anti-choice; Reproductive “rights” and reproductive health care – which always results in death rather than reproduction.

This ruling leaves choice intact, but what it does do is remove the illusion that this particular choice is right or good. It removes the legitimacy of this action, which was wrong all along. Without the cover of “constitutional right” the bare selfishness of abortion is exposed.

Selfish choices are at the heart of all abortion, not just with those seeking abortion because a child would interfere with their life plans. There is also the selfishness of those who pressure or coerce vulnerable young women to get abortions, especially those who have already abused or exploited them and want to avoid responsibility for their choices. Then there is the selfishness, and greed, of those who profit from the industry, and the self-serving actions of those who exploit this issue to gain or retain political power.

Righting the Wrong

Many of us have known all along that abortion was morally wrong. Killing children is not “good” for individuals or for society, and certainly not for the aborted child. There never was a “right” to abortion in the constitution. Roe v. Wade was not a good ruling from the beginning. I knew it back in 1973 and was sick about it then. But according to our constitution we were bound by it. Just as we all are bound by this new ruling now.

I celebrate that we as a country are no longer bound by a bad court ruling. I applaud the Supreme Court Justices who had the courage to right this wrong. Women can and will still choose abortion, but now without national approval or sanction. The choice was always ours and so now is the accountability, whether that be for our personal choices, or our choice to vote for representatives who make laws in our States.

Celebrating Independence

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

As we celebrated Independence Day this year, I reflected on independence and why it is worth celebrating. Of course, on July 4th we celebrate the independence of a small group of colonies from the rule of their mother country and King. But it was the independent spirit of those colonists that led them to seek that political and institutional independence. An independent nation could not have been born without that spirit of independence.

Independent Roots

The roots of independence started with those brave souls who ventured across a vast ocean to settle a foreign wilderness. Though subjects of Kings, they had no assistance from the physically distant crown to ensure their survival. They learned that their survival depended upon their own self-sufficiency and actions for which they were personally responsible.

Forming communities required working together. Being so far removed from the mother country, they learned to govern themselves by necessity. It was quite some time before armies were provided for their defense, and the cost of such defense proved to be more than they were willing to bear. Their desire for self-determination and freedom outweighed the dangers that would be faced.

As things developed, leaders naturally sprung up from the masses, based on the strength of their characters, not appointed from above because of noble birth or the favor of Kings. It is because of this strength, courage and spirit, that independence from Britain seemed necessary and worth the long hard struggle.

Independent Individuals

At the heart of an independent nation are independent individuals. Independence implies a dependence on self rather than dependence on others or external conditions. It involves self-reliance and self-sufficiency – the ability to use resources, talents and abilities to meet one’s own needs. It includes a desire for self-determination, using agency to choose how to go about meeting those needs and how to personally pursue happiness. This is true liberty.

Accountable Independence

The exercise of liberty includes accountability. There are consequences of choices. Truly independent people take responsibility for the outcome of their choices, good or bad. Blaming implies dependence – someone or something else had control, we are powerless against whatever forces. Independent people not only take responsibility for the outcome of choices, but also take responsibility to correct errors and improve. Feelings of entitlement, expecting guarantees or wanting someone to step in and make everything right are signs of dependence.

Accountability raises the question of accountability to whom. Some may think independence means that one is only accountable to self. Yet, we live in a society. Are we accountable to each other? If so, does this place some in a position of control over others, creating dependence? Are we accountable to government? What does that mean in terms of our liberty and independence?

If we recognize the source of our inalienable rights and the resources, talents and abilities that we independently choose to use to meet needs, improve lives and be happy, then we will recognize that we are ultimately accountable to God. We will recognize the divine author of liberty and see in our independence as individual citizens our actual dependence upon God.

Independent Thought

Independent people think for themselves. In the formative days of our nation there was much more variety in viewpoints and perspectives than we might realize. There was no single official viewpoint or narrative that citizens were compelled to believe. Newspapers printed vastly different opinions and views of events. There were heated arguments in government and public gatherings.

Independent thinking people put in the effort to read and listen to various viewpoints and then come to their own conclusions. Freedom of speech was included in our Bill of Rights so that everyone could be heard, but it requires individual consideration of all perspectives to maintain real independence of thought.

Risks of Life and Liberty

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

I have observed through this year of Pandemic vastly different, even almost opposing, reactions and approaches to it. These have been so different that one might think we aren’t all dealing with the same thing. I read an article that examined these differences in terms of risk-aversion. As I read that article a thought came to me – If our forefathers had been as risk-averse as many of our citizens and leaders are today, we would have no United States of America.

A Risky Founding

The United States of America was formed at great risk. Let’s start at the beginning. How risky was it for people to take their families on board small ships and sail across a vast ocean? Unpredictable storms brought the risk of the ship sinking and all being lost. There were individual dangers too, mostly from illnesses that spread easily among close quarters. Stepping onto a ship in those days was very risky.

Surviving those risks of sea travel, these colonists set out to make homes in a totally foreign place. They had to find and grow food in unfamiliar settings to stave off the risk of starvation. There were risks from wild animals, unknown and unpredictable Natives, unfamiliar climates, and diseases. The fact that roughly half of the Mayflower passengers didn’t survive the first year here illustrates the severity of those risks. The risks didn’t diminish much as this new land became more settled, especially when settlers continually moved from established settlements to start new ones in the frontier.

The risk-adverse would have stayed in their known and predictable homes in Europe. They may have felt some security in the familiarity, but they were still subject to the many risks of life in that day.

After years of some prosperity here and possibly some risk-management as they learned and adapted, there came the issue of independence. The risk-averse would have not been willing to rock the boat. They would have accepted restrictions and oppression for the security of the Crown and remained second-class subjects. Some did. Even those risk-averse Loyalists became subject to the risk that they could come out on the losing side of the conflict.

Why were our founding fathers – and mothers – willing to risk their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor”? Why did they risk standing up to the greatest military power on the earth at the time?

Weighing Risks and Benefits

When it comes to risk there are always options to be weighed. Of course, some risks are taken out of stupidity, like the impulsiveness of youth not thinking through consequences, or being easily influenced by others. Most risks are taken, however, because something else is more important or because the consequences of inaction pose a greater risk than the action. It is often a matter of priorities.

For our forefathers the more important issue was liberty. It was worth the risk of everything else, as Patriot Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death”.

The risk-averse want guarantees – benefits without risk. Yet, there are inherent risks to life itself. Death is unavoidable and inevitable. Things happen that are outside human control. Managing risks really only effects the manner and timing of our individual deaths. Efforts to minimize risks can effect our quality of life – the amount of suffering or prosperity along the way. Too often, trying to eliminate one risk, just presents another. The question is then, which is the greater risk or which outcome is the most important.

Questions

Is preserving liberty worth a risk of life? When is the risk to life great enough to restrict liberty and how much? Such decisions vary according to individual priorities and perspectives, as we have seen in the approaches to this pandemic.

How would our forefathers judge today’s risk-aversion? Living amid every day dangers that they did, would they see our fearful avoidance as silly? Would they see contradictions in a society that celebrates risky extreme sports, yet fears simple human interactions?

After their sacrifices to secure our liberties, what would our founders think of our reluctance to risk losses or unpopularity (being cancelled) for exercising our right to act independently or speak our minds? Would they wonder to what extent our freedoms must be threatened before we would be willing to take the kind of risks that they did to establish and preserve them?

Finding Hope in a Divided World

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

It Starts with Human Nature

We all have a very human tendency to want to feel that we are right, that what we believe is true, that our perceptions are accurate. We gravitate towards those who share our view of the world and feel our perspective validated by them. Sometimes this goes to the extent of only surrounding ourselves with those who agree with us and excluding those who don’t. We live in a bubble.

Traditions of the Fathers

Often our belief systems, political positions and general view of the world are passed down to us through our parents and our education. Many people hold firm to such beliefs and positions. It becomes part of our identity – what and who we are as a group or a people. Such positions are self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating.

The biggest hope for that to change, is an opportunity to get outside one’s bubble or even take a step inside another bubble, to begin to see another perspective. Just a peek at an opposing view, and especially having one pushed upon you to educate you as to what is correct, usually has the opposite effect. We become defensive and hold more firmly to how we see things.

Judging Individuals

There is a real problem when such firmly held beliefs extend to judgments and feelings about an individual. People are complex. I believe we all have within ourselves a good core. We all started out as pure, innocent babies. We are all children of God. Yet, we also are all human. We all have faults, weaknesses and flaws. Not all choices we make are good. We all say and do stupid, insensitive, even cruel things with the potential to do others great harm, intentionally or not.

There is real danger in judging any person as inherently or completely bad. It can also be unwise to judge someone as totally good and incapable of doing wrong. Either way, everything is viewed through a narrow filter of our own bias, reinforcing a judgment we already made.

When we view an individual human being as purely good or bad, based on a preconceived belief – one that by nature we seek to reinforce and validate – we fail to see them as the complex human beings that they are. We fail to judge or treat them as we would want to be.

The Unjust Judgment of Evil

If our judgement of someone is bad – based on tradition and the beliefs of our group, or even what we think is our personal, objective assessment – we will naturally want to have that judgment validated. We will seek out messages that reinforce that belief. We pay attention to and enlarge on anything negative and ignore or dismiss anything good, forgetting that even bad people are capable of doing good. In fact, much of what we judge as bad in others, are actually good qualities taken to an extreme, or used in a way that we don’t agree with.

We judge the intent of someone we dislike to always be negative, forgetting that we don’t have the ability to read minds. Someone judged as evil cannot be capable of good, we think. If we open our minds to the thought that they could do good, then we might have to question our own judgment of them.

Being in a group that feels the same way about this person, negative messages are constantly reinforced. Even the slightest expression of doubt about something negative or consideration of something good is met with condemnation of us, so we shrink into silence. We see how the defense of this awful person by those OTHERS, has resulted in their vilification.

The Nonobjective Judgment of Good

If our judgment of someone is good – based on tradition and the beliefs of our group, or what we think is our personal, objective assessment – we will want to have that judgment validated. We will tend to give that person the benefit of the doubt when we hear anything negative. We dismiss or ignore negative things, thinking them uncharacteristic and therefore must not be true.

Such a person may do or say things very similar to someone we hate, yet are still judged as a good person. Their intent is always judged as good, even when they might act badly. We make excuses for them and deflect blame to others. We feel offense that they have been unfairly attacked when something negative is pointed out. We will defend them fervently, because we in effect are defending our perception of them and our sense of being right, as much or more than we are defending them personally.

Polarity Problems

Is there hope for a society which is polarized to such an extreme, with such certainty from both sides that they are right? If there truly is one right and one wrong position, then for one group to be right, the other must be totally wrong. Then it follows that one half of us are being deceived by and about the other. Which is really right? Who is being deceived? None of us want to believe that we have been sucked in, fooled or deceived.

But is it really an either/or? Is one position completely right and the other totally wrong? Or are we all being deceived? The better question would be to ask ourselves how we, in particular, are being deceived or mislead. But then, this requires the need to look at things with a more open mind, and to be open to the possibility that we may be wrong.

Perhaps the deception is in seeing only a selective part of the picture, and what is needed is an expanded vision? My fear is that too many of us are past the point of open minds. Crushing the opposition seems to be more the direction.

The Real Enemy

If we can stop looking at the world as US and THEM – with US being the good guys and THEM the bad guys – and see that we are all basically good guys with a common enemy seeking to destroy us all, there might be hope.

There is one who seeks to divide and destroy. That has been his aim from the beginning. He is cunning and devious and has had lots of practice. He fights not only openly against what is right, but he uses opposing ideas of right and wrong to turn us against each other. If he can convince us all that we are right and especially that the OTHERS are wrong and even evil, then he can just sit back and enjoy watching us destroy ourselves. I am sure that the devil is laughing much these days.

Change of Mind?

As I reflect back four years, I recall trying to prepare myself for what appeared to be dark days coming. At that point, I saw only two bad options, and no real good outcome. I do recall saying when I came home on election night and got a glance at the shocked faces on my TV screen, and then the numbers displayed: “Oh, so we are in for a different kind of nightmare.”

The interesting thing is that in spite of not necessarily seeing a good result, I did accept the result. And I think because of that acceptance, through the process of time and observation, my mind changed. I guess it was open a little crack. Without clinging to the belief that the outcome was wrong – kind of like the belief of a certain people in the Book of Mormon who felt that they had been wronged and the government had been stolen from them (see Alma 54:17) – I accepted it as what it was. I had enough faith in the system that we could survive for fours years. We as a country had survived much already and we had a system that hopefully would keep things in check.

That bit of an open mind allowed me to see the good that has happened. It did not change a certain personality, but I could see good fruits from a less than perfect individual’s efforts. Being freed from the need to maintain a negative judgment also opened my eyes to the unfair process of constant negative focus reinforcing the hatred. I saw a larger picture.

What is Ahead?

As I have found myself increasingly anxious about conditions in our world today, my tendency has been to try to persuade others to share my concerns, maybe with some faint hope that things might shift in the direction I see as best. After reflecting back to my resignation four years ago, I am starting to look at the future differently.

Though I would have liked to have changed the past four years, I survived it. WE have survived it. This may be just the beginning of many unpleasant things we will have to go through before the end. Our divisions may likely increase, maybe to the point of no return.

As I read the Book of Mormon, I see that things really deteriorated in just the few years before Christ came (see 3 Nephi 6-7). The government completely fell apart. Maybe our government will collapse? It was a good experiment in self-government, but successful self-government depends upon the goodness, honesty, and virtue of the citizens, and their unity around common principles. When the voice of the people chooses that which is wrong in the sight of God, we are in trouble (see Mosiah 29:27). “A house divided against itself cannot stand“, as Abraham Lincoln said. Maybe we will lose the freedoms we take for granted? We just might have to live under socialism or communism. Maybe we will have an outright civil war? Our divisions may weaken us to the point that we are easily invaded and conquered by another nation, as was the pattern in the Book of Mormon. Things could get really ugly.

Hope

So where is our hope? Where it always has been and always will be. Our hope is in Christ. He will return as prophesied and all of this ugliness will come to an end.

What will matter at that point? I hope I can get past the point of wanting to say “I told you so.” Being “right” will not really matter. It will only matter if our hearts are right. If we are prepared to be with Christ and live in a better world, not successfully or comfortably in this imperfect, and too often unjust and cruel world. Preparation for that will require becoming a better person. Will that be our focus going forward?

Who is Being Deceived?

Posted on by Karen Stark
4

I have found myself asking that question when observing the certainty with which people affirm what appear to be polar opposite views of a situation or event. In fact, we seem to be living in a parallel universe where half are seeing things one way and the other half seeing something totally different. Yet, both sides are certain that they are right. Which is reality? If one is viewing reality, then the other must be deceived into seeing something false as real. Or could we all possibly be deceived about some things? It is enough to make one feel crazy.

Gaslighting

I saw an anonymous piece about Gaslighting shared on Facebook. I was reluctant to share it, not wanting to start any contentious discussion about details in it. I will share the beginning and the end which present the phenomenon in general terms.

“The term [gaslighting] originates in the systematic psychological manipulation of a victim by her husband in Patrick Hamilton’s 1938 stage play Gas Light, and the film adaptations released in 1940 and 1944. In the story, the husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes. The play’s title alludes to how the abusive husband slowly dims the gas lights in their home, while pretending nothing has changed, in an effort to make his wife doubt her own perceptions. The wife repeatedly asks her husband to confirm her perceptions about the dimming lights, but in defiance of reality, he keeps insisting that the lights are the same and instead it is she who is going insane.”

Having spent a period of my life studying addiction and working with families experiencing it, this is very familiar. There is a common joke said among them which goes like this: “How can you tell if an alcoholic or addict is lying?” “You can see their lips move.” Yet, family members have a common tendency to repeatedly believe what their addicted family member tells them when it contradicts what they observe with their own senses. I understand the feeling of craziness and doubting one’s own perceptions. We want to believe and trust, so we even convince ourselves that we must be imagining things, or our perceptions are off. We feel we are going crazy. And in the process power shifts from us to the deceiver.

Gaslighting on a Societal Level

On a societal level we want to be able to trust organizations to give us accurate information about events in our world. In taking sides, we tend to trust only certain sources and see others as the source of misinformation and lies when they differ. Have we lost trust in our own perception and judgment? Do we need, as Bari Weiss pointed out, the “enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else” of the truth to interpret the world for us? Feeling secure in a bubble with your trusted sources, you can dismiss alternate views as obviously the wrong ones without even seriously considering them.

We also have the added influence of peer pressure. It is like we are living the old fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes. When everyone around us, especially those who are supposed to know, are raving, we want to go along. Speaking out about the reality that we see results in our being treated like the crazy ones, or worse vilified, censored or cancelled. It is easier, and safer, to not even think about it – just silently and without question accept the narrative, reflexively parroting approved sound bites. It seems better to believe than to feel crazy. And of course, that is the point.

Think For Yourself – Trust Your Gut

I learned from alcoholics that the best course is to look at behavior/actions/fruits rather than listen to flattering words. With much that has happened recently, I try to trust myself, my first gut reactions, and what I see. When some sensational bombshell is tweeted, I try to sit back for at least a few days to see what develops. Usually, with looking at a variety of sources, facts gradually come out that paint a more complex and sometimes a very different picture. Things are too often taken out of context and it takes some effort to listen to more and varied voices to understand the context. Like dealing realistically with addicts, this involves using one’s own senses, observations and perception, rather than just accepting what you are told as fact.

Too many things this year have left me feeling that something is not right. The picture being painted does not fit with the reality that I personally see and experience. Reactions seem extreme and out of proportion. Things presented as spontaneous feel rather orchestrated and unnatural. I ask myself questions. Does this make sense? How does this fit with what I already know about history, government, natural laws and human nature? Where is this coming from? Who wants me to believe this and why? Who stands to benefit from people believing this? What about the money? It is always good to follow the money. I come to a conclusion of what is true and real based on my own observations and reasoning, rather than simply what I am told.

I will conclude with the conclusion from this anonymous post:

“Gaslighting has become one of the most pervasive and destructive tactics in American politics. It is the exact opposite of what our political system was meant to be. It deals in lies and psychological coercion, and not the truth and intellectual discourse. If you ever ask yourself if you’re crazy, you are not. Crazy people aren’t sane enough to ask themselves if they’re crazy. So, trust yourself, believe what’s in your heart. Trust your eyes over what you are told. Never listen to the people who tell you that you are crazy, because you are not, you’re being gaslighted.

Maybe the crazy ones are the ones so readily believing the lies?

Thoughts on Freedom of Assembly

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Ammendment 1

Through experiences of the past months, I am seeing that there is something profoundly valuable about being able to assemble as a group of people with a common purpose. Though business can and has been conducted remotely, there are added benefits to gathering together–feelings of unity, bonds, and synergy, that are lacking in the virtual world.

I remember back some decades to my time as a social worker. I observed that dysfunctional, and especially abusive families, were often isolated. This is largely due to efforts by abusers to maintain power and control. There are the obvious dangers of a lack of a support system or the ability to seek help, but there is another less obvious danger–isolation.

Isolation deprives us of needed reality checks. It is the casual observations and exchanges with others that give us our sense of what is normal. They give us opportunities to question our perceptions when they are different from others. We see common feelings and ideas and relate to shared experiences. Without these outside interactions, abused spouses and children come to see their restricted, abusive world as normal. Fears of outside dangers become magnified when interpreted only through the abuser.

After months now of social isolation and the absence of many of our routine group activities, the few and rather small gatherings of late have given me an unexpected emotional boost, almost like a cold drink after a long hot day makes me realize how thirsty I was. It feels wonderful! It brings back a feeling of normal. I suddenly have again a chance to feel validation for my thoughts and feelings through hearing others share theirs, with emotion conveyed as it only can be in person. An emoji can never convey what a smile, slightly raised eyebrow, or the hint of a tear in an eye can.

Humans are social beings. We need to be with each other. This is how it is supposed to be. There is great wisdom in the Founders recognizing and protecting the inherent rights of citizens to assemble for various peaceful purposes. Probably the most important purpose being to gather for the free exercise of religion. My soul is starved for that interaction now.

Division and fears are magnified when we are kept apart. Through isolation, governments can too easily exercise excessive power and control and in the process deprive us of those experiences which reinforce our shared humanity and foster unity. I hope this is a lesson from this experience that we do not forget.

Overreaction of Outrage

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

We have all probably at some time pointed out to another person that they were overreacting to something. The reaction appears disproportionate to the precipitating act or event. You would think we would be able to recognize that when it happens, with others if not always with ourselves. However, overreaction has become so common and routine, that to many it seems more like an appropriate reaction, even presented as the socially acceptable reaction. Failing to panic or share outrage therefore reflects a flaw in the calm ones.

2016

I think it started four years ago. We had a national election. This has happened every four years for over two centuries. Each time there is a winner and a looser. Sometimes the outcome has been pretty one-sided, but for the most part, roughly half of the country’s population is not happy about the outcome of any election. There have been complaints and some whining, but people generally accepted the outcome and tried to make the best of it, knowing that in four years there would be an opportunity to make a change. This is the way of our system.

The reaction to the 2016 presidential election seemed to me not only pointless and unnecessary, but way out of proportion. It wasn’t just a moment of upset and it was much more extreme than previous sore losers. The media has continued and fueled the overreaction by focusing on and blowing every possible negative out of proportion. It has been one outrage after another, ad nauseam, for four years. I think this has conditioned us, so that many fail to see how inappropriate and unwarranted most of the outrage has been.

Looking back at those outrageous reactions and the incidents that spurred them, were those situations really that dire? Actually, each crisis blew up and then kind of disappeared from mind and view as the next incident fueled another outrage. Yet, the angst remained waiting, almost anticipating the next thing to unleash the outrage on.

Irrational and Unnatural

The overreaction to these events appears irrational if one looks objectively at facts and data, in the context of history and considers multiple perspectives. The outrage probably seems reasonable after listening only to selected facts and exaggerations as part of the awfullizing narrative. Since these reactions are so emotional, what I have come to notice is my own gut reactions, which are a sense of something not right, something unnatural, contrived, even orchestrated, rather than an authentic and proportional reaction.

COVID-19

Then amid these repeating overreactions came a real threat – a serious, potentially deadly new disease. Something real to react to. At first, it seemed crazy to me that the world was suddenly shutting down. Sure this was a bad disease, but historically there have been worse. I was reading at the time a biography of Benjamin Rush in which was recounted the 1793 yellow fever epidemic which killed 10 percent of Philadelphia’s population. Even the worst – and now recognized to be unrealistic – predictions avout this new virus weren’t near that kind of death toll.

I remembered H1N1 not too many years ago. Nothing shut down. Life was normal. I went to a funeral for a victim of that virus, stood in a line with hundreds of people right next to other who all shook hands and hugged the family members who had been with her through her illness. No masks, no gloves, no hand sanitizer, no panic.

This reaction to COVID-19 felt so out of proportion. Sure, it was wise to take precautions and prepare, but was it necessary for life to stop for so long? We are beginning to see that the negative effects of shutting down may be worse than the effects of the actual disease. Yet, reacting to those actions is deemed inappropriate.

Black Lives Matter

As if we have not had enough, or possibly because isolation, economic hardships and anxiety are making people crazy, we have another overreaction of outrage. No one is arguing that the precipitating event was not horrible. Outrage at such actions is appropriate, as with other horrible incidents that have happened. We have had vigils, memorials, and demonstrations and people have made their voices heard in peaceful ways. Action has been taken.

But this has turned into something else, something way out of proportion, something very destructive. It is going on and on and getting worse. Instead of all joining in common outrage about behavior unacceptable to everyone, it has turned us against each other. Why? There is something more here than normal outrage at a horrible incident. It does not feel right. It feels contrived, manipulated, orchestrated, like a real tragedy is being used for a larger agenda.

People will say there must be an extreme reaction to accomplish change. But what change is really needed? Are things worse than they were 20 years ago? Are they worse than they were 60 years ago–the 1960’s? Though racism does still exist, the proposed solutions/demands seem way out of proportion to the problem. This dos not warrant destruction of our whole system.

So, I go back to my gut feelings. Something is not right here in America. I don’t think it is what the outraged are attacking as the problem.