How to make the bathroom issue worse

A copy of my Facebook comments in opposition to this article on Patheos about bathroom issue.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/the-disgusting-hypocrisy-of-the-anti-trans-bathroom-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FBCP-PATH&utm_content=formerlyfundie

This article is so poor. First line is false. Last line is a lie. Is it intentionally bad? Yes, I think so. A silly attempt to make an emotional appeal and cloud the situation, not provide insight. The argument for safety is consistent. This is pretty simple. Use the bathroom that matches your plumbing and stop dressing like the opposite sex.

1. There is no movement to make peeing while trans illegal. False.
2.People could always use the bathroom of their gender. Charlotte wanted to change that.
3.Forces on the right are not working tirelessly to make it illegal for trans to use the bathroom of their gender. False. Charlotte city council was trying to create a new protected class and it was poorly written, which would invite abuse of the rule. The state stepped in to correct it.
4.There is no issue of male violence. False. This is not the source of the bathroom issue.
5.It is possible that people would abuse the rule and enter the wrong bathroom. This is being reported where ever the rule is changed and the behavior allowed. This is not a fear but reality.
6.People should be safe in bathrooms. However, that is rarely a problem. This is as much about modesty. It isn’t too much to ask to ask men to use the men’s room. No one on the right said there is not a price too high to pay for safety of our families in the bathroom. It is false to equate this imaginary radical position to the left saying we need common sense gun regulations.
7.It is true that criminals don’t obey gun laws.
8.We should promote safety, both in the bathrooms and with guns. This isn’t a selfish protection of my rights over someone else’s rights. Men should use the men’s room and most gun owners are not a threat to anyone.
9.No one knew or cared about transgender using the bathroom until Charlotte city council got involved and created a mess.
10.Everyone believes that we should protect children. I even grant this to the left, even though the author says that the right doesn’t actually believe in protecting children. (which is absurd) The idea that all good is on the left, and no good is on the right is hardly worth countering. And people say that the right see things in black and white? This declaration of absolute moral superiority is the nuanced position. Just to be clear, I think there are good people on the right and left, and I assume that all adults are interested in the care of children. Hopefully rational people can agree on this position.
11.Recall it was the left on the Charlotte council that started this mess, not the state. They promoted this nonexistent problem.
“... ignoring the growing pile of dead children we seem to amass on a weekly basis from gun violence.” False - and yes that is a quote from the author. Just to be clear, no one, on right or left, would ignore a growing pile of dead children. But also there is NO growing pile of dead children we seem to amass on a weekly basis from gun violence. Obviously, claiming that the author is exaggerating is at the risk of verifying the claim that I am ignoring it. No, I realize that children have been killed. But it doesn’t happen weekly. And no one ignores it when it happens.
12.No one claimed transgenders will snap and assault people while washing hands.
13. “If these folks actually cared about the safety of our children, they’d be focused on what’s killing them on a daily basis” False. Another great quote. Both right and left care about the safety of children. This is a silly argument. Remember that the leading cause of death for children is traffic accidents. Following the example of the author one might accuse the country of ignoring the clear risk of not banning cars. 
14.The right is not transphobic. That is another made up word with a fabricated problem to match. Phobia is an irrational fear. We do not fear transgender people. We just don’t want men in the girl’s room and that is not irrational.

Don't nationalize party elections

In reply to some questions about fixing the problems with the party elections…..

I do not want a standardized national primary nomination process. This is entirely a matter for the political parties. It requires no government involvement. Americans may have lost faith in government but the solution isn’t regulating parties. Perhaps a better solution would be ignoring them. But the fix is likely to be involvement in political parties to make them more effective. The founders didn’t want parties but I think it is just human nature. Parties have power because concentrated votes can make a difference. They were entrenched with our second president and won’t go away. So we need to make them work. This is a societal function in my view, not a governmental one. The party isn’t the government, we aren’t Chinese communists.

There are two problems with nationalization. My greatest apprehension of more regulation is an attack on sovereignty of states.  This attack is continuing to erode an important constitutional check and balance, which is the power of the states that create the federal government. First, I don’t want national anything. States need to be strong. I don’t want a national nomination process at all that ignores them, treating them perhaps as districts. When that happens then local involvement is not required. Second, I think it is just a setup to attack the Electoral College.  The Electoral College is designed to protect liberty. Don’t mess with it. If the parties are standardized then I think the Electoral College will be next. It will be attacked as archaic, undemocratic, unnecessary etc. None of these are true but ignorant attacks must still be rebutted.

I have zero desire to make all the states the same. What is the benefit? I prefer that they are different.  This isn’t corruption, it is variety and diversity. (The good kind of diversity.) Running 50 different campaigns appears to be a decent test of organizational skills required to run the executive and a trail run of people that will assist in the organization.

The parties may pick their candidates however they choose. The voters are not required. A district choice or caucus works. This year Arizona changed the name to preference election to clarify that the election is not a primary. I don’t think the delegates to the convention are even selected yet. We don’t know will go to Ohio to represent the state. Anything in the process viewed as abnormalities must be corrected by members of the party. Complaints from outside are silly. Journalists complaining about a lack of vote in Colorado is as relevant as them trying to give direction to the Camry design team on changes to the length of the vehicle. They don’t care what you think. Why do even bother? If you don’t like it, then don’t buy. It happens to work for they want to accomplish. Nothing wrong or illegal happened in Colorado. The delegates were selected by committee as the party agree to. Each precinct and district made their choice. The best way to fight the power of political parties is to keep it local. Make each delegate matter by forcing the candidates to deal with every single district chairman. 

The process isn't broken so don't fix it.

Lehi vs Lex

The movie Batman vs Superman makes a religious claim that is false. In Luthor’s rant to justify his attempt at killing Superman he says he must because God must be brought down. Sure, he might have just been talking about Clark Kent in a cape but the assertion must be addressed from a Christian point of view.  Lex says,  “If God is all powerful, he cannot be all good, And if he is all good, he cannot be all powerful.”

This is an old philosophical argument that even has its own name.  Theodicy. It is a discussion about apparent paradox between good and power.  It questions why God would allow evil if he is good. It appears in all periods of history when people have lost the truth that God loves them but wants them to learn and grow. God is good but allows evil so we can experience it. Our test is how we react to it. This is part of our Heaven Father’s plan for our progression. As Lehi said,

22. And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

 24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

 26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon

Read the whole chapter, it is quite good and could have solved the problem for people like Luthor, and saved a lot of trouble and anguish.

The idea of experience and agency is one that sometimes gets lost in the philosophy of men. But a clear head will find the truth.

Three times that I changed my mind

I always want to fight. But sometimes I am told not to. That is confusing at first but usually the best course. Three recent examples where older and wiser voices prevailed in my thinking.

1.       When the ranchers protested in Oregon I wanted to fight. I think the federal government is wrong and that it is illegal for them to own land in a state. They abuse the ranchers and make life difficult. If someone was going to stand up to the feds then I wanted to support them. However, the church denounced the armed rebellion and said this isn’t the way to go. I agree. We need to use legal means to right wrongs.   

2.       When the Supreme Court ruled wrong on marriage I wanted to fight. When the Supreme Court is wrong then bad things happen. For example, I think the Dred Scott decision, that also negated the compromise of 1850, spun the country into Civil War. When the court changed the definition of marriage then a county clerk protested by refusing to issue licenses. Seemed a good way to make a point and stick it to them. However, the counter argument was given that we must do our sworn duty to uphold the law. Again, you shouldn’t use illegal means.

3.       When the young muslim men streamed into Europe I wanted to fight. These rude, ungrateful invaders needed to be controlled before they hurt more people. Kick them out, I thought. However, I learned that there are also some real refugees in the crowd, women and children fleeing destruction. The best way to solve the problem is to serve.