Something I read...

Let Me Be Sad
by Emma Lou Thayne

Now let me feel sad. Impulse, trained in gladness,
Do not try to whisk me away from grief
Like a child caught sulking in a corner
Immobilized by imagined hurt.

Instead, let me grow rich with my sadness.
Let it mellow and strengthen my joy,
Take bold hold of my will,
Give tears permission to water the parch of loss.

Let its music ripple my spine.
Let me give ardent ear.
To what was, to what never will be.
Grief, be my companion enjoy.

In the numberless calls acquainting me with the Night
Bring me to my senses, numberless too
In abandoning numbness and the faint iridescence
Of busyness, crowds, brief entertainments.

Like walking into a sea, only in depth can I float.
Depth, too often feared for its power
To raise me footloose and struggling
Is all that can gentle me back to shore:

Safe, breathing in the cosmos of the sweet unknown
Full of the Light and having been sad.

Just a Question for Thought...

Religion: sometimes defined as a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. To a physicist or biologist then, science is their religion. If that is true, how can we accept in our society the exclusion of any other religion in favor of the theories and postulates of the religion of science?

Where Do We Stand...

Some time ago I wrote:

"I assert my right as a citizen of the United States to claim the privilege of worshiping according to my conscience and would allow all the same right, that all may worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, that all may worship what, where, and how they wish. I claim this right and privilege to be given me by the creator and that it is guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and is thereby guaranteed to me as a citizen of this nation. Two clauses in the first amendment guarantee freedom of religion (the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.) The free exercise clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. And by that I'm guaranteed that my government will not institute any law denying me that right. And by inference does not allow another citizen or group of citizens to deny me that right."

This topic has been on my mind quite a bit recently, so I went back to some of my books - and one specifically more than the others. The title - Thoughts… for one hundred days as heard on radio by essayist, author and LDS Church leader, Richard L. Evans. One hundred essays or homilies taken from the Mormon Tabernacle choirs weekly program Music and the Spoken Word. Since its inception in 1929, the "spoken word" segment of the program has been voiced by three separate individuals. Evans was the original writer, producer, and announcer of the spoken portion of the broadcast. Here are the two essays I've read recently and I feel are pertinent to my stated position above.

First:

"Sometime ago someone coined the phrase 'tolerance without compromise,' which would seem to deserve further comment. To be tolerant of others it is not necessary to partake of their beliefs or of their manner of living. In fact, one may be tolerant of another and still vigorously oppose everything he represents, yet grant him his right to represent it.

"Tolerance does not imply that we must get on the bandwagon, that we must think or act with the majority, or that we must compromise our sincere convictions. It merely means recognition of the fact that society is complex, that no two people hold the same views on all questions, and that all of us have our own right to think and believe and live as we choose, insofar as we may do so without infringing upon these same rights where others are concerned.

"In many places tolerance is dead. In many places he who opposes the prevailing mind and will, even in his thoughts is in jeopardy of dire consequences. And it is natural that tolerance should have died in such places because tolerance travels hand-in-hand with freedom, and neither can long survive the other. But where tolerance still lives, even though a man oppose prevailing opinion, tolerance would respect his right to do so, even as liberty would demand it.

"Long ago the Savior of mankind gave us the key to tolerance without compromise when he thanked his Father in Heaven for certain of His followers who had remained in the world but were not of the world. Sometimes our young people, and others among us, make the mistake of supposing that tolerance means that we must do things that others do, that we must be partakers of their ways. They who suppose this have failed to learn one of the greatest of life's lessons: that a man may be tolerant without compromising himself or his own traditions or background or beliefs or convictions or habits of life. Tolerance without compromising truth or sound principles or fundamentals is one of the great needs of this hour."

Then I read this:

"Among the ancient Athenians it is said that Solon invoke the law that penalized people who refused to take sides on disputed principles and public problems. It was his conviction that a person should commit himself to one side or the other in any question of serious consequence instead of standing by in idle indifference.

"It sometimes seems so safe, so comfortable to stand by and say, 'I am neutral. I won't take sides. I can't be bothered. I'll wait and see what happens.' But in a sense there is no such thing as neutrality when one stands in the midst of something that should be done, and no such thing as justifiable indifference in the presence of any important issue or in the preservation of any of important principle. Indeed, indifference may be a great source of comfort and encouragement to evil and excess.

"When a man wants to do something he shouldn't do, often he doesn't need or want our active assistance. All he may need to know is that we won't actively interfere. If he wants to steal, if he wants to do violence, if he wants to defraud or defy the law, he may only need to know that we shall be indifferent to what he is doing. And in such circumstances indifference may amount to active assistance. If a person doesn't sustain the law, he is, in a sense, against it. If he doesn't help the innocent, he is, in a sense assisting the guilty. If he closes his eyes to public or private perfidy, he is doing his part to make such perfidy possible.

"John the Divine indicted indifference in these words: 'I know thy works that thou art neither cold or hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot.' (New Testament, Rev. 3:15)  Where a principle is at issue, those who weakly watch and offer no assistance to either side have no part with the valiant, no part either with the victor or the vanquished. They are victims of their own evasion, not quite daring to do right nor quite wanting to do wrong. To be indifferent to error or to any evil is to give great comfort and encouragement to error and evil. And in such circumstances indifference is not neutrality. In such circumstances indifference is an active evil."

I believe these two essays stand well together and attest my views.