![]()
Most people have not heard about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which occurred in southern Utah in 1857. a wagon train of settlers from Arkansas was surrounded and besieged first by Paiute Indians fronting for local Mormons, then by the Mormons themselves. the siege ended when, under a flag of truce, a small number of Mormons entered the Arkansans’ camp, assured the Arkansans of safe passage if they disarmed, escorted them out of their camp, and let the larger body of Mormons in ambush attack and kill all adults and children older than seven. Scholars debate whether the Mormon leadership, including Brigham Young, instigated the massacre, but the Mormon Church refuses to open its records to them. so signaling one thing and doing another is no more alien to Mormons than to others.
Few have heard of a House subcommittee hearing on Rep. Jim Ryan’s, R-Kansas, proposed legislation (c. 2000) to return the land of abandoned rail corridors to property owners. the chair of the committee was Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah. Initially calling two panels – one of government experts, one of private property advocates – to support Ryan’s bill, Hansen was pressured to call a panel of opponents. the first two panels testified in the morning; the third panel testified after lunch. When the third panel, including Reagan’s former National Security Advisor Richard V. Allen, was seated, Hansen scolded it about proper decorum in testifying before his committee. As soon as its first member began to testify, Hansen stood up, turned his back on the panel, and walked out.
I was stunned. I had attended some congressional hearings in my time as a Washington consultant and had never observed rudeness toward witnesses, literally, guests invited into the House. so I wrote a letter to several Utah newspapers describing Hansen’s rudeness; I made it clear that, however, he presented himself to his constituents in Utah, he represented them quite differently to citizens in Washington. the reaction was instantaneous and intense: by phone, fax, and email, Utahans strongly reproached Hansen for his bad manners, and he was shaken by this powerful public response. Say what you will about Mormons, they believe in good manners.
Years earlier, I was impressed. during a camping trip in southeastern Utah, with sand and rock predominant in a scenic but sparsely vegetated landscape, I drove to the top of a rise from which I looked down on a small valley as lush as human industry could make it. the stark contrast between harsh but scenic country and this verdant valley was truly inspiring. a modest but attractive farmhouse and trim, clean farm buildings reflected all that is best of Mormon farming families. Believing in hard work, thrift, and persistence, Utahans, mostly Mormons, rightly picked the beehive as the state symbol to express their values – thus, the Beehive State.
As a condition of statehood, delayed until 1896 by the issue of polygamous marriage, Utah had to renounce this practice of the Mormon faith. yet, in the southern parts of Utah with which I am most familiar, such marriages have existed in secret known only to others participating in, or sympathetic to, the practice. though I have never knowingly met men or women in such marriages, I suspect that a few notorious examples of abuses involving underage women unfairly inflame opposition to a practice which is consensual and beneficial among adult men and women acting in good conscience. I respect such arrangements and think that those freely made and humanely enjoyed are the business neither of other people to deplore nor of the state to forbid.
Of course, matters of conscience can involve difficult issues and have unintended implications or consequences, especially when politicians address them. Recently, Republicans Congressman Steve Pearce and Senate candidate Heather Wilson, tried to score political points against President Obama by claiming that federal, like many state, requirements for insurance coverage of contraceptive services at religiously affiliated public institutions violated the religious freedom, including freedom of conscience, of Catholics. (I shall not repeat my argument against this claim.)
Pearce and Wilson do not realize that their standard of religious conscience conflicts with their anti-abortion position. for not all Christians, much less all members of other faiths, accept a definition of life which stipulates its onset at conception. Catholics and some fundamentalist/evangelical faiths have only lately adopted this definition; many other Christians, many Jews, and many Muslims have not. An assumption about the beginning of life is a matter of faith and conscience, which differ among individuals.
From a constitutional perspective, religious freedom, including freedom of conscience, would extend to the right to abortion. thus, their endorsement of this First Amendment right obliges Pearce and Wilson to accept the right to abortion. If they would not curtail religious rights, they should not curtail abortion rights of those acting according to their faith. Whether Pearce and Wilson are honest or hypocritical remains to be seen.
Michael L. Hays (Ph.D., English) is a retired consultant in defense, energy and environment; former high school and college teacher; and continuing civic activist. his blog, First Impressions & second thoughts, appears on alternate Saturdays at http://firstimpressionssecondthoughts.blogspot.com/ or lcsun-news.com
<a href="http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_20552895/their-view-reflections-mormons-and-religious-consciencetag:news.google.com,2005:cluster=http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_20552895/their-view-reflections-mormons-and-religious-conscienceSat, 05 May 2012 07:12:26 GMT”>Their View: Reflections on Mormons and religious conscience