Is baptism a choice

The way we talk about baptism to our children does not describe it as a choice. In the Choose the Right manual in use in primary, we have to get past the 'I can choose the right', the 'I chose to follow Christ', and the 'I can make right choices' lessons before we make it to baptism. In this lesson we get 'baptism is a commandment', and 'baptism makes Heavenly Father happy', before the statement, "When we are eight years old, we can follow the example of Jesus and be baptised." The 'can' in this statement does not indicate choice, but rather a removal of restrictions.

This approach does not make obvious the fact that this is a choice, and certainly does not show that there are alternative options. These children do not know how much they still do not know. In practise this is a choice with only one answer. If they choose differently we as concerned and compassionate parents explain that it is wrong and why it is so.

This leaves our eight year olds in the position to technically choose against getting baptised. But in order to make that choice they have to come to the conclusion that the faith of their parents is wrong, that the commandments to get baptised are therefore not valid, that they don't care if Heavenly Father is unhappy, and then defend this choice against their parents and peers. All this without being made aware that this is a choice, or that there are ways of loving and honoring God that do not involve getting baptised into the Mormon church.

Our eight year olds do not have exposure to alternative nomos, to other modes of thought and cultures that may be just as valid as our own assumptions. If we only ever boil our chicken our children may be incapable of frying the thing. We accept the fact that children are not fully capable of making all sorts of important life choices. Why is this one different?

Strategic voting and the systemic devaluing of choice

There are many problems that arise with the current first-past-the-post electoral system, one of which is that it encourages strategic voting. Strategic voting causes people to not vote for the candidate or platform that is most representative of how they think and believe that the country should go forward. Instead they vote for a candidate who they think is capable of winning a seat. That tendency is exaggerated when there is a situation like the one Canada is in right now, where we might again have a government that is supported by a surprisingly small segment of the population. This means that even when the party you voted for gets into power, that government is still not ‘your’ government. In this situation, even when we win we lose.

This also sends a message to the parties and the rest of the population that you support a certain vision and platform when this may not be the case. When you toss your ballot to the challenger party in the hope that they will edge out the hated party, no one can tell that you are voting against a platform instead of for a platform. Party leaders assume they know something about your convictions based on your vote. When standard party modus operandi is to appeal to the most people so as to garner the most votes … Well, your original problem is compounded. The platform you liked could not possibly win, and now that platform is de-emphasized as parties scramble to offer you more of what you actually voted for.

Strategic voting thus causes a bias against the newer, smaller or more radical parties and concentrates power into the hands of a few major parties.

Voting by strategy also causes a polling problem. A poll comes out that spurs people to vote strategically, and suddenly we do not have a proper democratic system anymore. Pollsters should not have the power and means to effect an election. We also have to remember that polls are wrong — by their very nature they cannot be accurate. They are the opinions of a small selection of people which may be distorted by numerous errors in the collecting process. That sample is run through complicated algorithms and presented as a clear portrait of reality. Remember the situation of the 2000 US election? Gore was announced as winner before all the votes had been cast and counted, only for it to be revealed hours later that it was actually Bush who had won. Pollsters had gotten it wrong.

This is a problem even when polls are nonpartisan. However, what happens when these polls begin to be designed to produce a certain outcome? Or even where individual pollsters start misreporting data gathered? Right now we are giving undue power to an at best incomplete picture and opening the doors for polls to profit from unethical actions.

We need to keep votes from being ‘thrown away’ on a candidate and platform that gets no representation in government even though they are capable of garnering 10% of the popular vote. (Yes, that was a shoutout to the Green Party.) We need the government to have these voices in it, to have a true representation of Canadians and their ideas. We need the system to take the ideas of the small parties seriously, especially when these parties are capable of getting such support in the face of a system that is stacked so completely against them. We need to celebrate these voices, and we need to bring them to the table. If we need to change the system so that we can include them, then let us change the system. Well we can do that, the NDP wants to do that, the Green Party wants to do that, and so do the Liberals, kind of. We all despise a system that ignores its population. It is time for change.