Buy why, and how do they get away with it? Of course it’s not that they blatantly disregard the Constitution…well, maybe they do. But perhaps the majority of infractions can be explained by a radical difference of opinion when it comes to interpreting what the Constitution means by the words written on it. When it says the government is to act on behalf of the “general welfare” of its citizens, that could be taken as a blank check for politicians to do whatever they want to. After all, have you ever heard a politician claim their proposed laws weren’t for the general welfare? Nancy Pelosi could propose a law that all Republicans be executed and claim that it’s for the general welfare. Of course she wouldn’t go that far, but she might claim that shutting down conservative talk radio via the Fairness Doctrine is certainly within that realm. Free speech? They’ve already got their arguments to get around that.

There’s no doubt both McCain and Obama would trample on the Constitution. Obama has already said he’s in favor of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, and McCain has a law with his name on it that restricts free speech. But who would trample it less? Certainly McCain. And yet I can’t help thinking maybe we need someone on the extreme left to get in and make things a mess ala Jimmy Carter in order to get someone who’s truly on the right ala Reagan so that we can then fix things. I’m a bit disappointed that the only two real choices we have in this election are one guy on the far left, and another guy on the center-left. If the Constitution had a grave, it might be spinning. Well, it might be in its grave soon enough, no matter which way the election goes.

Well, now he’s being disciplined by the LDS Church (aka, the Mormon Church), and may face excommunication, which basically means being kicked out of the church and having your membership revoked. Turns out he hasn’t been an “active” member of the church since 2002 anyway, but aside from that, he’s now claiming that “I just feel like my right to free speech is being violated.”

Are his rights really being infringed upon? I went to the US Constitution to see what it has to say about free speech. From the 1st Amendment… “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.”

Has Congress made a law abridging this guy’s freedom of speech? Nope. Case closed.

People seem to be awfully confused about what “free speech” is. First of all, only the government can infringe on your free speech rights. They are government-granted rights, and outside government intervention they don’t exist. The LDS Church could go to the printer of this calendar and make them stop printing it, prevent anyone from talking about the calendar, and physically tackle this guy to the ground and put duct tape over his mouth, and they wouldn’t be infringing on his free speech rights. Assault, perhaps, but nothing to do with free speech. However, if Congress passed a law saying “No one forthwith shall produce, market, or distribute any sort of calendar containing the likeness of Mormon missionaries without shirts” then this guy would have a credible claim to say that his free speech rights had been violated.

The guy makes a lot of other specious claims, but let’s just run through them quickly:

“You see more in a JCPenney catalog,” – Yes, and I wouldn’t want my teenage daughter pasting up pictures of guys in underwear from the JC Penney catalog on her wall either. But seriously, there’s a bit of difference in the intent and character of the photos. Catalog photos display clothing and are not intended to be sexy whereas the calendar obviously is. This is the type of excuse a 6th grader would make.

“It’s not tearing anybody down,” Hardy said. “I wondered what would happen if we took that perfect Disneyland image that the church spends millions of dollars cultivating each year and shook it up a little bit.” – The LDS Church cultivates a Disneyland image? Oh, you mean how in their publications they show families spending time together, people performing service, and missionaries doing missionary work and keeping their shirts on? Seems to me they’re just trying to show people an ideal which, if they sincerely aspire to, will make them happier. Why would you want to “shake” that up? Out of mere curiosity? To make a buck and get a laugh? Well, I guess you wondered what would happen and now you’re seeing what happens. If the church really wants to spend millions cultivating a certain image you can’t blame them for wanting to defend it.

Hardy said “he’s never been contacted by anyone from the church encouraging his return to the fold…” – This could be factual, but hard for me to believe. If true, it’s a sad commentary on the state of the home teaching program in the church. Or maybe Hardy hides from anyone he thinks will invite him back to church.

“It has created an interfaith dialogue,” Hardy said. – So have the polygamists in Texas, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and many other events and situations the church would prefer to not be associated with.

“People of all faiths have logged on and shared what they believe. They’re talking about what’s really important, not how bad it is that you took your shirt off.” – Who says it’s bad to take your shirt off? Again, this is 6th grade stuff, trying to disguise the issue as something it isn’t to make your opponent look foolish. The church has no problem with people taking their shirts off. I do it every day. Sometimes even more than once, and my church leaders have never even hinted to me that I should watch myself or be careful, lest my rampant shirt-removal habits lead to worse sins. But there’s a slight difference between taking off your shirt, and creating sexually-stimulating photographs of people wearing a highly identifiable religious uniform. C’mon, grow up.