Sen. Hatch Supports the "Ground Zero Mosque"

Senator Hatch went on Fox 13 and defended the right of Muslims to build their mosque/cultural center in lower Manhattan.  Here's the video:



Here is part of what he said:

HATCH: Let’s be honest about it, in the First Amendment, religious freedom, religious expression, that really express matters to the Constitution. So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so. The only question is are they being insensitive to those who suffered the loss of loved ones?  We know there are Muslims killed on 9/11 too and we know it's a great religion. . .  But as far as their right to build that mosque, they have that right.

I just think what's made this county great is we have religion freedom.  That’s not the only thing, but it’s one of the most important things in the Constitution. [...]

There’s a question of whether it’s too close to the 9/11 area, but it's a few blocks away, it isn't right there. . .  And there’s a huge, I think, lack of support throughout the country for Islam to build that mosque there, but that should not make a difference if they decide to do it.  I'd be the first to stand up for their rights.

It's about time a prominent Mormon politician does the right thing on this issue, and amazingly it was Sen. Hatch.  Mitt Romney and Harry Reid both gave spineless answers giving in to the fearmongering of anti-Islamists trying to destroy true religious freedom in America.  So, though it horrifies me to say it, thank you Sen. Hatch for doing the right thing.  For a few moments I'm going to be proud you are my Senator.  Let's just sit quietly and enjoy it for a while.

Update:  For anyone who wishes to add their voice in defense of the proposed mosque in Manhattan, consider joining the Facebook group "Mormons Who Support a Mosque Near Ground Zero."

How To Write A Rough Draft

I've written lots in my life.  Between majoring in English and going to law school and being a lawyer and inexplicably keeping up this blog, I've written thousands of documents in my life.  So I've developed a few strategies I find useful to help the process along.  One of these strategies is the Rough Draft.  In the Rough Draft I'll outline an argument, throw in a few sentences that hit on major ideas I need to flesh out, and generally set the course for what I want to say.  From there I will polish and shine.  But a good Rough Draft is indispensable.

Which bring us, of course, to the Daily Herald, which believes so fully in this writing strategy that they use it exclusively in their publishing activities.  The Rough Draft, in their capable hands, becomes the Final Draft.  Case in point, this little gem called Utah ponders fed handout (lack of capitalization in the title after first word: theirs).

I often make unsupported claims in a Rough Draft with little notes to myself to verify this or find examples or add citation.  This way I can plot out the argument I want to make up front but fill in the detail after some more research and thought.  If I find my unsupported claim remains unsupported after research, I drop it and work around it.  But when the Rough Draft is your Final Draft, as in this "article," no such follow up work is required, which is convenient.  I've recreated this article in proper Rough Draft form:



Utah's governor and legislators are struggling over whether to accept a "gift" of money from Uncle Sam.

They should stop thinking and just take it. It's our money in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with getting it back. 

Flesh out argument for how federal taxes collected legally under Constitution belong to state treasury in the first place.

Of course, the machinations surrounding this business are reprehensible. The Democrat Congress and President Obama recently passed a $26 billion "emergency" spending bill that critics call a payoff to the teachers unions. Out of that, $101 million has been offered to Utah to pay teachers. 

Make sure to change to "Democratic," which is an adjective, instead of "Democrat," which is a noun.  Also, find critics who think this is a payoff to teachers unions so it doesn't seem like I'm just raising issues out of thin air on my own.  Finally, look how good it is, and how easy it is, to put words in quotations marks to cast doubt on them without putting any effort in to back it up.  Remember to do this more.

Some lawmakers are furious that the federal government seems to be trying to usurp the state's role. 

Suss out what I mean by usurping the state's role because right now this refers to nothing and makes no sense.  What role am I even talking about?  Not sure.  Also, the phrase "seems to be trying" is so vague and vapid that it will likely undercut my entire point here, when I figure it out.

"What the federal government is pushing on us is wrong," Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, has said. "I don't know why we're not looking for ways to fight back. I don't know why we're not looking for ways to sue the federal government to stop the federal hamstringing of the states." 

Quote, good.  Concrete.  It might be worth getting a quote from someone with a different perspective, though.  Uh, nah.

There's not much choice, however. If the state were to refuse the money, the U.S. Department of Education could do an end-run and give it to school districts directly. Such financial shenanigans are deplorable; the reasoning lamentable. 

Find example, preferably real but make one up if necessary, of the DOE ever doing something like this.  I might have just made that possibility up.  Remember to explain why the reasoning is lamentable because conclusory statements like that without any support are weak and lazy.

Gov. Gary Herbert defends the handout by saying that the money isn't new deficit spending, but simply a shift of resources. It's sad to see that Utah's chief executive is buying that deceptive Washington line. Supposedly Congress found offsetting spending cuts that made the handout possible. Uh-huh.

More skeptical observers doubt the cuts will ever really happen. As House Speaker David Clark, R-Santa Clara, said of the congressional legislation, "This bill is just loaded with what I would call voodoo accounting," 

Delve into this issue in the future, find out what the offsets are and if they are something that have been used as smoke and mirrors in the past, or if they are legitimate.  Don't just raise the possibility of deceptiveness without backing it up with actual facts of some sort.

It's an apt description. The U.S. is borrowing 41 cents for every dollar it spends these days. That means that if the feds are giving Utah $100 million, about $41 million of that will be debt. On the other hand, it also means that $60 million was Utah's in the first place. 

Not sure what I mean by that last line or how I came up with that number, look into it.  Also, try to figure out what this paragraph has to do with anything at all because it is really out of place now.  A snappy segue might do the trick.  Add segue later.

So we can take the money without guilt. And rest assured that the feds will just throw it at some other state if Utah were to turn it down.

Let's just hope that an infusion of cash doesn't take the steam out of efforts to streamline Utah's educational system. It can and ought to be done. State government has set an example by cutting more than 2,000 employees in the last year and a half, shrinking its work force 6.8 percent. 

Don't forget to add some meat to the argument that the fact that the state is running out of money to educate our children and is cutting teachers and increasing class sizes is simply "streamlining" and ought to be done more, because right now it just sounds crass, short-sighted, and mean-spirited for no reason whatsoever.

Nobody should get complacent about this additional funding. It will be good to get some money back, but only if it doesn't come with strings that cost a lot in the future.

What could I possibly be implying about getting complacent?  Not sure yet but it sounds like the kernel of something profound so leave in for now.  Also, you can't just say "strings" because that doesn't actually make sense.  "Strings attached" does because that is a well-known (read: cliche) phrase, but strings by themselves in this context is just bizarre.  Change wording before turning in.

In this case, Washington hasn't yet revealed the fine print. Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said that lawmakers don't know how many conditions will be put on the spending. "We won't get that information unless we put in the application," Waddoups said.

That's in the new congressional style of "we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it." But here's a safe bet: The Capitol Gang will attach strings and lots of them.

There's that strings again, I can work out that kink later.  Now, as for the actual potential restrictions or conditions attached to the money, work out some sort of argument that says that even though this is purely federal money given freely to the states the federal government has no right to add conditions or restrictions.  I don't want to sound ungrateful, after all, because money for education is super important for America's and Utah's future.

All in all, it's disagreeable to watch Washington spend irresponsibly. But look at it this way: When you fill out your tax return, you may be incensed at what the government does with your hard-earned money. But if you get a refund check, you'll cash it. It's your money.

Utah should request its refund check right away.

Remember to circle around and come up with some sort of argument, anything really, that spending on education is irresponsible.  Because otherwise this entire article is just a waste of time and might appear to some crazy left-wingers to be simply an opportunity to whine about the federal government instead of a thoughtful discussion of federal education spending in the wake of huge financial shortfalls for the states in this, the worst economic environment in 80 or so years.

Next draft due in 24 hours.

A Culture of War

Glenn Greenwald has documented the increased desire of America to bomb Yemen.  Jeffrey Goldberg has documented the increased American desire to bomb Iran.  President Obama has committed to escalating the unwinnable war in Afghanistan.  Even though we are told that the combat mission in Iraq is coming to a close, there are still 50,000 troops there and combat will likely continue for a long time.  Meanwhile, experts are warning America that our reaction against the inaccurately-named "ground zero mosque" is fueling extremists.

We are caught in a self-defeating cycle.  Some Islamic extremists hate America and want to hurt us.  So America takes military action against Muslims.  So more Muslims hate America and want to harm us.  So America does something else against Muslims.  So they are more enraged and hate us more.  So we react again.  And so on.  If one didn't know any better one might be inclined to think that we are purposefully created conditions that would justify our ongoing military presence in the Middle East.  But that would be silly.

In any case, we can either let this go on indefinitely until we have an all-out world war on our hands or we can step back and try to regain our sanity and perspective by trying out the role of peacemaker for a while.  We can either be a country that is more and more reliant on a massive military-industrial complex or we can choose to disentangle ourselves from foreign intrigue as George Washington presciently advised.

Frankly, though, I find it slightly terrifying how many people in America support escalating our military presence in the Muslim world.  They are positively gleeful at the thought of bombing Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Iran, and Yemen, oh and Pakistan.  I don't want to live in a world where war is the preferred way to solve our difficult international problems, but that's where we're headed if we don't start actively opposing it.

President Obama as a Muslim and Religious Tests

How one in five Americans view the President

A recent Pew poll showed that 18% of Americans think Pres. Obama is a Muslim, 34% correctly think he is a Christian, and a whopping 43% say they don't know.  There are various interpretations of where this misinformation is coming from, ranging from a right-wing effort to cast doubt on the president's Christianity to the president's failure to tackle the issue head-on to the fact that some (many?) Americans are just stupid.  Of course it is a combination of all of these.

The poll gets to an issue Americans have struggled with for a long time: whether the religion of our president and elected leaders should even matter at all.  George W. Bush famously claimed that God told him to invade Iraq (I'm thinking I worship a different God than him), Ronald Reagan was distinctly irreligious, Bill Clinton was actively religious but of course that was muddied by his personal, shall we say, indiscretions.  We know all of this, and much more, because we tend to care a great deal about the religions of our presidents and elected leaders.

Another recent poll, this one from Gallup, showed that one-fourth of Americans wouldn't vote for a Mormon, and over half wouldn't vote for an atheist.  A Fox poll showed about the same numbers and also showed that Americans would be even a little less likely to vote for a Muslim than a Mormon.

Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

It appears that while there is no official religious test in America for public office, there is a de facto test in the minds of the majority of Americans, and if a candidate doesn't fit neatly into their preconceived white Protestant ideal, that candidate is in for a difficult ride.  One recent good example of this was the race for governor in South Carolina.  Nikki Haley converted from Sikhism to Christianity, but that didn't stop her primary opponent from calling her a "raghead" and Ms. Haley having to explain her religious beliefs to voters in an effort to allay fears.  She eventually won her primary, but that her religion was an issue at all was unfortunate.  What if she had still been a Sikh?  Doesn't that disqualify her from being a good governor?

Mitt Romney's Mormonism was similarly a big issue for his campaign and, really, a hindrance.  Should his religious beliefs alone have disqualified him from consideration for the presidency?  It did in the minds of many, many voters.

And now a big majority of Americans are not even willing to let Muslims build a cultural center a couple blocks away from ground zero.  It feels like we are taking a step back in religious tolerance in this country.  It seems like America is now propelled by fear and pessimism as opposed to courage and optimism.  There is no doubt that this is a period of change: terrorism is a new amorphous enemy, the economy is pretty ragged and it's hard to know how to compete when it is cheaper for businesses to function outside the country, and environmental concerns are growing.  But instead of bringing our best ideas to the table we are falling back on old prejudices and stale ideas.  We're demonizing "others" as a cheap trick to soothe ourselves.

As a member of a religion that is not exactly mainstream, I worry that if we allow ourselves to go down this road, a road where political candidates and their ideas are judged first by the person's religion instead of their inherent merit and where there is a knee-jerk reaction against minority religious beliefs and opinions, that we'll be excluded first and eventually targeted just like Muslims are now.

And the threats come from two directions.  On the one hand some extreme liberals would like see religion removed from the public psyche altogether, and on the other some extreme conservatives want to push America as a solely Christian nation to the point that all non-evangelical Protestantism is removed from the public psyche altogether.

Neither extreme is good for Mormons, obviously.  As a result, we should be making a strenuous case for healthy religious tolerance in America, and a good first step would be rejecting religious tests for our elected leaders and supporting (not grudgingly) the right of Muslims to build their center where they want.

When Minority Trumps Majority

2nd Grade. Mrs. Jensen says "Raise your hand if you want to play dodgeball." Okay, I raise my hand, along with a few other kids. She continues "Now raise your hand if you want to play basketball." In 2nd grade I was a pretty wiry, spastic kid. Perfect for playing dodgeball, but not basketball.

More hands were raised for basketball than for dodgeball. Despite our valid arguments that basketball had been played in both of the previous PE sessions, Mrs. Jensen's simple response was: "Sorry, majority rules." Lesson learned. If you want to play your game, get the majority to agree with you. Such a concept is the cornerstone of democratic government. The system is designed to have the supreme power bestowed in the people, and exercised through their voice, or through the voice of officials which the people have elected. Whether electing officials, passing law, or ratifying The Constitution, a majority is required at some level. Sometimes "majority" means the highest percantage of the votes. Sometimes it means that at least 2/3 of the voters agree. Regardless, majority rules.

In a recent poll from CNN, 68% of responders are opposed to the building of an Islamic mosque near ground zero. In addition, some democrats (according to some sources a majority of 54%) oppose the construction, among them is Majority Leader Harry Reid. So there it is, plain and simple. Majority rules and so the mosque should not be built.

The problem is, it's just not that simple. Naturally, the first argument for a mosque being built is likely going to be the First Amendment to The Constitution, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Of course, at this point, congress has not come out and tried to pass a law that will prevent the construction of the mosque/cultural center. Harry Reid's statement is that "The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley in a statement. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.” This sentiment seems to be shared with most of those that oppose the construction of the mosque, i.e. They have the right to build it, just build it somewhere else. As Sarah Palin puts it in a recent Tweet "We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?"

Apparently, building a place of worship and a center that is designed to improve cultural and religious interaction and understanding is not acceptable because the general public is still under the delusion that Muslims are the enemy and the culprits in the 9/11 attacks. It wouldn't be fair to the victims of the attacks; it defiles the "hallowed" ground where they died.

In contrast, there are many supporters of the proposed Islamic center. President Obama made the statement "...as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country." Likewise, the political and social activitist, Fareed Zakaria, was so adamant about supporting construction that he returned a prestigious award to the ADL after they came out against its construction. These people, however powerful or well-known, still constitute a minority of the population.

So who is right? Does the majority always rule, or are there some cases when the minority trumps? As a member of a religious group, this one hits close to home. I think of the 11th Article of Faith:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Not only are we required to allow all people to worship what and how they want, but also where they want. I personally feel that some of the impetus for this Article came from the discrimination experienced by the early (1800s) church in Independence, Far West, Nauvoo, etc. Opposition for the early church stemmed in the economic influence and ideological differences. The culmination of the intolerance came in the "extermination order" issued by the Governor of the state of Illinois at the behest of the majority. "[For their] open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this State ... the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description." Majority rules, and the Mormons were expelled to another location. Apparently the citizens of Illinois and Missouri that opposed the establishment of Mormonisms cared about the "how" "where" and the "what", and therefore used the power of the majority to remove them. Perhaps there is evidence somewhere that demonstrates that a few radical members of the LDS church were responsible for certain crimes; however, the Church has never supported illegal activity or hostel treatment of others.

Should the rights of the minority trumped the desires of the majority in the case of early Mormon history? Was it acceptable to prevent a religious group from building places of worship in "your backyard" because the majority of citizens were ignorant or biased?

Should the rights of the minority trump the desires of the majority in the case of Muslims present-day? Is it acceptable to prevent a religious group from building a place of worship in "your backyard" because the majority of citizens are ignorant or biased?

Don't Be Afraid of Different Political Ideas

I don't consider myself a socialist, though many of the modern far right might disagree with this self-assessment.  But I also don't consider socialism to be evil and parallel to the plan of Satan.  In my first substantive post on this blog I made the point, and I stick by it, that good  members of the church can be found in hundreds of nations around the world supporting many different types of governments, including many that consider themselves socialists.  I can understand some of the pull socialism exerts on people and I can understand some of the critiques.  I can't understand demonizing members and non-members alike that espouse it.

All of this brings me to the site called The Mormon Worker.  I became aware of this socialist Mormon blog during law school and I have read it off and on since.  I agree with a lot of what they have to say, and disagree a fair amount as well.  For quite a while I have wanted to put a link up to it on this blog because it offers a unique perspective that some members of the church may appreciate, but I am ashamed to say that for too long I have resisted providing a link because of the loud and intimidating cries from politically conservative members of the church about how evil socialism is.  I didn't agree with them, but I also didn't want to have to ever face them directly.

I was wrong, of course.  We can only gain by having open and civil discourse about different forms of government and different ideas for how to improve the human experience.  There is nothing in the Mormon Ethic of Civility that would prohibit or discourage members of the church from discussing and espousing socialism as a political point of view.  As members of the church we should look for good ideas everywhere, including political opinions that we find foreign or, initially, antithetical to our strongly held opinions or the traditions of our immediate culture.

Along these lines, a good first look from The Mormon Worker might be three posts from them:  A Cancer Has Infected the Church, Social Justice Study Guide for Glenn Beck, and Can Mormons Be Socialists? The Case of El Salvador.  The point is not to get Mormons to become socialist, but that there are valid political beliefs beyond current-day American conservatism, or current-day American liberalism, or any American political party at all, and that we shouldn't be afraid to accept some of those ideas and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be intimidated into certain political beliefs.  Too many Americans and members of the church are afraid to step outside of their political comfort zones because of the systematic demonization of the "other" that is taking place right now, and our ideas and solutions to problems are becoming stagnant and bogged down as a result.

So there is a link up now to The Mormon Worker and it's no big deal.

Glenn Beck v. The Mormon Ethic of Civility

Can you guess which is which?

The political world is astir. Economies are faltering. Public trust is waning. Individuals feel vulnerable. And social cohesion wears thin. Meanwhile, stories of rage and agitation fill our airwaves, streets and town halls. Where are the voices of balance and moderation in these extreme times?

So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending money on embryonic stem cell research. . .  Eugenics.  In case you don't know what eugencis led to; the Final Solution.  A master race!  A perfect person. . .  the stuff we are facing is absolutely frightening.
 
During a recent address given in an interfaith setting, Church President Thomas S. Monson declared: "When a spirit of goodwill prompts our thinking and when united effort goes to work on a common problem, the results can be most gratifying."

You self-centered, self-righteous, socialist, out-of-control, dangerous, man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960s because too many people were doing LSD. We’re not on LSD anymore. You need to start making sense.

Further, former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley once said that living “together in communities with respect and concern one for another” is “the hallmark of civilization.” That hallmark is under increasing threat.

Speaking to a Muslim Congressman:  "I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies". . .  And I know you're not.  I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans feel that way.

So many of the habits and conventions of modern culture — ubiquitous media, anonymous and unsourced online participation, politicization of the routine, fractured community and family life — undermine the virtues and manners that make peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society possible.

Mary Landrieu is "a high-class prostitute".

The fabric of civil society tears when stretched thin by its extremities. Civility, then, becomes the measure of our collective and individual character as citizens of a democracy.

Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.
 
A healthy democracy maintains equilibrium through diverse means, including a patchwork of competing interests and an effective system of governmental checks. Nevertheless, this order ultimately relies on the integrity of the people.

Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution, and it was designed to eat the Constitution, to progress past the Constitution.

Speaking at general conference, a semiannual worldwide gathering of the Church, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles asserted: “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay.”

[Hilliary Clinton] is the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?

Likewise, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton emphasized that the virtues of fidelity, charity, generosity, humility and responsibility “form the foundation of a Christian life and are the outward manifestation of the inner man.”

Person 1:  I don't hate women, they're very convenient to have around.
Person 2:  They just shouldn't be voting.
Person 1:  Of course not.

Thus, moral virtues blend into civic virtues. The seriousness of our common challenges calls for an equally serious engagement with reasonable ideas and solutions. What we need is rigorous debate, not rancorous altercations.

Cindy Sheehan "a pretty big prostitute" and a "tragedy pimp".

Civility is not only a matter of discourse. It is primarily a mode of engagement. The technological interconnectedness of society has made isolation impossible.

I think she is a racist.  I think she decided things based on race.  I think she says that a Hispanic woman, with the experience of being a Hispanic woman, can make decisions that a white man can't make.  I can't imagine saying that.  That's like saying Hispanics can't make money decisions like them Jews.
 
Of all the institutions in the modern world, religion has had perhaps the greatest difficulty adjusting to the reality of give and take with the public.

I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. . .  If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop.

Rather than exempting itself from the rules of law and civility, the Church has sought the path of cooperative engagement and avoided the perils of acrimonious confrontation.

These vampires are not going to be satisfied by just sucking the blood of GM's top guy, the AIG executives or any other business or businessperson. Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable and there are only two ways for this to end: Either the economy becomes like the walking dead or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers.

Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to "love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]" (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.

The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be "What the hell do you mean we're out of missiles?"
 
The moral basis of civility is the Golden Rule, taught by a broad range of cultures and individuals, perhaps most popularly by Jesus Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). This ethic of reciprocity reminds us all of our responsibility toward one another and reinforces the communal nature of human life.


I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. . .  No, I think I could.  I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out.  Is this wrong?

The need for civility is perhaps most relevant in the realm of partisan politics. As the Church operates in countries around the world, it embraces the richness of pluralism.  Thus, the political diversity of Latter-day Saints spans the ideological spectrum. 

There are three reasons that an illegal immigrant "comes across the border in the middle of the night:  One, they're terrorists.  Two, they're escaping the law.  Or, three, they're hungry -- they can't make a living in their own dirtbag country."

Individual members are free to choose their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.

Good for you, you have a heart, you can be a liberal. Now, couple your heart with your brain, and you can be a conservative.

Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible.

This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. . .  I'm not saying he doesn't like white peopel, I'm saying he has a problem.  This guy is, I believe, a racist.
 
Latter-day Saint ethical life requires members to treat their neighbors with respect, regardless of the situation. Behavior in a religious setting should be consistent with behavior in a secular setting.

You got to have an enemy to fight.  And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power.  That was Hitler's plan.  His enemy: the Jew.  Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming.  Then you get the scientists -- eugenics.  You the scientists: global warming.  then you have to discredit the scientists who say, "That's not right."  And you must silence all dissenting voices.  That's what Hitler did.

The Church hopes that our democratic system will facilitate kinder and more reasoned exchanges among fellow Americans than we are now seeing.

There are good Muslims and bad Muslims.  We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the  head.
 
In his inaugural press conference President Monson emphasized the importance of cooperation in civic endeavors: “We have a responsibility to be active in the communities where we live, all Latter-day Saints, and to work cooperatively with other churches and organizations. My objective there is ... that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together.”

When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh shut up."  I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining.