Elder Oaks and Preserving Religious Freedom

There is considerable discussion out there about Elder Oak's talk given at Chapman University about religious freedom.  It is the sort of message that leaves me torn and restless.  As a deeply religious person I agree completely with the general sentiment expressed in his conclusion:

We must never see the day when the public square is not open to religious ideas and religious persons. The religious community must unite to be sure we are not coerced or deterred into silence by the kinds of intimidation or threatening rhetoric that are being experienced. Whether or not such actions are anti-religious, they are surely anti-democratic and should be condemned by all who are interested in democratic government. There should be room for all good-faith views in the public square, be they secular, religious, or a mixture of the two. When expressed sincerely and without sanctimoniousness, the religious voice adds much to the text and tenor of public debate.

No one should ever feel embarrassed or intimidated for expressing strong religious beliefs in the public square, and I agree that religions have much good to offer public policy on a more abstract level.  But at the same time, I disagree with Elder Oaks that religious expression should be given a special, elevated status in such discussions:

Another important current debate over religious freedom concerns whether the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives one who acts on religious grounds greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to everyone by other provisions of the constitution, like freedom of speech. I, of course, maintain that unless religious freedom has a unique position we erase the significance of this separate provision in the First Amendment. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief is not enough to satisfy the special guarantee of religious freedom in the United States Constitution. Religion must preserve its preferred status in our pluralistic society in order to make its unique contribution—its recognition and commitment to values that transcend the secular world.

This seems to me to go a step too far.  In a democracy all voices and viewpoints should be weighted equally, with none given a preferred status, just as each person's vote is given equal weight and none are given special status (unless you are on the Supreme Court, of course).  Giving preference to religious expression seems to contain a couple major problems.

First, religions simply do not agree with one another on most important issues.  There is not a monolithic religious point of view.  Some religions support gay marriage, some don't.  Some religions are overtly political, some aren't.  Some religions are incredibly strict and didactic about public laws and discourse, others are more lenient and hands-off.  To say that religious expression should be preferred is to throw open the doors to a cacophonous mess.

Which leads to the second point, which is that religions are notoriously antagonistic towards one another and I don't think Mormons, in particular, would be too pleased with where that might end up.  For doctrinal and evangelical reasons (meaning we are both idiosyncratic in our beliefs and aggressive in proselytizing them), we aren't exactly the most highly-regarded amongst the Protestant religions that dominate the country.  Giving preferred status to these may lead to more stringent restrictions to our religious freedom than any perceived restrictions some may feel now.

Finally, unless our government is established based on facts and reason, the wanton baseless emotions of a few could easily overrun the system.  Public officials have to be accountable and grounded to objective standards.  Religion can be beautiful and a force for good, but it is based on belief and faith and other deeply personal spiritual experiences that cannot be extrapolated to the many for purposes of establishing public policy.  Furthermore, as noted above, there are so many different flavors of religion that seeking to find some universal kernel on which to base public policy would be near impossible.

Now, I agree with Elder Oaks that our society is becoming more and more comfortable with moral relativism, and that this is a bad thing:

The preservation of religious freedom in our nation depends on the value we attach to the teachings of right and wrong in our churches, synagogues and mosques. It is faith in God—however defined—that translates these religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits the nation. As fewer and fewer citizens believe in God and in the existence of the moral absolutes taught by religious leaders, the importance of religious freedom to the totality of our citizens is diminished.  We stand to lose that freedom if many believe that religious leaders, who preach right and wrong, make no unique contribution to society and therefore should have no special legal protection.

I disagree with the conclusion, however, that the remedy is found in a preferred position in the public square.  If religion is losing its influence in society, perhaps it is as much or more because we are doing a poor job defining what good we have to offer society than of being squeezed out by the forces of a some soft conspiracy.  We should focus more on humbly serving individuals and selling our message through personal testimony, than acting as a perceived victim on the public stage.

As to whether there really is a substantial erosion of our right to practice religion, as opposed to an erosion of our reputations as religious, I don't know.  Elder Oaks offers some examples that I plan on looking into, but I confess to having no reason to believe that my right to practice my religion is diminishing or will diminish in the near future.  I feel no threat to my First Amendment rights, and any threat to my standing in the public eye I will accept as my own failing and try to do better in the future.  To the extent that there is an erosion of my First Amendment rights, I stand with Elder Oaks in fighting against it.

You Are the Government: Wikileaks and Transparency

So Julian Assange of Wikileaks recently released about 250,000 secret documents from the State Department.  The very best thing you could possibly read about Wikileaks is Glenn Greenwald.  Here is a smattering, the tip o' the iceberg, of new information that we learned about our government's illegal and immoral activity from these documents that Greenwald  put together:

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

And there are many others.  In response, Newt Gingrich joined other conservatives in calling for Assange to be considered an enemy combatant.  There is a swelling chorus of conservatives and political insiders calling for Assange to be killed and physical, military force to be used to stop Wikileaks, endorsed by Sarah Palin.

I support Wikileaks.  Wholeheartedly.  If we are going to live in a healthy democracy, if we are going to protect our individual rights against powerful institutions, if we are going to exist in a peaceful world, we have to -- have to -- have transparency.  There is no other way.  And I don't care if some short term U.S. interests are hurt.  We are only safe and empowered over the long term as a citizenry if we have access to full information and we can make decisions based on complete transparency.

We at the Mormon Left have spend a lot of time arguing for increasing the role of government in providing a safety net for Americans.  We've supported public welfare, single payer health insurance and the public option, progressive taxation, Social Security, aggressive regulation of the market, and the like.  So I can imagine a person thinking that supporting Wikileaks as a check against government and supporting government programs as intellectually dissonant.  But it's not.

A government that is transparent, accountable, and honest with its citizens can be incredibly effective at ameliorating social injustices.  What other organization has the resources and power to make sure that affordable health care is available to all Americans, or that all the elderly are taken care of?  None.  But that desire to allow government into our lives is based on the assumption that the government is being honest and accountable and not hiding material information from us.  If we find government unresponsive we have two major choices.  We can either demand that government stop providing those services that millions rely on in difficult times, or we can keep the services and make government more transparent and open.  I choose the latter, and that's why Wikileaks is to be applauded.

I've beaten this drum a few times, but there are certain fairly simple things we can do to improve our government and make it a useful tool in our hands instead of cutting off the social safety net and harming millions of everyday Americans.  We can reform campaign finance laws to limit the sway of special interests, enact term limits on all elected politicians, dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives, reform the broken Senate and its anti-democratic rules, and the like.  Now lets add to the list "increase transparency."  I want full information in all but the most sensitive situations because when government, or any other institution, becomes secretive it means it is or will soon be doing something wrong.  And the Wikileaks documents prove conclusively that the American government, cloaked in secrecy, has been immoral and breaking every law it can get its hands on.  The proper response is to reform the way our government works in making it commit to more transparency.

I am so appalled and angered by the violent reaction to Wikileaks, such as those that want to use the military to forcefully destroy their organization and even kill them.  I think it could not reflect more poorly on those that want to combat transparency with violence and more secrecy.  Ultraconservatives rail against Pres. Obama and his radical and dangerous anti-American ideology, but they recoil in disgust when someone sheds light on how the American government actually works.  The tea party shrieks in horror when the government passes a stimulus bill to inject life into the economy as an unconstitutional intrusion into our private lives but whistles nonchalantly and turns the other way when someone reveals the extent to which our government breaks laws and acts immorally and then hides it from its people.  That is intellectual dissonance, and it is dangerous for the fate of our country.

Bad Religion has a song called You Are the Government:



That is exactly spot on.  We the People.  We are the government.  The government doesn't have a right to keep its actions hidden because we are the government.  We empower the government to do all sorts of good for us, the very least we should receive in return is true transparency and accountability.  Wikileaks helps us achieve that.  If you don't agree perhaps you'd feel more at home politically in China.

The Health Of Our Democracy

The word democracy derives from the Greek word meaning "the power to the people." Because we treasure it so dearly we are constantly vigilant of threats to it. So with all the talk from conservatives about Pres. Obama precipitating the fall of democracy, I wanted to share my impressions on the current threats to democracy we are facing. I don't think democracy is in any real danger in the short term, but these are the issues I see as worth keeping an eye on, in no particular order:

Campaign finance laws

In the recently decided case Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the Supreme Court struck down a law that limited the amount of direct campaigning that can be done by corporations and groups. The ruling allows special interests, lobbyists, corporations, labor unions, and the like to spend potentially unlimited amounts of money on political campaigning for or against individual candidates.

This means several things. For one, corporations are now able to buy candidates by promising them immense amounts of money in return for political favors. For another, candidates who speak out against corporations or special interests will be overwhelmed by the corporate money spent to have them ousted.

Because of the exponentially larger amount of money available through corporations, candidates will no longer see the necessity of soliciting funds from the average citizens, nor will they need to persuade an army of volunteers to help them through an election, which are fundamentally democratic ways of getting elected. The average citizen is now expendable. In essence, the Obama campaign strategy relying on millions of Americans donating and volunteering is a thing of the past, replaced by candidates relying on just a few corporations.

The supposed impetus of this decision is to protect political free speech. But the Constitution only protects the free speech of the people, and a corporation is not a person. A special interest is not a person. A labor union is not a person. If democracy is the power to the people, this decision, which takes away the power of the people and gives it to corporations, is the antithesis of democracy.

Lack of term limits

I've made my point about term limits known here. Without term limits in Congress we get an entrenched political elite with virtually no ties to the American people and no sense of urgency to solve the problems of everyday Americans. These politicians' first priority is to remain an elected official with all the power and fame that goes along with it. They are always in reelection mode and, indeed, over 90% of incumbents win reelection. With term limits we would get fresh ideas, fresh leaders, and more emphasis on the American people.

Widening gap between rich and poor

I went into more depth here about the widening gap between the rich and poor in America. Not since the pre-Depression era has the gap been so gaping. The top ten percent of income earners own a majority of the wealth in the United States, meaning of course that the 90% of the rest of us own less than half of the wealth. And it is only getting worse.

Wealth and power being accumulated by the elite very few is the death knell of a healthy democracy. We live in a political system where, increasingly, money, and money alone, talks. A family that has to worry constantly about putting food on the table, losing their home, the lack of affordable health insurance, and the like, will have less free time and mental and emotional will to get involved in the political process. They are also more likely to become jaded and disinterested in a society that is set up for them to fail. This is the new reality for the majority of American families and it is bad for democracy.

Filibuster

I remember back in 2005 when the Republicans were debating whether or not to employ the "nuclear option" and end filibusters on judicial nominees, and potentially ending the practice altogether, thinking that I wish they would go ahead and just do it. Where before it was used sparingly, it is now accepted that any bill in the Senate needs a super-majority of 60 votes to pass, where the Constitution only requires a bare majority. The filibuster is so plainly undemocratic, and potentially unconstitutional, that it should be ended. Here is a chart that demonstrates why now is the time to end the practice (from wikipedia):



Since the Democrats have taken over power in the Senate the use of the filibuster by Republicans has skyrocketed, and before that its use was steadily increasing. The axiom of "majority rule," which is the entire point of "the power to the people" has been replaced by "minority rule." Those that received fewer votes now have more power than those that received more votes.

Destruction of public natural resources
There is nothing more democratic than our natural resources. Everyone has free access to air. Everyone has access to our public lands. Everyone needs access to these things to reconnect with the earth and each other on a spiritual level. God created this world for our use and enjoyment, "for the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare."

But what happens when a certain few corporations are able to freely pollute our air and water, develop our last vestiges of wilderness, and profit from our communal lands? Is it democracy when a single logging company spoils old growth forest that belonged to the public at large? Is it democracy when a single oil refinery makes the air we breath harmful to our health? Our natural resources should be preserved for the people, for all to enjoy, and not managed for the profits of a few corporations. I don't think the destruction of natural resources is a direct threat our democracy, but I do think it is a apt barometer for the health of it.

I'm sure there are other legitimate threats to democracy that I have not named here, this is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but I think these are among the most important.

Twas the Night Before Christmas

When all through the House,
Act'lly it was the Senate, sorry for the rouse;
With congress in session for the first time in years
The parties were separate, sitting only with peers
Healthcare was the debate, as long it had been,
Still no common ground, no mutual win;
Conservatives scoffed at everything brought,
Democrats trimmed away things that they sought;
Amid cries of "redneck" or "you lame communist"
Nobody would bend, to what others wished.
In the end there was a vote, along party lines
The bill "IT HAS PASSED" despite all the whines.

So, obviously I'm not lyrically gifted, but considering the season, I thought I'd try for a little parody. Maybe it comes from my complete disgust of popular media's relentless moaning over healthcare reform. Regardless, I think a couple of things need to be made clear - an insane number of people do not have healthcare coverage; the current healthcare system is not effective because it leaves too many people without coverage; healthcare premiums continue to increase, while the coverage continues to decrease; access to medical care is a RIGHT; all rights are tethered to responsibilities.

According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), more than 45 million people will be without health insurance in 2009. I'll be upfront about "estimates" and that I think one can manipulate statistics readily to tell a story, however, this can only be done to a point. So let's say for arguments sake that the CBO has inadvertently doubled the amount of people without health insurance so that there are actually only 22.5 million without it. That's only 8 times the population of the state of Utah, so a much more palatable number. Be it 22 million, or 45 million, that's a ridiculous amount of people to have no coverage. Luckily we are able to help some of them with medicare and medicaid.

Oh, I forgot to mention, about 10 million of those people are actually children, so it's hard for me to swallow the argument that those without coverage are lazy bottom-feeders that are looking for a free ride.

Of those of us that still are able to pay for some kind of a plan, the rates continue to rise, while the coverage falls. I'm not just citing ostensibly biased surveys, but my own personal experience. My rates for a private plan (from IHC) increased every year from 2002-2007, after which we moved to an employer-based plan that also increased its yearly premium from 2007 to the present. What concerns me is not just the increase (inflation explains part of it), but the necessity for rates to go up so dramatically (>130%). Translating that means that if you spent $100 ten years ago, then this year you would be upwards of $230 with less coverage.

I am extremely disappointed that universal healthcare has been dropped from the current proposal. The majority of developed countries (by majority I mean 97%) already have some form of universal coverage in place. This is my favorite map. Glad that we are on par with Africa and Southeast Asia. The entire European Union has adopted various forms of universal healthcare because they agree that medical access is a right of each of their citizens. Don't confuse my support of universal healthcare with the pretense that all these systems are without flaw. I case-by-case analysis of each form would be fantastic, and beneficial in developing a system for the United States. Why must we re-invent the wheel?

I digress. The point is that as a population moves away from despondency and poverty, the trend is for an understanding that all citizens (as part of the "life" clause) deserve healthcare. If private industry could guarantee that, I would advocate the system. Fortunately governments "were instituted of God for the benefit of man". Unfortunately, I don't think that equal coverage or access can be guaranteed on a State level, but will require the intervention of the Federal government. Hence the current reform.

Lastly, a few good things I like in the current bill (which is difficult to read, but should at least be read by EVERY individual, D or R or I, voting on the bill) -

- establish strict federal standards for insurance companies
- limitations on the amount of profit per premium dollar
- insures can not deny coverage because of a person's medical condition
- higher premiums can not be charged based on gender or health status
- companies can not rescind coverage when a person gets sick or disabled

It's a start.

Can Lightning Strike Twice?

Jacob S. has already elucidated the behavior of our beloved legislature Chris Buttars. I want to expand on a couple of his thoughts, and reply to the comments of several of our readers.

First, if you are not aware, Chris Buttars was removed from his positions of chairman and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as the chairman of the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee. According to Sen. Howard Stephenson (R-Draper), Buttars was not removed for the content of his comments on homosexuality, but rather for violating an agreement with the Senate to not to speak publicly on the issue. Apparently Buttars has been marked as a "lightning rod" on this issue.

In my mind, this leaves two questions open for debate. One, is the content of Buttars benign, or is the content itself the source of the reaction. Two, should Buttars comments "in private" be considered as speaking publicly (i.e. where does free speech leave us exactly).

There is no question that the LDS church considers homosexuality a sin. There is no question that all sin is considered by the LDS church to have a negative impact on society. However, Chris Buttars stated that "the greatest threat to America going down," and went as far as to compare homosexuals to "radical Muslims." It isn't enough that Buttars is ignorant and intolerant of Muslims, when he probably means Islamic radicals (the ideology that Islam is both a religion and a political system), but also that he normalizes the violent murders of these radicals with the behavior of homosexuals. Murder is worse than sexual deviance, as stated by President Kimball in 1978 (Spencer W. Kimball, A Letter to a Friend, pamphlet). Instead, homosexuality is in line with all other forms of sexual immorality including adultery, fornication, etc. Buttars is mistaken in equalizing homosexuals to murderers.

A second, decisively inflammatory comment from Buttars on the Common Ground initiative (SB 32) was, "It lost 4-2, and I killed it. I've killed every one they've brought for eight years." The bill is designed to give certain rights to homosexuals, among which are: expanding healthcare, fair housing and employment, wrongful death rights, etc. Notice that neither marriage, nor civil unions are listed among the changes sought by this, and similar bills. In addition, Elder L. Whitney Clayton, a member of the church's Presidency of the Seventy stated that "...in general, the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. So where does the justification for Buttars delight in killing these bills come from? Certainly not from LDS doctrine.

Homosexuality is a moral issue, that is now being debated as a civil issue. From the LDS church's point of view it is a sin, but the sinner is still a child of God, and a member of society with all the rights to worshipping "how where and what they may" (Articles of Faith #11). Chris Buttars does not speak for the church, nor do his comments represent the teachings of the church. It is the very content of his comments that deserve explanation and consequence, as they are not in line with civil liberties.

The second question is in regard to Chris Buttars' right to free speech. We can not, and must not, interpret Freedom of Speech with the right to say or do anything we want. It is not absolute and there are (thankfully) limitations against things such as "hate speech," pornography, and the "offense principal." Obviously, the response to the various form or context of speech is individual and subjective, and therefore must be decided upon by the each respective society. Kissing in public for example is acceptable, while public sex (although it technically is protected under "free speech") is not condoned in the United States or any other society I am aware of. So, while Buttars does have the right to say whatever he wants, he must accept and be aware of the association and implication of his statements. Such responsibility is true of everybody in all situations, but is exceptionally true of a public figure in a society where "private" statements are rapidly disseminated. Buttars must take responsibility for his words, his actions, and his flawed ideology. If he is not self-sufficient or self-motivated to do so, then his constituency, the Republican Party, and the government must take action.