Rep. Peter King is using his position as chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security to terrorize Muslims. He is instituting hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims based on vague accusations that ordinary Muslims and their leaders have not done enough to speak out against terrorism. He has yet to produce, of course, any proof of any of his claims that American Muslims are becoming more radicalized and that they are not adequately assisting the police and counter-terrorism officials.
The impetus for these hearings likely has nothing to do with the radicalization of Muslims, and everything to do with politics. By turning Americans against each other politicians can pursue the old divide and conquer technique. Anyone who knows American Muslims knows that they are just like everyone else. They are mostly good, hardworking, honest people who value their freedoms and abhor oppression. They are serious about their religion and embrace their cultural and familial roots. While most are good, some are not. The same could be said about nearly every group of Americans, no matter how you dissect them. You could say the same about Catholics, Mormons, atheists, middle class, lower class, New Yorkers, Utahns, blacks, whites, and on and on. It is cliche but still basically true that the things that tie us together are both more numerous and more important than the things that differentiate us. But politicians know, and Rep. King best of all, apparently, that creating connections based on virtuous commonalities is bad politics. So King is finding ways to divide us, and his weapon of choice is religion. Instead of pointing to all the ways that Muslims are a valuable part of our nation, and world, he is making false allegations and fomenting fear and dividing us artificially along religious lines. It suddenly becomes very comforting for the average white Christian to identify with Peter King and his brand of politics against the sinister "other" that is, in this case, Muslims. Proof and logic have no place in this debate, this is about emotion.
It won't do any good to point to studies that show that Muslims are becoming less and less likely to radicalize and how helpful Muslims have been in anti-terrorism cases. It won't do any good to point out that in America there is no guilt of identity. It won't do any good to point out that every group has extremist wings and that we don't require every Christian, for instance, to denounce White Supremacists or else be considered anti-American and come before a McCarthyite congressional hearing. It won't do any good to point out King's own ties to the Irish terrorist group, the IRA, and that therefore he is a hypocrite.
We can't allow our leaders to use our religion against us. If we're concerned about freedom of religion, and we should be, then we should stand up with Muslims against this oppression. Because Mormons could always be next. Have you publicly denounced Warren Jeffs, the FLDS, and Mountain Meadows yet?
Americans love war analogies. It probably stems from our love of actual war, which I think is an actual collective sin we are committing. So analogies between war and other non-war things are pretty unsettling and off-putting for me. In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, there are over 100,000 dead civilians, tens of thousands of dead combat troops, and millions of wounded. So when we use frequent war allusions in sports and politics and the like I think we're being rather callous and glib. If we paid more attention to our language and how we use it we might end up making different and better political choices in America.
That was all a slight tangent I started pondering as I considered this most special time of year when we can come together and debate whether or not there is a War on Christmas. The weapons in this war are not missiles, bombs, drone attacks, and machine guns, but phrases like "Happy Holidays," the removal of nativity scenes from government-owned public places, and "X-mas." The casualties are not human lives lost or permanent physical or psychological injuries and disfigurement, but . . . what? I'm not sure. Hurt pride, I guess. What we have are some very conservative Christians who object to the de-Christianizing of Christmas. Which makes some intuitive sense, I guess. After all, this is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Put aside for a moment that the holiday was started in part as a way to co-opt pre-Christian winter festivals, and that even before the supposed "War on Christmas" was launched by supposed atheists and statists we Christians did a pretty great job mucking it up on our own with our Santa Clauses and elves and red-nosed reindeers and general commercialism that has wrung any meaningful Christ-centered moisture from the public face of the Christmas cloth. Put that aside and I can at least see a glimmer of what these staunchly pro-Christ-in-Christmas conservative Christians are getting at.
But as I've alluded to a couple of times so far I think this is a matter of public v. private observance, and I think the Defenders in the War on Christmas are on the wrong side of this one. We live in a country that is multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-everything. We Americans aspire to the ideal of tolerance and civility. We have created this pretty rare country where ethnic and religious tensions have been historically pretty low key. Only we're moving away from that recently. There is a very vocal contingent of Americans that are creating tension with Hispanics. The Christian right is continuing to gain power to push its anti-differences agenda and have swept Mormons into their net. Muslims are have seen a steady deterioration in their public standing culminating in the embarrassingly bigoted "Ground Zero Mosque" fiasco. And the list could continue.
The backdrop of all this, of course, is that we live in an increasingly heterogeneous society, so there is more and more bumping into each other causing the inevitable building of friction. Whereas before you could walk down the streets of most small- to mid-sized towns in America and feel pretty certain that you were only going to pass by other white Protestants, now you're bound to encounter more diversity. Whereas before any small- to mid-sized town in America could safely put up a nativity scene on the grounds of county courthouse because everyone that would see it was Christian and no one would care or complain, now you've got many more people of different faiths and backgrounds that might not share those Christian sensitivities.
The Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are two different things there. The second part, known as the Free Exercise Clause, is not really at issue here. Having public displays of Christianity on government property doesn't prohibit anyone from exercising their own religion differently. It is that first part, known as the Establishment Clause, is a little more tricky. Does having a nativity, something overtly Christian, on government property constitute an establishment of Christianity as the de facto government-sanctioned official religion? Would we allow overtly Muslim scenes during Ramadan? Jewish scenes for Passover? Hindu, Sikh, atheist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Scientologist, etc. scenes at other times? Should the government be in the business of doing anything overtly religious at all?
These are difficult legal issues that are being sorted out constantly in the courts. But if we remove for a moment the legal issues and just focus on the human side, I think the ideas get more clear. Christmas is a great time of year. More volunteerism occurs, more charitable donations, more goodwill. For Christians there is (hopefully) more of a focus on Christ, which is excellent, but for people of all faiths Christmas is becoming a time to focus on family and giving and, yes, presents and decorations and everything else. Why would we choose to be less inclusive? Why would we try to force only the extreme Christian view on others instead of something many more people can embrace? What could we possibly gain by pressuring businesses and public entities to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" or something that more people can identify with?
I just don't understand when people want to force their religion on others and into the public square. This isn't missionary work and glorifying Christ and expressing our faith, those sorts of things are done in humility and personally and one-on-one, this is about xenophobia and pride. I think it does absolutely no good to worry about some nebulous "war" on Christmas, but it does all the good in the world to celebrate Christmas privately as a religious holiday and publicly as an all-inclusively holiday. So, Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays, whichever suits you best.
I've been reading Building the City of Godby church historians Leonard Arrington, Dean May, and (kind of) Feramorz Fox. I wrote a post about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship here.
Not long after the saints arrived in the Great Basin, "gentile" traders and merchants arrived and started making huge money off the saints. Brigham Young was against trading of any sort, but especially among the members. His thought was that a man should be making something, or producing something, and that work in shops was okay for women, but not for men. What's more, he was against the idea of a man gaining wealth at the expense of the producers.
Because members of the church were strongly discouraged from getting involved in trading, the gentile merchants had the market to themselves and became very rich at the expense of the saints. This became very alarming to many members, who petitioned Pres. Young to allow the members to get involved in trading at a cooperative level. At first he balked, but eventually relented. Here is how the authors of the book describe the evolution of his thought process:
Finally, it is important that Brigham Young believed strongly in social equality. Ideologically opposed to gradation of wealth and status among his people, he sought instinctively for a scheme that would prevent aggrandizement of a few at the expense of the many. His opposition to the first association of Mormon traders proposed to him in 1860 was based partly upon these grounds. He consistently encouraged the widest possible ownership of the new cooperatives, to prevent the establishment of a wealthy privileged class. The cooperative movement was, thus, wholly consistent with his own social philosophy.
The cooperatives were set up to be community owned. Since the Brigham City cooperative was particularly successful and well-known, we'll use it as an example. At first the citizens of Brigham City would buy inexpensive stocks in the cooperative. The cooperative would then purchase goods from the east or, probably more likely, from the big Salt Lake cooperative which purchased goods from the east. The saints would buy exclusively from the cooperative, essentially running the gentiles out of business.
As the cooperative gained strength and money it would start getting involved in "home industries" such as tanneries, shoemaking, raising cattle, blacksmithing, and so on, until the community was entirely self-sufficient. Since it was community owned, the cooperative tended not to enrich any one person above any other, and Pres. Young's quest for self-sufficiency and social equality was met. At the end of the year big dividends were paid to members or reinvested in the cooperative.
In practice, however, there were some drawbacks. Some of the cooperatives were funded almost exclusively by two or three big spenders. And instead of voting by the one-man-one-vote model of some European cooperatives, they voted by one-share-one-vote, which meant that big shareholders were given big voting advantages. Also, while the initial stocks could only be purchased by tithe-paying members of the church, there was no such restriction on their subsequent transfers, which meant that shares ended up in the hands of those not exactly operating with the same basic assumptions as tithe-paying members.
Nevertheless, the cooperatives were generally very successful:
In 1875 there appeared an apostolic circular that summarized clearly considerations that led the church into cooperation and praised its progress. Cooperation, the leaders explained, had been a means of countering "a condition of affairs . . . which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many." Fearing that a wealthy class might arise with interests "diverse from those of the rest of the community," the church officials concluded that such an occurrence "was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical." The ZCMI had been opposed by the wealthy and the established, but since its founding had established a solid reputation while paying substantial dividends and paying a church tithe on all its profits.
Practical considerations such as a world that is smaller and more interconnected than in the 1860s and 1870s, and members of the church being encouraged to stay where they are and build up the kingdom, make cooperatives essentially impossible. But more fundamentally, this is a mentality that simply doesn't exist in our society today, and I don't think it really exists in the church anymore, either. We are no longer interested in smoothing out wealth and power inequalities, and if the prophet and apostles made statement like those above today they would be branded as communists or socialists and threats to the Constitution.
In the early years of the church, however, complete social equality was an express goal of the priesthood leaders and it could still be today if we had the same will. Joseph Smith's Law of Consecration and Stewardship was the first effort to make it happen but failed as the saints were driven from state to state. Cooperatives were the second effort and were successful enough to lead to the United Order, which will be the next installment.
I am currently reading the excellent book Building the City of God, which is a study of early communitarian efforts by the saints. Though I'm obviously no historian, I thought it might be interesting to write a few posts about what I'm reading as I go along. I just finished the section on the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, which was Joseph's early attempts in Kirtland and Missouri to get the saints to live a more perfect economic system.
The basic gist of the plan went something like this: First, all members deeded their real and personal property to Edward Partridge, the presiding bishop. In the earliest iterations of the Law the person would completely forfeit all property if they left the church, i.e. the church had full rights to the property. Later, when civil courts eroded that away, the person could get real property back, but not personal property and not any of the yearly consecrations. Second, Partridge would lease and loan back those respective properties to the individual, depending on their needs. Third, the individual, though a steward over the land, would have the control to do with the property whatever he or she desired. Finally, at the end of the year the individual would consecrate to Partridge any excess gains above what they needed. The Law of Consecration and Stewardship struck a balance between individualism and communalism by giving each individual the choice of what to do with his or her property and encouragement to be creative and industrious, while also requiring the pooling of resources above any person's needs for the benefit of the poor. This was different than "common stock" communities like the Shakers where literally all possessions were owned by everyone, including clothing and household items, which led to a certain anarchist free-for-all in practice.
The authors gave five reasons why the Law of Consecration and Stewardship didn't last, and they contend that number five is overemphasized at the expense of numbers one through four:
1) Most of the converts to the early church were poor and had nothing to consecrate. Yet inheritances had to be provided for them. 2) Most of the consecrations that were made were in kind, while most of the church's investments (in real estate and so on to provide stewardships for those who needed them) required liquid resources. Conversion of the former into the latter was difficult on the Missouri frontier. 3) Constant persecution made property accumulation almost impossible. 4) The opposition of the courts to the Mormons, and to cooperative (and communal) ventures generally, made it easy for apostates who had made gifts to the church to disrupt the financial affairs of the system by demanding and securing the return of all their consecrated properties. 5) The converts were not faithful in making their initial and annual consecrations.
Those first four factors are no longer true, so the question I have is, could this system work today? If President Monson announced in General Conference that the church was reinstating the Law of Consecration and Stewardship as revealed to Joseph Smith would it 1) work and 2) be embraced?
I think it would have to look something like this: Every member would deed over all their real and personal property to the church. The church would then lease and loan back that property according to needs and the individual or family would be a steward over those properties. Each member would be expected to continue to work and be productive. At the end of the year all income above what was strictly needed would be consecrated back to the church for the support of the poor and the building of the kingdom.
In practice it would mean that members living in huge homes and driving expensive cars, and the like, that exceed their needs would probably have to sell them and find more modest accommodations and consecrate the excess to the church. How many members would be willing to do that? I live in a stake that is probably 80% super rich and I wonder how many would support a modern Law of Consecration and Stewardship with a full heart, without reservations, knowing that they would have to move out of their McMansions or legitimate mansions, sell their Porches and yachts, and give away the rest.
But it isn't just the rich that would have to make uncomfortable decisions. Would each of us be willing to forfeit, at the end of each year, any assets that otherwise would have been accumulated in savings accounts, retirement accounts, educational accounts, and investments acting on faith that those things would be taken care of by the church? It would take real faith to not save for the future believing that the church would take care of you in your old age or in emergencies. It would take real faith to not save for your children's college believing that the church would pay for that in the future.
The argument against such an economic system is that it stifles the drive to be successful and innovative. If you never tasted the fruits of you hard work (to put it more starkly: if you never got to enjoy all the money you would earn from being successful), why would you even try? Why would a person go through all that work and school to become a doctor if they didn't get paid like a doctor? Why would a person put so much blood and sweat into an innovative and successful business if they didn't have the chance to earn that huge return on investment in the end? Why should we work hard and then just give our money away to the poor?
The answer is faith, I think. Such a system could only work if the saints had faith enough to become successful and industrious and then consecrate the excess to the church to support the poor and build up the kingdom. It cannot work if greed is the only motivator, it could work if faith replaced that greed. Should we not expect that of ourselves as members of the true church? Thoughts?
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.
In the 1990s ska was a thriving counter-culture movement in Utah, was the dominant sound of Utah County local music, and produced such bands as Swim Herschel Swim, Stretch Armstrong, and My Man Friday. There is a recently released documentary about the 90s Utah County ska scene called "The Up Beat" which is really worth taking a look at.
There are a lot of theories as to why ska became so popular among young Mormons, and I think they boil down to two things: message and tone. The message was one of unity, respect, anti-materialism, and self-confidence. The tone was upbeat, optimistic, and really just pure fun. Young Mormons could latch onto this attitude as perfectly compatible with their religion, while also providing a way to rebel against a culture that increasingly stressed individual wealth and conformity. Perhaps the single best introduction is from the legendary Bay Area ska band, The Uptones. Here they demonstrate not only the classic 2 Tone ska style, but the imminently imitable style of ska dancing, skanking:
It is silly, it is fun, it takes no coordination (in fact, coordination may actually be a hindrance), and it requires that you suspend all thoughts of self-doubt, self-consciousness, pride, ego, or cares about what people think about you. You are basically required to just trust that you can be yourself and no one will judge you.
Ska originated in Jamaica in the 1950s, migrated to England and incorporated faster beats and a punk-rock attitude in the 1970s (the 2 Tone sound), and then migrated to America in the 1980s where, in the 1990s, it fused even more with punk rock to create the Third Wave sound. Throughout its several iterations, however, the basic theme is a walking bass line with rhythms on the upbeat. And it total speaks to me.
One of the first themes that ska music is known for is racial unity. When it was growing up in England it was a time of racial discord. Most ska bands were, and still are, multi-racial and place an enormous amount of emphasis on unity in general, and racial unity in particular. The Specials:
Along with the idea of racial unity, there was this idea that inequalities of all types were tearing us apart. The haves and the have-nots have slowly separated over the years and this has bred discord that ska music has always sought to counter. The Slackers:
There is definitely a defiant undertone to most of ska. We live in a society where corporatism is more important than democracy and where our culture is based on a me-first attitude that has divided us instead of uniting us. The Toasters captured this attitude in a nostalgic song about listening to corporate-free pirate radio as a child. It is a song longing for a simpler life where corporations and materialism do not dictate our thoughts and appetites:
So what's the suggestion ska music makes? To respect one another and try to see things from other people's perspectives. What we no longer seem to be able to do is admit that different opinions are not necessary inferior to our own, they are just different. We don't have to tear others down to justify our stances. Mustard Plug:
The other suggestion is to be completely comfortable in your own skin. To stand up for what you believe and not be swayed by the opinions of others. This next song is from a band called the Suicide Machines (I know, it sounds awful, but this is a band whose lyrics ironically are full of optimism) who were probably more on the punk end of the punk-ska spectrum, but they use some of the old ska beats and I love what this song told me as an insecure kid (and weren't we all?):
In a world that is increasingly divisive and individualistic (in the sense of my needs are more important than yours), ska encouraged me to stress unity, tolerance, and respect. Where we are told by corporations to conform and turn over our free will and critical thinking, ska encouraged me to have self-confidence and be an individual. Where the world is increasingly materialistic and fatalistic, ska helped me to value things other than simply what I could buy and consume.
I don't have any inherent trust in the government, but I have acquired a hefty distrust of corporate America. So when I see, for instance, the health insurance industry dropping coverage, raising premiums at break-neck speed, denying coverage because of supposed pre-existing conditions, hassling its customers, and creating a completely broken system, I have no problem completely dismantling their way of doing things. I know they don't care about me, so why should I care about their profits?
This is where the ska attitude that comes out in me: lets lift up those that are beaten down by the system, lets worry more about creating a country where people have equal access to things like education, a good job, and health care than about what material things I can buy with slightly lower taxes. Let's pull together by actually pulling together, as opposed to relying on greed to pull us all up by accident.
Let me leave you with the ska take on a love song by the Southern California partially-Mormon ska band, the Aquabats (a couple of whom are creators of the awesome kids show Yo Gabba Gabba!). Remember, ska is first and foremost about optimism and having fun:
BYU recently held its "Religion and Politics: The Philosophical Problem and Its Contemporary Implications" symposium. All I can glean so far is what the Deseret News reported, the goal of which seemed to be to lump as many different thoughts from different people into one short column as possible. So I haven't gotten too much information yet and I'm hoping a transcript becomes available soon.
One point I wanted to hit on was from BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock who is paraphrased as saying that we, as Mormons, have three choices when it comes to politics: "claim to be a part of the mainstream, beg tolerance or work to change the mainstream." I take this to mean that if we join the mainstream we do so at the risk of our own principles and beliefs. If we beg tolerance we maintain our integrity but do nothing to become a positive force for good in the nation. That leaves us with the option of going out and trying to change the mainstream.
He went on to say:
We cannot shrink from the challenge of inflecting the majority in as wholesome a direction as might be possible. Neutrality is a lure; it's a trap. There cannot and will not be such a thing. Our task ought to be: make as many of the best kinds of friends as we can to affect the best direction of our … public discourse.
The question, I guess, is whether there is only one way, politically, to be a positive influence on the "mainstream." Do we have to stand together as members of the Church on every political issue to make a positive difference? I've noticed ever since I starting writing this blog how divisive politics is, even among members of the Church. Check out the comments section to newspapers that mix religion and politics to see just how nasty and inhuman and unChristian we can be towards each other over politics. Then remember this commandment: "I say unto you, be one; and ifyearenotoneyearenotmine."
It would be nice, for me, if every member of the Church adopted my politics and was one with me. Unfortunately, I don't believe this was the commandment. I also don't believe that this commandment requires that members of the Church all espouse the same politics. Remember, our Church leaders have expressly encouraged political plurality. What we want is to be unified in love and respect for each other, and unified on "points of doctrine."
So when we flex our political muscles as members of the Church I don't think we all need to be flexing the same muscle in unison. I think we can disagree on politics and still remain "one." I also think there can be issues that members of the Church from all political persuasions can stand behind. Freedom of religion comes to mind. Otherwise it is up to us as individuals to understand the points of doctrine, live them, and then decide on our own how to best influence the "mainstream" to change for the better. I don't think there is a single, simple way to accomplish this goal, and it probably affirmatively requires voices from many different points of view.
But we are Mormons first, and liberals and conservatives somewhere further down the list. We have to stand together as members of the Church before we can stand with our separate political parties. This Church has never been affiliated with one political party over any other, and I'm not sure why there is a desire to do so now.
