In the previous post, Culture of Life Part 1, I demonstrated the LDS Church’s political neutrality on the debate over the government’s role in regulating and criminalizing abortion, even as the Church emphasizes the sanctity of life and counsels its members not to obtain elective abortions. Those who believe in criminalization of elective abortion (the pro-life position) should consider the repercussions of such a law. What are some of the costs and unintended consequences of compelling a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? I don’t intend the following as an argument against the pro-life position. I simply hope that by exploring of some of the underlying implications of criminalizing elective abortion, we will realize that abortion policy cannot be viewed in a vacuum. The implementation of ethical pro-life laws would require a significant amount of social welfare programs, which most pro-life advocates vehemently oppose.
Medical Care for Poor Children and Expecting Mothers
Those who have given birth to a child understand that a tremendous amount of care is required both before and after a child is born and that the diet and health of the mother is invariably linked to that of the unborn child. Even though not all of those who obtain elective abortions are poor or are teenagers, tens of thousands of those who do obtain elective abortion each year do not have the financial resources to cope with the medical costs of pregnancy. The medical costs for those without insurance are excessive. Furthermore, there are additional costs for working women who have to take time away from their jobs, or perhaps loose their jobs completely, depending on how smoothly the pregnancy progresses. If a single woman with an unwanted pregnancy is compelled to carry the pregnancy to term, and ends up having to take a few months off without pay while she is on bed rest, who will pay for her living expenses? What if she looses her job? Since conservatives are typically opposed to government social assistance programs, how does the financial need of a woman who is being compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term sync with the conservative view on eliminating these welfare programs? Are we as taxpayers willing to have some of our tax dollars assist the ultimately tens of thousands of poor women each year who would be compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies to term under pro-life laws?
Additionally, costly medical care is required for children and mothers after they are born. If a poor woman decides to keep the child rather than give it up for adoption, financial assistance would be necessary to pay for post-partum medical care. The pro-life position can be very myopic if it does not include assurances for the proper medical care of a newborn resulting from an unwanted pregnancy. How “pro-life” can we really be if all we care about is that the baby is born, but once the child arrives in the world, we are not equally passionate about ensuring they have a fair shot at a healthy life through proper care? If one opposes programs like SCHIP and Medicaid, which provide health insurance to poor children and children of the working poor, can that person accurately claim that he or she is “pro-life”?
Another unintended consequence of criminalization of elective abortion is the risky behavior of some women with unwanted pregnancies. If women who have no desire to be pregnant are compelled to carry the pregnancy to term, some would unfortunately have little or no incentive to make changes in their lifestyle to ensure that the fetus is properly nourished and protected from harmful substances. Women who smoke or drink alcohol may have difficulty in abstaining during the pregnancy. A large volume of research has clearly shown that tobacco and alcohol can often have severe adverse affects on a fetus, causing serious deformities and diseases. Deformed and chronically ill infants resulting from such unwanted pregnancies where the mother did not observe a proper lifestyle, require expensive medical care. There may be fewer who are willing to adopt such children with expensive health problems. Again, are those who are pro-life willing to have their tax dollars pay for the expensive care of children with such diseases as fetal alcohol syndrome?
Black Market Abortions
Inevitably, by prohibiting elective abortions, there will always be some women who will seek to end their unwanted pregnancy at any cost, rather than carrying it to term as required by law. In an America where elective abortions are banned, such women would pursue abortions on the black market. As has been the experience in societies where abortion is prohibited, many such black market abortions are unsafe and can easily result in severe and permanent injury or even death to the women.
Some may argue that such a woman has only herself to blame for being careless about protection while being promiscuous. If the woman is injured or dies as a result of a black market or illegal abortion, I have heard some argue that although that would be unfortunate, it is the woman’s fault for seeking an elective abortion in the first place. However, as one of the reader comments in Culture of Life Part I states, why does all the responsibility lie with the woman? What are the ethics of creating a black market situation where we know some women with unwanted pregnancies will die? By prohibiting elective abortion, a black market for elective abortions will certainly be created. But by removing elective abortion from the realm of regulated and standardized medicine, the procedure ultimately ends up in an unregulated and non-standardized state where no license, quality control, or professional standard is required.
Perhaps those who are on both sides of the debate can at least agree to work together on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Sustained efforts at reducing the overall number of unwanted pregnancies will reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. Studies have shown that publicly-funded family planning clinics have prevented 20 million unwanted pregnancies over the past 20 years, 9 million of which would have resulted in abortions.
So even while vying for pro-choice or pro-life positions on government regulation of abortion, those on both sides who believe in the sanctity of life should seek to educate the public on methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies, including comprehensive birth control education, which could include abstinence. However, any sex education curriculum that does not include comprehensive birth control instruction is woefully inadequate for preventing unwanted pregnancies. Though we may not like the fact of rampant sexual promiscuity, to neglect to educate our population on the methods of preventing pregnancies is only an invitation to more unwanted pregnancies.
The criminalization of elective abortion would result in other unintended consequences that need to be addressed by those who are proponents of prohibition. The above is not meant to counter pro-life arguments, but only to show that a comprehensive pro-life position must include consideration of many other factors, including some social welfare programs.
In upcoming posts in this series, I will explore emergency contraceptives, also known as the morning after pill, stem-cell research, and in vitro fertilization.
April 13, 2010
April 7, 2010
For James- Jon Stewart Slams Keith Olbermann
This was a great clip from Jon Stewart showing how over the top liberal MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann went in his tirade against Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling | ||||
| ||||
April 2, 2010
Culture of Life Part 1
While a student at BYU, I encountered an incredible amount of misconceptions on the political issue of abortion. It seemed that anyone who spoke to me of the issue assumed that Democrats and liberals "believed in" abortion, meaning that those who were pro-choice thought abortions were good things, and not something to be avoided. Over the next few posts, I aim to explore various aspects concerning the political issues of abortion, stem cell research, and as President George W. Bush termed it, "the culture of life." To be clear, this is not an effort on my part to support the pro-choice position as I do not define myself as pro-choice, nor do I define myself as pro-life. I hope to establish a framework for thoughtful people to have rational discussions about these issues.
Since this is an LDS-related blog, I want to start this series of posts with the Church's positions on abortion. Yes, that's right, positions. On moral and ethical grounds, the Church has clearly articulated its expectations of its members. The Church "believes in the sanctity of human life... and opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions." It only allows for possible exceptions in cases of (1) rape/incest, (2) where the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, and (3) where the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Additionally, these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. It is clear that the Church considers elective abortion to be sinful. I would never personally support or encourage someone to have an elective abortion because of my personal view on the sanctity of life.
However, the Church's position on what the government's role should be in regulating abortion is entirely different. On the Church's official newsroom webpage, it states that "the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." Clearly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been politically neutral on what laws related to abortion should be adopted by our legislatures.
So to kick off my series of posts about the political issues of life, it needs to be clear, at least within LDS circles, that there is room within official LDS orthodoxy on what should be the law of the land. The pro-choice position basically articulates the belief that our government has little or no role in regulating abortions in our country. The pro-life position conversely believes that the government should have a heavy hand in regulating abortion, criminalizing it in most cases. I believe there are earnest, moral, and thoughtful people who are in both camps and in between.
Since this is an LDS-related blog, I want to start this series of posts with the Church's positions on abortion. Yes, that's right, positions. On moral and ethical grounds, the Church has clearly articulated its expectations of its members. The Church "believes in the sanctity of human life... and opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions." It only allows for possible exceptions in cases of (1) rape/incest, (2) where the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, and (3) where the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Additionally, these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. It is clear that the Church considers elective abortion to be sinful. I would never personally support or encourage someone to have an elective abortion because of my personal view on the sanctity of life.
However, the Church's position on what the government's role should be in regulating abortion is entirely different. On the Church's official newsroom webpage, it states that "the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." Clearly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been politically neutral on what laws related to abortion should be adopted by our legislatures.
So to kick off my series of posts about the political issues of life, it needs to be clear, at least within LDS circles, that there is room within official LDS orthodoxy on what should be the law of the land. The pro-choice position basically articulates the belief that our government has little or no role in regulating abortions in our country. The pro-life position conversely believes that the government should have a heavy hand in regulating abortion, criminalizing it in most cases. I believe there are earnest, moral, and thoughtful people who are in both camps and in between.
March 29, 2010
Sean Hannity Scams Injured Vets, Children
Conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel revealed that Sean Hannity's "Freedom Concerts," which are ostensibly for raising money to pay for college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to assist wounded military veterans, spent less than "20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively" for these causes. This is based on information obtained from a Fox News source and from publicly available tax return information on Hannity's charity, Freedom Alliance.
According to the Fox News source, "there’d be a lot more money every concert to go to the cause if Hannity didn’t demand–and get–use of a Gulfstream 5 plane to fly him and his family/entourage to the concerts; a “fleet”... of either Cadillac or Lincoln SUVs for him and his family/entourage; and several suites at really expensive hotels for him and his family/entourage. The promoter apparently values Hannity’s star demands at well over $200,000 per event."
According to the Fox News source, "there’d be a lot more money every concert to go to the cause if Hannity didn’t demand–and get–use of a Gulfstream 5 plane to fly him and his family/entourage to the concerts; a “fleet”... of either Cadillac or Lincoln SUVs for him and his family/entourage; and several suites at really expensive hotels for him and his family/entourage. The promoter apparently values Hannity’s star demands at well over $200,000 per event."
March 28, 2010
"The Rage is Not About Health Care"
Frank Rich stated what I was trying to point out in my previous post, "Right-Wing Terrorism," in a much more eloquent and straightforward fashion than I did. (That's probably why he's a NYT columnist and I'm not.) Here are some of the best parts:
In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot... If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory.
...As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.
Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the 20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her Facebook page.
In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot... If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory.
...As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.
Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the 20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her Facebook page.
March 27, 2010
Texas Textbooks- Don't Let Your Kids Read 'Em!
Recently the Texas Board of Education undertook efforts to significantly revise Texas' history, social studies, and economics curriculum along unapologetically ideological lines. No historians, sociologists, economists, or other experts were consulted at the meetings in which the revisions were debated and approved. Here's a humorous look at the way the changes were made.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Don't Mess With Textbooks | ||||
| ||||
"A well regulated Militia"- A Common Sense Approach to Arms Control
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is probably no other section of our constitution that is currently more controversial than this one. In my own opinion, the above text guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms only in the context of a well-regulated militia. I invite any old English grammar experts to render an honest opinion of the literal meaning of that sentence. I am not one, but I cannot interpret it in any other way that does not link the right of the people to "keep and bear Arms" to a "well regulated Militia." Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 29, "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." Of course, the body he was referring to was the federal government.
However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia vs. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." This ruling clearly articulated the Court's view that individuals have a right to bear arms.
Though I am not convinced that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the individual right to bear arms outside of well-regulated militias, for practical purposes, that is the law of the land today. Even President Barack Obama supports an individual right to bear arms. In one of the 2008 Democratic Primary debates, he said, "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."
Despite my view that the text of the 2nd Amendment does not provide for an individual right to bear arms, I do agree that there should be such a right and I applaud the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling. I think the D.C. law on handguns was overly restrictive. Please note that the dictionary definition of the word "arms" is weapons, not just guns/firearms. I think a better label for this conversation is weapons or arms control rather than gun control, because there are other types of deadly weapons beyond guns (i.e. nukes) that should be regulated in the interest of public safety.
No other objective is more important for the federal government than public safety. President Bush stated as much several times in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In the interest of public safety, we do not allow individuals to purchase weapons of mass destruction. If you set out to create your own anthrax, or VX gas, and you are discovered, you will go to jail. Similarly, individuals are not allowed to own rocket propelled grenade launchers and mortars. They cannot even own heavy machine guns like the mounted, fully-automatic 50 caliber variety. Who in their right mind believes it is a good idea for these types of deadly, mass casualty-causing weapons to be legal for the general public? The point is that while current law supports the notion of an individual right to bear arms, the government clearly regulates what types of weapons individuals can own, and what types of weapons should be banned in the interest of public safety. In United States vs. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court rejected a 2nd Amendment challenge, ruling that it was permissible for the State of Arkansas to prohibit sawed-off double barrel shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches. An informed debate on arms control and the 2nd Amendment should center around a discussion of what types of weapons are too dangerous for ownership by the general population. It's all about where we draw the line.
The federal government should ensure that there is a baseline law governing what types of weapons are too deadly for public ownership, and then allow states and local governments to be more restrictive up to a certain point. It is perfectly reasonable for rural Montana to have less restrictive arms control laws than, say, urban Los Angeles. I believe it to be acceptable for individuals to be able to own handguns and hunting rifles. Handguns make sense for personal protection in the home, and hunting is a valued American tradition.
However, automatic weapons like assault rifles (i.e. sub-machine guns, M4s, AK-47s, and other high-powered automatic and semi-automatic rifles) are not necessary for protection in the home or for hunting. They are designed for causing mass human casualties in a short amount of time and are appropriate only for law enforcement and the military. In the interest of public safety, the recently expired assault weapons ban should be reinstated and made permanent. The 1997 North Hollywood Shootout and the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre are good examples of the danger of allowing public ownership of assault weapons. The AR 15 assault rifle that was used in the Hollywood Shootout was not illegal at the time. (However, the AR 15 used by one of the shooters had been illegally modified to turn it into a fully-automatic weapon.)
We also now have and should maintain reasonable laws to prevent dangerous criminals and mentally unstable criminals from owning any deadly weapons, especially firearms. Prior to the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (which was fiercely opposed by Republicans), there was no requirement for any sort of criminal or mental health background check individuals seeking to purchase a handgun.
In the aftermath of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, it became known that the shooter's history of serious mental health illness was properly reported to Virginia authorities; however, because of inadequate laws, Virginia did not report Seung-Hui Cho's status to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would have barred Cho from purchasing the guns he ultimately used to slaughter 32 people.
Most people know about the elephant-sized loophole in federal and state gun control laws through gun shows. Individuals can purchase weapons at gun shows without any sort of background check. This renders the Brady Bill and other laws requiring criminal and mental health background checks on gun purchases meaningless because criminals and the dangerously mentally ill have a very easy way of legally purchasing weapons. There is simply no rational explanation for this. It is an affront to one's conscience with respect to proper public safety laws and should be legally addressed by the Congress as soon as possible.
There is probably no other section of our constitution that is currently more controversial than this one. In my own opinion, the above text guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms only in the context of a well-regulated militia. I invite any old English grammar experts to render an honest opinion of the literal meaning of that sentence. I am not one, but I cannot interpret it in any other way that does not link the right of the people to "keep and bear Arms" to a "well regulated Militia." Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 29, "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." Of course, the body he was referring to was the federal government.
However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia vs. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." This ruling clearly articulated the Court's view that individuals have a right to bear arms.
Though I am not convinced that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the individual right to bear arms outside of well-regulated militias, for practical purposes, that is the law of the land today. Even President Barack Obama supports an individual right to bear arms. In one of the 2008 Democratic Primary debates, he said, "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."
Despite my view that the text of the 2nd Amendment does not provide for an individual right to bear arms, I do agree that there should be such a right and I applaud the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling. I think the D.C. law on handguns was overly restrictive. Please note that the dictionary definition of the word "arms" is weapons, not just guns/firearms. I think a better label for this conversation is weapons or arms control rather than gun control, because there are other types of deadly weapons beyond guns (i.e. nukes) that should be regulated in the interest of public safety.
No other objective is more important for the federal government than public safety. President Bush stated as much several times in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In the interest of public safety, we do not allow individuals to purchase weapons of mass destruction. If you set out to create your own anthrax, or VX gas, and you are discovered, you will go to jail. Similarly, individuals are not allowed to own rocket propelled grenade launchers and mortars. They cannot even own heavy machine guns like the mounted, fully-automatic 50 caliber variety. Who in their right mind believes it is a good idea for these types of deadly, mass casualty-causing weapons to be legal for the general public? The point is that while current law supports the notion of an individual right to bear arms, the government clearly regulates what types of weapons individuals can own, and what types of weapons should be banned in the interest of public safety. In United States vs. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court rejected a 2nd Amendment challenge, ruling that it was permissible for the State of Arkansas to prohibit sawed-off double barrel shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches. An informed debate on arms control and the 2nd Amendment should center around a discussion of what types of weapons are too dangerous for ownership by the general population. It's all about where we draw the line.
The federal government should ensure that there is a baseline law governing what types of weapons are too deadly for public ownership, and then allow states and local governments to be more restrictive up to a certain point. It is perfectly reasonable for rural Montana to have less restrictive arms control laws than, say, urban Los Angeles. I believe it to be acceptable for individuals to be able to own handguns and hunting rifles. Handguns make sense for personal protection in the home, and hunting is a valued American tradition.
However, automatic weapons like assault rifles (i.e. sub-machine guns, M4s, AK-47s, and other high-powered automatic and semi-automatic rifles) are not necessary for protection in the home or for hunting. They are designed for causing mass human casualties in a short amount of time and are appropriate only for law enforcement and the military. In the interest of public safety, the recently expired assault weapons ban should be reinstated and made permanent. The 1997 North Hollywood Shootout and the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre are good examples of the danger of allowing public ownership of assault weapons. The AR 15 assault rifle that was used in the Hollywood Shootout was not illegal at the time. (However, the AR 15 used by one of the shooters had been illegally modified to turn it into a fully-automatic weapon.)
We also now have and should maintain reasonable laws to prevent dangerous criminals and mentally unstable criminals from owning any deadly weapons, especially firearms. Prior to the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (which was fiercely opposed by Republicans), there was no requirement for any sort of criminal or mental health background check individuals seeking to purchase a handgun.
In the aftermath of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, it became known that the shooter's history of serious mental health illness was properly reported to Virginia authorities; however, because of inadequate laws, Virginia did not report Seung-Hui Cho's status to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would have barred Cho from purchasing the guns he ultimately used to slaughter 32 people.
Most people know about the elephant-sized loophole in federal and state gun control laws through gun shows. Individuals can purchase weapons at gun shows without any sort of background check. This renders the Brady Bill and other laws requiring criminal and mental health background checks on gun purchases meaningless because criminals and the dangerously mentally ill have a very easy way of legally purchasing weapons. There is simply no rational explanation for this. It is an affront to one's conscience with respect to proper public safety laws and should be legally addressed by the Congress as soon as possible.
March 25, 2010
Glenn Beck Called Out By Mormon Leaders
Glenn Beck, who recently demonized churches that preach social and economic justice as communist and fascist, caused some LDS church leaders to become so uncomfortable that they personally apologized to a reverend whom Beck had attacked. More specifically, Glenn Beck said, "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. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!" He went on to compare organizations that practice social and economic justice with communism and fascism.
Perhaps Mr. Beck does not know that his own church preaches social justice. According to a recent New York Times article, "Philip Barlow, the Arrington professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University, said, 'One way to read the Book of Mormon is that it’s a vast tract on social justice. A lot of Latter-day Saints would think that Beck was asking them to leave their own church.' Mr. Barlow said that just this year, the church’s highest authority, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, issued a new 'Handbook of Instructions' in which they revised the church’s 'threefold mission' and added a fourth mission statement: Care for the poor."
Mr. Beck is really creating bad publicity for the Church. He is anything but a peacemaker and certainly does not heed any of the recent counsel from LDS Church leaders in having calm and thoughtful dialogue. It seems that Elder Robert S. Wood, as referenced in an earlier post, was speaking specifically of Beck when he said, "whether they be false friends or unrighteous teachers, artists or entertainers, commentators or letter writers to local newspapers, seekers of power or wealth, beware of those who stir us up to such anger that calm reflection and charitable feelings are suppressed."
Perhaps Mr. Beck does not know that his own church preaches social justice. According to a recent New York Times article, "Philip Barlow, the Arrington professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University, said, 'One way to read the Book of Mormon is that it’s a vast tract on social justice. A lot of Latter-day Saints would think that Beck was asking them to leave their own church.' Mr. Barlow said that just this year, the church’s highest authority, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, issued a new 'Handbook of Instructions' in which they revised the church’s 'threefold mission' and added a fourth mission statement: Care for the poor."
Mr. Beck is really creating bad publicity for the Church. He is anything but a peacemaker and certainly does not heed any of the recent counsel from LDS Church leaders in having calm and thoughtful dialogue. It seems that Elder Robert S. Wood, as referenced in an earlier post, was speaking specifically of Beck when he said, "whether they be false friends or unrighteous teachers, artists or entertainers, commentators or letter writers to local newspapers, seekers of power or wealth, beware of those who stir us up to such anger that calm reflection and charitable feelings are suppressed."
Right-Wing Terrorism
The news over the past few days has demonstrated that elements of the Tea Party and others on the far right have resorted to blatant bigotry and threats of violence in the run up to and in the aftermath of Sunday's House vote on the landmark heath care reform bill. As some Democratic lawmakers were making their way up to Capital Hill on Sunday, Tea Party protesters hurled racial and other epithets, like ni***r and fa***t to a few black congressman and one gay congressman. One black congressman was even spat upon.
After the bill passed, several Democrats received death threats and Democratic congressional offices were vandalized. The campaign office of Rep. Louise Slaughter from Niagara Falls, New York received a call that threatened a sniper attack. And the district congressional offices of Rep. Slaughter and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona were vandalized. Pro-life Michigan Democrat Rep. Bart Stupack received death threats after voting for the bill. A Tea Party activist posted on his blog what he thought was the home address of Virgina Democrat Rep. Tom Perriello and encouraged fellow activists to "drop by" Rep. Perriello's home for a "face to face" chat. It turns out that it was actually the address of Perriello's brother. The Tea Party nut who posted the wrong address refuses to take it down. Now the FBI is investigating a line to a propane tank on a gas grill that was cut at Perriello's brother's house. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House's highest-ranking African-American received a fax with an image of a noose. At least 10 House Democrats have raised concerns about their security since Sunday's vote.
If that isn't enough, the GOP is using provocative imagery in its opposition. For example, Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page, used gun sights to highlight the Democrats her lobbying group is targeting in the next elections. This is the same Palin that incited virulence and threats at her campaign rallies in 2008. The official GOP website has an image of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the midst of flames.
A look at actual acts of right-wing violence over the past couple of years shows that there is a body count to all of this. These latest incidents are mostly just words, but extremist movements are capitalizing on anger and despair over a difficult economic situation. Here are a few of the most well-known cases:
* July 27, 2008- Motivated by desire to "kill liberals and Democrats," gunman Jim David Adkisson fired a shotgun at members of the congregation during a youth performance of a musical, killing two people and wounding seven others.
* Two white supremacists planned a murder spree of 88 African Americans in Tennessee, as well as planned to assassinate candidate Obama in October 2008. The Secret Service has investigated a large number of threats against Obama both during and after the campaign.
* January 21, 2009- White supremacist Keith Luke killed 2 people, raped and attempted to kill a 3rd, and planned to continue on a killing spree targeting Jews and non-whites but was thwarted from doing so after he was arrested.
* April 4, 2009- Richard Poplawski, a white supremacist with strong anti-government ideology ambushed and killed 3 Pittsburgh police officers. Poplawski had reportedly posted a link to his website of a YouTube video of Republican Congressman Ron Paul discussing with Fox News host Glenn Beck the rumored existence of FEMA-managed concentration camps.
* May 31, 2009- Scott Roeder murdered an abortion doctor while he was in church in Kansas. Fox News' right-wing commentator Bill O'Reilly helped to incite anger and violence against Dr. George Tiller.
* June 10, 2009- James Von Brunn, an anti-government ideologue, attacked the Holocaust museum in DC, killing a guard before he was wounded.
* February 18, 2010, Joseph Stack III, angry at the IRS, crashed a small airplane into the Austin, Texas IRS building, killing 1 IRS employee. And how is this different from one of the 9/11 hijackers?
The DHS report on the threat of right-wing violence was spot-on correct, despite it being viciously attacked by many conservatives as a political move. Extremists on the right are taking advantage of a severe recession and the election of the nation's first black president to incite hatred and violence.
I hope that in the future, cooler heads will prevail. The GOP leadership and conservative talk show hosts have a moral responsibility to keep the dialogue civil. While they are not necessarily responsible for every lone wolf nut job out there that goes on a killing rampage, GOP leaders and conservative pundits must know that their words are heeded, and when they use the rhetoric of fear, violence, and hatred, those at the fringe of their following will use their words to justify almost anything. Scaring their voting base by claiming that Stalin and Hitler have been resurrected in the form of Obama and his health care bill is simply unethical and untruthful. As I pointed out on my last post regarding conservative pundit David Frum's analysis of the GOP's health care defeat, conservative talkers had "whipped the Republican voting base" into a "frenzy" where calm and rational dialogue was impossible.
Of course there are extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. But we did not see this kind of violence and virulent rhetoric from the far left during the Bush years.
After the bill passed, several Democrats received death threats and Democratic congressional offices were vandalized. The campaign office of Rep. Louise Slaughter from Niagara Falls, New York received a call that threatened a sniper attack. And the district congressional offices of Rep. Slaughter and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona were vandalized. Pro-life Michigan Democrat Rep. Bart Stupack received death threats after voting for the bill. A Tea Party activist posted on his blog what he thought was the home address of Virgina Democrat Rep. Tom Perriello and encouraged fellow activists to "drop by" Rep. Perriello's home for a "face to face" chat. It turns out that it was actually the address of Perriello's brother. The Tea Party nut who posted the wrong address refuses to take it down. Now the FBI is investigating a line to a propane tank on a gas grill that was cut at Perriello's brother's house. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House's highest-ranking African-American received a fax with an image of a noose. At least 10 House Democrats have raised concerns about their security since Sunday's vote.
If that isn't enough, the GOP is using provocative imagery in its opposition. For example, Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page, used gun sights to highlight the Democrats her lobbying group is targeting in the next elections. This is the same Palin that incited virulence and threats at her campaign rallies in 2008. The official GOP website has an image of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the midst of flames.
A look at actual acts of right-wing violence over the past couple of years shows that there is a body count to all of this. These latest incidents are mostly just words, but extremist movements are capitalizing on anger and despair over a difficult economic situation. Here are a few of the most well-known cases:
* July 27, 2008- Motivated by desire to "kill liberals and Democrats," gunman Jim David Adkisson fired a shotgun at members of the congregation during a youth performance of a musical, killing two people and wounding seven others.
* Two white supremacists planned a murder spree of 88 African Americans in Tennessee, as well as planned to assassinate candidate Obama in October 2008. The Secret Service has investigated a large number of threats against Obama both during and after the campaign.
* January 21, 2009- White supremacist Keith Luke killed 2 people, raped and attempted to kill a 3rd, and planned to continue on a killing spree targeting Jews and non-whites but was thwarted from doing so after he was arrested.
* April 4, 2009- Richard Poplawski, a white supremacist with strong anti-government ideology ambushed and killed 3 Pittsburgh police officers. Poplawski had reportedly posted a link to his website of a YouTube video of Republican Congressman Ron Paul discussing with Fox News host Glenn Beck the rumored existence of FEMA-managed concentration camps.
* May 31, 2009- Scott Roeder murdered an abortion doctor while he was in church in Kansas. Fox News' right-wing commentator Bill O'Reilly helped to incite anger and violence against Dr. George Tiller.
* June 10, 2009- James Von Brunn, an anti-government ideologue, attacked the Holocaust museum in DC, killing a guard before he was wounded.
* February 18, 2010, Joseph Stack III, angry at the IRS, crashed a small airplane into the Austin, Texas IRS building, killing 1 IRS employee. And how is this different from one of the 9/11 hijackers?
The DHS report on the threat of right-wing violence was spot-on correct, despite it being viciously attacked by many conservatives as a political move. Extremists on the right are taking advantage of a severe recession and the election of the nation's first black president to incite hatred and violence.
I hope that in the future, cooler heads will prevail. The GOP leadership and conservative talk show hosts have a moral responsibility to keep the dialogue civil. While they are not necessarily responsible for every lone wolf nut job out there that goes on a killing rampage, GOP leaders and conservative pundits must know that their words are heeded, and when they use the rhetoric of fear, violence, and hatred, those at the fringe of their following will use their words to justify almost anything. Scaring their voting base by claiming that Stalin and Hitler have been resurrected in the form of Obama and his health care bill is simply unethical and untruthful. As I pointed out on my last post regarding conservative pundit David Frum's analysis of the GOP's health care defeat, conservative talkers had "whipped the Republican voting base" into a "frenzy" where calm and rational dialogue was impossible.
Of course there are extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. But we did not see this kind of violence and virulent rhetoric from the far left during the Bush years.
March 22, 2010
The Conservatives' Waterloo
David Frum, President George W. Bush's former speechwriter and a conservative political pundit posted the following on his website yesterday. I highly recommend the entire article, but here are some key points:
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s... A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994...
But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994...
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat... There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s... A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994...
But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994...
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat... There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
March 18, 2010
Glenn Beck vs. the First Presidency
On March 12th, the First Presidency of the Church issued a statement encouraging all Church members in the United States to participate fully in the 2010 census. "We urge all members to respond to [census questionnaires] in an accurate and timely manner. It is an important obligation for all citizens to be counted in the census."
However, Glenn Beck had a different idea.
However, Glenn Beck had a different idea.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| United States Census 2010 | ||||
| ||||
Just to clear it up once and for all...
In 1998, Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the First Quorum of the Seventy gave a lengthy interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, in which he explained why the First Presidency of the Church issued a letter to all LDS congregations encouraging members to participate in the functions of government in their communities. Part of the concern that prompted the statement from the First Presidency was that it is not in the Church's "best interest to be known as a one-party church." Furthermore, he stated:
I think I could safely say that one of the things that prompted this discussion in the first place was the regret that’s felt about the decline of the Democratic Party [in Utah] and the notion that may prevail in some areas that you can’t be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time. There have been some awfully good men and women who have, I think, been both and are both today. So I think it would be a very healthy thing for the church—particularly the Utah church—if that notion could be obliterated.
I think I could safely say that one of the things that prompted this discussion in the first place was the regret that’s felt about the decline of the Democratic Party [in Utah] and the notion that may prevail in some areas that you can’t be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time. There have been some awfully good men and women who have, I think, been both and are both today. So I think it would be a very healthy thing for the church—particularly the Utah church—if that notion could be obliterated.
"Beware of Those Who Stir Us Up to Anger"
To start the blog, I would like to link one of my favorite LDS General Conference talks from the past few years given by Elder Robert S. Wood of the First Quorum of the Seventy. In observing the political climate in 2006, Elder Wood noted:
We appear to be living in an era in which many are speaking without thinking, encouraging emotional reactions rather than thoughtful responses. Whether it be on the national or international stage, in personal relations or in politics, at home or in the public forum, voices grow ever more strident, and giving and taking offense appear to be chosen rather than inadvertent…
Whether they be false friends or unrighteous teachers, artists or entertainers, commentators or letter writers to local newspapers, seekers of power or wealth, beware of those who stir us up to such anger that calm reflection and charitable feelings are suppressed…
President George Albert Smith observed, “There is nothing in the world more deleterious or harmful to the human family than hatred, prejudice, suspicion, and the attitude that some people have toward their fellows, of unkindness.” In matters of politics, he warned, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.”
If you want to read the whole talk, click here. I was impressed to hear that our Church leaders are aware of the poisonous political climate today and that it is afflicting our membership. With this blog, I hope to explore many of the political misconceptions that exist within LDS culture that I experienced as a progressive undergraduate student at BYU.
We appear to be living in an era in which many are speaking without thinking, encouraging emotional reactions rather than thoughtful responses. Whether it be on the national or international stage, in personal relations or in politics, at home or in the public forum, voices grow ever more strident, and giving and taking offense appear to be chosen rather than inadvertent…
Whether they be false friends or unrighteous teachers, artists or entertainers, commentators or letter writers to local newspapers, seekers of power or wealth, beware of those who stir us up to such anger that calm reflection and charitable feelings are suppressed…
President George Albert Smith observed, “There is nothing in the world more deleterious or harmful to the human family than hatred, prejudice, suspicion, and the attitude that some people have toward their fellows, of unkindness.” In matters of politics, he warned, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.”
If you want to read the whole talk, click here. I was impressed to hear that our Church leaders are aware of the poisonous political climate today and that it is afflicting our membership. With this blog, I hope to explore many of the political misconceptions that exist within LDS culture that I experienced as a progressive undergraduate student at BYU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)