politicaLDS - Mormons From All Sides: July 2008

Pollution Revisited

Have you heard about the plan China has been using to lower its air pollution prior to the Olympic games?

Last week, I read this story about a Canadian woman who lost custody of her children over her racist beliefs. She sent her 7 year old daughter to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. The second time it happened, Child and Family Services came to her home, saw Neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took the children. That was four months ago, and the state still has custody of the children.

Now, I am not a racist. I definitely DO NOT agree with this woman's "politics, [her] beliefs", as she calls them. However, I also find it hard to believe that her children could be taken away from her FOR her beliefs.

Nor did the Department offer any evidence that any of Relator's pubescent female children were in physical danger other than that those children live at the ranch among a group of people who have a "pervasive system of belief" that condones polygamous marriage and underage females having children. The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger.

Essentially, the children were taken away because of their parents' beliefs. And some people think the state should still have custody of the children!

All of this frightens me. Of course I don't have any weird or hateful beliefs, but a lot of uninformed people think weird things about Mormon beliefs. Who decides what beliefs are acceptable and what beliefs are not?

In 2002, the Swedish parliament included references to sexual orientation in a list of groups protected against persecution in the form of threat or disdain. In 2003, Pentecostal Christian Pastor Ake Green delivered a sermon on homosexuality. As a result, a local member of an LGBT equal rights organization reported him to the police, and he was sentenced to one month in jail under Sweden's law against "hate speech" (he was later acquitted).

Lesser known is another case in Sweden in 2005 where Leif Liljestrom, administrator of a Christian website called Bibeltemplet (The Bible Temple) was sentenced to two months in prison for holding and expressing critical views of homosexuality. He was recently acquitted of all charges.

In 2006, Christian Vanneste, a member of the French Parliament was fined the equivalent of US$4000 under France's "hate speech" law for remarks opposing homosexuality.

Canada, Sweden and France are among the most "progressive" countries in the world.

U.S. Lawmakers are considering H.R. 1592, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as federally protected groups under hate crimes legislation. Given the "progressive" trends in America, is the following scenario feasible?

A church (LDS?) teaches that homosexual activity is a sin. A member of that church (me?) teaches my own children the same thing in my home. Someone else who disagrees with me and this belief reports my teachings to Child Protective Services, who take away my children because of my "hateful" beliefs - maybe not permanantly, but just long enough to "send a message" to other parents who are considering teaching the same thing to their children.

Is it possible? And if so, would you find it acceptable?

veep stakes, part 2

Here, in all their glory, are Rogan's Rankings for Barack Obama's vice-presidential options. (Note - I disabled comments for this post, let's put the discussion for both candidates together in the prior comment thread)

veep stakes

While the polls seem to indicate Obama with a decent lead in the polls, I've talked to a number of people who are on the fence, waiting to see who the nominees choose as their running mates - who knows, it could make or break a candidacy this year. So today, let me share Rogan's Rankings of the top twenty VP possibilities - starting with the Republicans.

Acceptance

Race and ethnicity are funny things. Not funny in the comical sense, of course.

Some people who refer to themselves are "mixies" might identify with their father's race, or their mother's race but not both. Other people refuse to check the box stating Caucasian, pacific-islander, Asian, Native American, whathaveyou because they say that they are not simply one race and there isn't a box available to check Euro-Caucasian-Asian-Caribbean-African-American.

Personally, I don't blame them.

It's 3:00 A.M....

...and I think it's worth revisiting Hillary Clinton's infamous television advertisement now that the Democratic primary season is past and the general election is upon us.

On the surface, Barack Obama appears no match for John McCain on national security issues. McCain is a bona-fide war hero, a former fighter pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam. He is the ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and has been a leader on issues of national security for much of his Senate career. I certainly respect McCain's service and record, but if we frame the "3 AM" question slightly differently, I begin to think a bit differently:

It's October 15, 1962, and photographs taken by a U2 spy plane have just revealed that mobile missile bases are being erected in Cuba, capable of launching nuclear strikes against any location in the continental United States.

The Elephant in the Room

The Bloggernacle is abuzz over this letter sent from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to church leaders to be read to all congregations in California last Sunday. The letter asks church members to

do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.

I have read a variety of comments on the matter, but comments focused on the idea that the church should stay out of politics (to maintain tax-exempt status, because church and state should be separate, etc.) are what got me wondering: what is the church's position on political neutrality?

It can be found here.

The church's mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.
The church does not:

Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates, or platforms
Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes
Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader

The church does:

Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections
Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters
Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the church
Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the church

The church is very clear that it is not involved in partisan politics. The proposed amendment to the California state constitution has nothing to do with political parties. It is, however, an "issue that [the church] believes [has] significant community or moral consequences or that directly affects the interests of the church". Therefore, I find no inconsistency between the church's position on political neutrality and its involvement in the California state amendment issue.

Further, The Family: A Proclamation to the World says

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Since the Proclamation was given, our church leaders continue to encourage us to be involved in protecting the family.

We call upon government and political leaders to put the needs of children and parents first and to think in terms of family impact in all legislation and policy making.

I was greatly saddened to read an (opinion) article that says the pro-family movement in America appears to be dying.

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), the only openly lesbian Member of Congress, is predicting passage of hate crimes legislation and repeal of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the next Congress regardless of who is elected President.

In 2000, the people of California voted yes to Proposition 22 that defined marriage as a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman , to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. In March of this year, the California Supreme Court voted 4-3 to legalize homosexual marriage.

This fall, the people of California will again have the opportunity to make their voices heard with the vote on the constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. In 2000, 64.1% voted "yes" on the issue. This isn't even as high as many other states that have voted on the same issue. Currently, 40 states have DOMAs or constitutional amendments defining marriage as one woman and one man. I suspect that the tide has turned, and this time around, CA will not pass the traditional marriage amendment.

What would this mean for the pro-family movement? Is it really dead? The article referenced above says:

Unless and until the pro-family groups again are able to go on the offense they are likely to lose ground. As unfortunate as that may be, it is reality. To return to the offense the pro-family forces would need more members of Congress. At this stage it appears they will be dealing next year with fewer, not more, in sympathy with their agenda. More members, it seems to me, must be that community's first priority if it expects to be successful.

I agree with the author - I think that the percentage of congress members sympathetic to family causes will decline come November. I can't help but place at least partial blame on Bush and his administration. He is a pro-family man. He ran as a strong conservative and helped Republicans win great victories sweeping both houses of congress in 2002. We had a chance to make things happen and improve things for the better. Instead, he screwed up so heavily in areas like the Iraq war and immigration so that now people are so angry at the "Republicans" that they'll vote any Democrat into office just to get rid of the Republicans. The result is fewer and fewer "pro-family" members of congress.

The Proclamation on the Family is clear about a lot of things. One is this:

[W]e warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Do you believe that? Do you see a connection between the dying pro-family movement and the disintegration of the family? Do you believe that we will see "calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets"?

I do. I believe we are already seeing them, and I believe it will get worse. Time to get my food storage in order.

Pollution Revisited

Parental Rights

veep stakes, part 2

veep stakes

Acceptance

It's 3:00 A.M....

The Elephant in the Room

Chat

Contributors

Followers

Recent Comments

Disclaimer

Press

Bloggernacle

Blog Archive