Demormocratting: Why I'm Liberal

A game where everyone guessed what political party the person that runs a blog called "Demormocrat" belongs to would not last very long. Whenever people find out I'm a registered Democrat they inevitably ask a certain question, regardless of their own views: "Are your parents Democrat?" Sometimes they ask a variant of it: "Were you raised a Democrat?"


I always answer something like this: "My parents and I often don't agree on politics--even though Dad is registered Democrat--but they raised me to think for myself. So I do. I research out the party platforms and candidates and issues and decide for myself. I just happen to most often agree Democrat." By the way, it's getting annoying how often people say something to effect of "I research the issues and make my own decisions" because it's usually used in the context of assuming that my ideas are dictated by my party instead of the other way around. It's condescending and moot.

One really bad thing we do in our society is we stereotype people based on their party affiliation. People assume that because you're a Republican that you must be totally anti-gun-control and we know that that's not true based on the recent votes on the failed gun legislation. They also assume that because you're a Democrat you must be pro-abortion when that is also untrue, as discussed later. I can't tell you how many times I've been told by people that my views are of the devil or otherwise wrong by people who didn't even ask me what my views are, only knew that I'm a registered Democrat.

In this essay-post-thing, I'm going to go issue by issue--at least most of the major divisional issues--and briefly explain my views in the nutshell--maybe nut-case--version. All of these could be entire books. All I'll include here is the very basic view and the fundamental philosophy behind it. If applicable, I've included scriptures or other references for those of you who might say that it's impossible to be practicing LDS and belief as I do. I try to not legitimize my politics with religion. But if someone comes at me with the religion offense, I will use the religion defense.

These are in no particular order.

Gun Control--Democrat

I recognize that the 2nd Amendment states a basic right for American citizens, specifically for the purpose that if the federal government ever invaded a state, the state would have the means to raise a militia to fight them off. I also recognize that--while I do not engage in it--hunting is an integral part of certain cultures.

However, I do not side with the NRA or the more conservative factions of the Republican party on this issue. Their arguments tend to be along the lines of "Don't take away my guns." No legislation is being pushed to take away all the guns of all the citizens except guns specifically designed for killing lots of people at once and if such legislation were to come up, I would not support it. The recent legislation has been for licensure--among other things--of firearm owners. Why not license guns? We license marriages, divorces, adoptions, businesses, banks, vendors, drivers, cars, protesters and a whole lot of other things, many of them specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. We license hunting. But we don't license guns.

Immigration--Democrat

I'm pro-immigration. There's no reason any group of people shouldn't be allowed to come here and become citizens. There's not a person in this country that isn't descended from immigrants. Well, maybe a few Native Americans. Sure there are problems in this country that get compounded by "undocumented residents" being here. But as it stands now, we claim to welcome the "huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" except the ones from Mexico. We accept refugees from Africa and Asia and Europe with open arms. The immigrants from Cuba that actually make it here are given instant amnesty. This is all very good. But let's extend that to Mexicans, too. "But all the others are fleeing war, poverty and Communism!" And the Mexicans aren't fleeing anything?

As a side note, the Church has many members that are "illegal immigrants." I personally know some. Families are our focus. The Church supports any legislation that it feels will keep families as intact as possible.

Gay Marriage--Libertarian

I mentioned earlier that we license marriages. Why? I define a marriage as a relationship. I don't need the government giving their stamp of approval on my marriage. It shouldn't affect the taxes I pay or the benefits I receive. I'm not for the legalization of gay marriage. I'm for the delegalization of all marriage. By the way, the official LDS Church statement does say that they recognize that members will disagree with them on this issue and as long as it is a difference of perspective and not a difference of doctrine, it's okay. My activity in the Church will not be affected by it at all.

By the way, the church has always backed legislation that supports equal rights in housing, employment and health care and everything else--except marriage obviously--and is very much opposed to any bullying of any kind for any reason, contrary to popular belief. The rest of the country seems to think that we're all very anti-gay. No, we're not. The church is just opposed to legally--or morally--changing the definition of what marriage is.

Civil Rights--Democrat or Socialist

Nobody for any reason should be given different rights under the law from any other person. We're all Children of God, human beings with dignity, people, etc. I firmly believe that in the eyes of God--or evolution, whatever--"all [people] were created equal" and even if we weren't, we should be treated that way by the government, in the workplace and in our lives. This includes everyone: gays and straights, blacks and whites and browns, Christians and Muslims and Jews--or all three--and Hindus, children and adults, men and women, natural-born and immigrant, everyone. 2 Nephi 26:33

Abortion--Moderate

I value life. I value women's rights. These are not mutually exclusive.

I do believe that life begins before birth, but I don't necessarily believe that it begins at conception. So where does it become "murder?" I don't know. But I do know that we already have a legal standard for what "alive" means, though it's only employed at the other end of life. (If you didn't already know, when hearts are transplanted, they have to be pumping. You can imagine how somebody freaked out about that when it become common practice. Legislators were faced with an interesting question: how can we measure life?) Crazy as it sounds, we measure the "brain-waves" (I don't know the science of it) to determine when a person is "brain-dead" before we harvest their organs. Why don't we apply that to within the womb?

But I know it's not that simple. I do believe that basically a woman should have total control over her own body, including her reproductive system. However, even an unconscious decision is still a decision. A girl slips up and gets pregnant, she still chose that even if it wasn't sought out. A girl who was raped did not choose that. I also believe that women who go through abortions do not go through them easily or "for fun." I imagine that it's going to be hard, no matter the situation. Still--and I echo most Democrat leaders, Clinton and Obama included--adoption ought to be considered before abortion. This whole paragraph may have seemed very wishy-washy but I promise it's not. Or at least I don't think it is. I don't know.

One more thought: we can't make men biologically responsible for carrying children. But we can make them financially and legally responsible.

By the way, the Church's stance and Obama's are eerily similar (though the reasons and solutions vary slightly). Basically, the woman should seek the help of her spiritual leader before seeking an abortion.

So yes, I'm pro-life--just like LDS and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid--but moderately so.

Death Penalty and Prisons--Democrat

I firmly believe that a person can change and--more than that--can become a benefit to society, no matter where they've been or what they've gone through. Prisons--and actually I echo Joseph Smith's presidential platform--really should be "correctional institutions" or schools for learning a trade and leadership and life skills, albeit with armed guards. If society locks away or kills a person, they eliminate the possibility of any good that that particular person could do. And never underestimate the power of a person who has come around halfway to hell and back.

There's a lot of scriptural backing for this one--as well as a lot pro-death penalty--so I'll just stick with my favorite one: John 8:7

Welfare and Universal Healthcare--Democrat

Yes, I believe in an individual's responsibility to be able to take care of themself. But I also know that sometimes that becomes impossible for any number of reasons. Don't say they bring it upon themselves. You can't know that. (Mosiah 4:17-18)


Also--for those of you Mormons reading this--how do you claim that all people can and should be able to sustain themselves and pull themselves up from the bootstraps from any place and belong to a Church with such an extensive welfare program and preaches welfare from the pulpit and whose holy writ makes a point of discussing class warfare throughout its text? That really is a curiosity question, not a sarcastic rhetorical one. Please answer.

Yes, of course the system isn't perfect. Yes, there are people that take advantage of it. Nobody disagrees that it needs fixing. But to claim that it needs to be gotten rid of completely is a bad idea. When people can't provide for themselves and the government can't or won't help, private helpers step in. Sometimes these are churches and I laud their efforts. Often these "private helpers" are cartels and gangs. That's why the gangs are so prevalent in poorer areas, that's why Pablo Escobar and the like were so loved in Medellin, that's why the Mafia became so powerful during the Depression, that's why that old lady after the economy collapsed was caught with literally a truckload of marijuana. Figure this one: society benefits from society benefiting.

Yes, having a well-paying job is the ideal. But the ideal isn't always achieved, despite our best efforts.

Domestic Violence--Democrat

No domestic violence should be legal. All of it should be illegal and punished. Period.

War and Militarization and Foreign Relations--Democrat or Green

I already said, I value all life. I value it a lot. I've never fought in a war and of the wars my country has been in, I've only seen bits and pieces that float through the news. I can't say that I know firsthand that war is a terrible thing and I can't say that I can imagine what it's like. But that doesn't illegitimize my beliefs. I'd rather just not find out at all.

The Book of Mormon talks a lot about war--the second half of the Book of Alma and just about all of the Book of Ether are both full of comic-book detail war stories--and not all of it is negative. Some of the greatest prophets were also military leaders and there's many great quotes that are pro-war ("The Title of Liberty"). I say this because this is one issue that I can see the other side of the argument and I know how an active member of the Church could be pro-war.

The scriptures talk about justified reasons for going to war and for a brief period, the Church sent soldiers instead of missionaries. But that does not mean I have to agree with the nation's opting for violence. Violence--obviously--leads to death and hurt, often of innocent people. Diplomacy should always be sought first.

I also firmly believe that we can and should create a Global Community. I don't think it will happen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Environmentalism--Democrat or Green

We could get into Mormon cosmology about the Earth--note the capitalization--and Creation, but some things are too sacred to be shared in such a public forum where they could easily be accessed and ridiculed. Basically, we believe we--humans, Adam's descendents--are charged by God to take care of the earth because it would be really awkward in heaven if we didn't. Just kidding, that's not why.

I believe we need to take care of the earth for many reasons and the government should be hard on corporations that pollute and should support measures to make energy more eco-friendly and affordable, but the one that I would use in an argument is that we should take care of our planet because it's the only one we have right now. If we're going to breathe this air, let's not put obscene amounts of COx in it. If we're going to drink this water, let's not dump sewage and industrial crap in it.

As far as species diversity goes, I'm not in favor of saving the seal pups because they're "cute." I'm in favor of saving them because it's the right thing to do. So what if they don't serve any purpose to humans now? That doesn't mean they're not going to in the future and that's a bad qualification for letting something live.

Global warming: why does it matter? If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. That's what everybody has been saying since the beginning. Whether or not it's real, we still ought to take care of our earth.

Marijuana--Democrat or Libertarian

Why not have pot legal? I'm not going to smoke it, any more than I'm going to drink legal alcohol or smoke legal tobacco. In fact, let's tax it and make some money off of it. Heaven knows our government can use some more of that.

But this doesn't mean that we should lower our standards for drug abuse and driving while intoxicated or that companies shouldn't be allowed to drug-check. Actually, the opposite. Let's raise the punishments for violations while gaining revenue off of legal usage. That isn't dishonest. It's smart.

I had a friend once tell me that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because it takes away people's agency and the availability to think for themselves. The obvious counterargument was that so does alcohol, tobacco, over-the-counter drugs, coffee, etc.--basically the whole Word of Wisdom--to which she said we ought to outlaw all of those, too. And I just couldn't argue with that. I'd never met anyone that wanted the Prohibition back. I've since thought it through and decided that next time--isn't that how it goes?--I'll say: "So you want to limit someone's agency to choose to limit their own agency?" And that'll get 'em.

For the record, I am not in favor of legalizing meth or other such "scary" drugs. Call me a child of the media, but those "not even once" ads scare the living daylights out of me. Those drugs create violence. Marijuana usually mellows the user out.

Education--Not Sure

I'm not sure any party really has a good answer to education. I would say Socialist but then somebody would start ranting about how socialist education brainwashes children, as if they themselves weren't educated by free, socialized education. So this is what I believe, you tell me what party you think my views best match. I will not touch on Luna Laws or any other policy because--as I try to always say before an argument--I cannot argue policy, only ideology. Good policy will mirror and try to bring about ideology.

Education is something that the Church really stresses. A well-educated person will be a better father or mother than they would otherwise be and can better be an influence for good in the world. Wouldn't it be great if our government and society viewed it the same way?

Education is how culture permeate itself. A culture can be defined--not created or influenced by those these do do that too--by five basic and interwoven things: language, social events, philosophies, arts and sciences. Language and arts and sciences should be taught by experienced and high-performing teachers. Religion and philosophy--including and especially government--should not be preached in a public school but should be presented in an open and honest way, explaining the basics of ideologies and giving students the opportunity to discover more for themselves. Schools should put on social events and opportunities for students to mingle and get to know each other. Knowing social skills is important to becoming a functioning member of society. And this is coming from the nerdy band kid who didn't go to his senior prom. Administration and teachers' unions shouldn't fight but should work together to accomplish what is best for the students.

And education ought to be available to everyone. Tax-supported schools and scholarships are a good way to go. Every member of society benefits from having an educated populace so all of society ought to contribute to educating that populace.

As far as merit-based pay, requiring online classes and the like, all I can say is "I don't know." I can see the pros and cons of both sides of the issues. I'm not sure there is a one-size fits all answer. But I can say this, that nothing can replace a healthy teacher-student relationship for creating an atmosphere for effective learning and taking money away from teachers' salaries for having the newest and shiniest toys and technology is not a good idea.

Well, I'm done with my rant for now. I know I only touched on a relatively small amount of issues. Tell me if anything seems in opposition to what my religion teaches. I'd love to hear it and debate it. 

 

Shameless plug: like Demormocrat's page on the facebook!

D&C 29:35

I ran across an interesting claim, some of you may have heard it as well. "My party is God's party." Or at least that's what it amounts to. "God gave us this form of government and condemns that one." "God doesn't like your party." They all amount to the same. Here's what (Mormons believe) God has to say about that thinking:
  
"Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."

I realize that this may come off as hypocritical. I have made claims in the past that may seem exactly like what I'm preaching against right now. The very existence of a "Demormocrat" blog might seem like an effort to use God to argue my own viewpoints. But that is not my intent. My intent--as stated--is to show that you can be a temple-attending Mormon Democrat because sometimes people take issue with that. I try really hard to separate this in my mind because when people believe they are acting in God's name, they can do very evil things if they don't watch themselves.

By the way, there is a New Testament scripture about this as well. "My kingdom is not of this world." Look it up.

Correspondents' Dinner 2013

 

"I proposed a toast. It died in committee."

-Obama

Full Speech

Steven Spielberg's Next Movie

 After the screaming success of Lincoln, Steven Spielberg announced recently that his next big project is going to be a movie about one of the other big controversial, "anti-Constitutionalists" of our day: President Obama.

He hasn't indicated a release date yet, but I sure hope it comes soon. Before I go on my mission preferably. The movie will be entitled Obama.

I'm extremely excited about this as I'm sure much of the country will be. This movie will clear up many of the misconceptions surrounding the enigmatic leader and will likely lead to violent debate, just as both Lincoln and Lincoln did and as Obama is doing now.

For the midnight release--if I'm not gone by then--I know I'm definitely going to be dressing up in costume. Smart tie, smart suit and of course carrying a pocket Quran and some fake bombs with me, maybe some burning American flag underpants for good measure.

Eviction for Victims

 This should not be a partisan issue. Everyone--regardless of gender or party--ought to be mad about this.

 

"Last year in Norristown, Pa., Lakisha Briggs' boyfriend physically assaulted her, and the police arrested him. But in a cruel turn of events, a police officer then told Ms. Briggs, 'You are on three strikes. We're gonna have your landlord evict you.'

Yes, that's right. The police threatened Ms. Briggs with eviction because she had received their assistance for domestic violence. Under Norristown's "disorderly behavior ordinance," the city penalizes landlords and tenants when the police respond to three instances of "disorderly behavior" within a four-month period. The ordinance specifically includes "domestic disturbances" as disorderly behavior that triggers enforcement of the law."

 Original Article

John Green and Obama Hang Out

I haven't had time to watch this full thing yet, but I'll bet it's awesome! And of course that had to be said in John Green's voice because John Green and the President "hung out"--hanged out? hang outed?--on Google+ earlier this year and had some interesting conversations covering stuff from elimination of the penny to what the Greens will name their second child.

For those of you who don't know, John Green is an economist and author and one of the "Vlog Brothers" and the face of Crash Course World and US History. Check it out if you haven't already done so. It's awesome!

Facebook

Please, please, please "Like" this blog's facebook page for more dialogue, debate, updates and stats!

"I'm a Muslim, and I hate terrorism"...Hey, me too!

Okay, so I've already established that I claim Islam. This guy says it really well about mine--and most Muslims'--view on terrorism is. Really well-written article to boot.

"I'm not going to tell you, "Islam is a religion of peace." Nor will I tell you that Islam is a religion of violence. What I will say is that Islam is a religion that, like Christianity and Judaism, is intended to bring you closer to God. And sadly we have seen people use the name of each of these Abrahamic faiths to wage and justify violence." -Dean Obeidallah (what a name, huh?)

Meme: Please Respond

All other arguments aside, this thinking scares me:

Equating "raising kids" with learning how to shoot assault weapons? I'm not saying that not teaching your kid how to shoot is the best way to raise them, but this is terrifying, but I can't quite put my finger on why.

What are your thoughts?

Happy Birthday, Ella Fitzgerald!

3 Nephi 6:10-14

We read these verses today in Mission Prep Class. It refers specifically to the time between Christ's birth and when He came to visit the Americas, but it sounded really familiar. Scarily familiar, actually.

"10 But it came to pass in the twenty and ninth year there began to be some disputings among the people; and some were lifted up unto pride and boastings because of their exceedingly great riches, yea, even unto great persecutions.

11 For there were many merchants in the land, and also many lawyers, and many officers.

12 And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.

13 Some were lifted up in pride, and others were exceedingly humble; some did return railing for railing, while others would receive railing and persecution and all manner of afflictions, and would not turn and revile again, but were humble and penitent before God.

14 And thus there became a great inequality in all the land...

This is kind of where America is right now. Not just kind of: this is where we're at. I hope that we can somehow find a way to get away from this, especially making education an option for those who can't afford it.

The Five-Faced Persona: I'm a Halfway Anti-Nationalist and How to Be a Better Person

This is a question I wish just once to hear asked in a Presidential debate: "What defines America?" Actually, it's asked every single time. In fact, it's the only question ever asked, but it's never worded that way.

Someone once said that in every person is three personas: how others see us, how we see ourselves and who we really are. I want to add two more to that: how we want to see ourselves in the future and who we want to be in the future. How we want others to see us in the future might also be counted in that, but for the sake of argument it's superfluous and obsolete. You shouldn't care too much what others think of you, especially in the future.

These five personas all have to do with what defines us. Heritage, personality, taste, culture, sexuality and many other variables all go in to our personal definition, "personal" here meaning "of or relating to the persona." Personal fulfillment can only come by making the four important ones--"how others see us" not included--as closely tied together as possible. The closer "how we see ourselves" and "who we really are" are to each other, the more objectively we have to and do look at ourselves and the more honest with ourselves we become. Similarly, only keeping in mind "who we want to be" and "how we want to see ourselves in the future" can bring us closer to those ideals.

It's basic "leadership" and life-skills training: "I am a lazy person. I see myself as a lazy person, even though my friends think I'm really neat. I want to be a self-motivated person. I want to see myself as really cool and self-motivated." Given an example of how this thought process works, it becomes obvious how much self-scrutiny and honesty is required. You have to learn to look at yourself objectively without objectifying yourself. Maybe a better word would be "perspectively." So the person in this example makes a goal to become more self-motivated and less lazy. They go on runs, they stop doing so much facebook, they become a blogger. (By the way, does this sound familiar to anyone? It's because it's universal or ought to be.)

Through the process of becoming more self-motivated, they become more self-motivated. That's the wonderful thing about personas: unlike good logic, they are inherently self-defining. But the person in the example can't ever reach a point of status quo. They can't ever "become" a self-motivated person. As soon as they see themself as having reached that point and say "Okay, I've reached the Promised Land," although they don't see it, they have given up. This process has to be done repetitively, every day. Every day you have to wake up and say "Who am I going to be?" and get yourself there. This is all based on the assumption that you're being as honest with yourself as is humanly possible. And this is how we define ourselves, though--for most of us--it's a subconscious process. Let's be existential, people. Let's be conscious about how we define ourselves and take control of who we are.

Another side note: this goes right along with the Mormon philosophy of "eternal progression." Although there are some Mormons, even apostles and prophets who disagree with me, I can't help but believe God is doing this same process--although perfected and without the human error element--to make sure that He stays being God and doesn't fall like Lucifer did.

This idea of a five-faced persona is true for any single person or relationship or group or even an entire nation. That's where the question comes in: "What defines America?" All people in the debates want to talk about is track record and policy. Sure, track record is important. But it's not as important as what a candidate is now and debating track record just ends up being a whole lot of pointing fingers and "yes, you did" and "no, I didn't." And of course policy is paramount to the purpose of government and ought to be debated. But more important to the populace ought to be the purpose of the policy which is a question about what the candidate wishes to accomplish which is a question about what the candidate wants America to be which then leads to questions about what America is and how the candidate or party sees how America is...Basically it's all questions about how America can be defined, or "What defines America?"

Now that the intro is over, I can get into what I want to say.

This essay--if you haven't guessed already--is about how I define America: how I see America, what I believe America is, how I want my grandchildren to see America and what America will be.

Of course, in the discussion of definition you have to define the term of what you're defining. By "America," do I mean the American government? Do I mean the real estate we call "The United States"? Do I mean the intricate web of the relations between the various people that inhabit it? This could be an entire dissertation, just talking about the definition of definition. But for the sake of time, cyber-space and argument, when I refer to "America," I mean the people of the United States of America, including all the normal people, the abnormal people, the people in politics, the people who love being American, the people who hate it, everybody.

To get a perspective of what others think of America, you'd have to ask someone that isn't American. Check out the BBC. It's great. But again, what others think of us--while important when considering foreign policy--is not as important as what we really are and how we see ourselves. If we're a country worth liking, then we have a better shot at being liked, so our focus should be introspective.

What I believe America really is is a nation of many different people and peoples, a microcosm for the rest of the world. "American History" tends to be taught under the assumption that we're all one people with god-given rights that were given us by the Bill of Rights--and most people can't really define what a god-given right is (I'm sorry, no matter how you stretch it, owning a gun does not fall under that category) and the Bill didn't give rights, it defined them--and "World History" tends to really mean "European History." Although I hope I don't get executed for it, here's where I'm going to apply Socrates approach: why? Some might say it's because Europe's history had a more direct relationship with our own. So again: why do you say that? The person then might say something about how England was the "mother-country" and so our history is their history. So I agree that our history is their history which I'll get to in a second. But, why do you say they're the "mother-country"?

Here's where in the conversation they sort of stutter and spew some gobbledegook about the Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. Or at least that's how I imagine the conversation would go. I've never actually had it.

If England is the "mother-country" because a significant amount of the population is of English descent, then India is also the "mother-country." And so is Mexico. And Spain. And Vietnam. And Libya. And Norway. And every other nation around the world. America is the people that live here. The "mother-country" is every country that America came from. Ought we not then when we study "World History" to study the real world history? It is true that Northern Europe had a closer tie to the formation of our government than any other arbitrary group of landmasses on the planet, but America is not her government. And don't talk to me about studying English history because of our common language. First, we're multilingual. We have always been, we will always be. Second, that was a coincidence. We could easily have been a French-speaking country if France had won the Seven-Years' War. Third, that is a downright stupid reason to study history.

For the sake of argument, how I view America is really not any different from what I believe America is. However, the general view of America--or 'Murica--is very different from what I believe America is. In explaining what I think the general view of America is, I'll try really hard to be fair and not sound sarcastic. The typically American viewpoint of America--and this is not necessarily a partisan issue, though the liberal-conservative line can be quite distinct--is this: English-speaking, capitalist, Christian and Defender of Democracy and can have no fault. If you disagree with this statement, please respond with both citation and why you think Americans view America differently from how I'm portraying them viewing themselves. From now on, I will refer to that as the "Nationalist" viewpoint.

There are two main drawbacks to this kind of thinking. The first is that it's inherently close-minded. You cannot be open about other points of view and ignore the basic history and contemporaney--I just made up a word--of the place where you live and you also can't admit your own faults if think you can't have faults. The second is based on the first. Those who think this way often--not always--will try to destroy anything that they feel threatens their perspective.

First, English may be the lingua franca of both trade and government. I have no issue with that. But--as I've already stated--we've always been multilingual and--as long as everyone holds to their roots which I sincerely hope they would and will--we will always be multilingual. For the government or any organization to claim otherwise is discrimination and Anglo-centric. If you disagree, please respond and say why. Even while we were England's colonies, there were significant populations of Dutch, German, Algonquin and various African-speaking populations. Some people then claim that the English were here first. I slap my forehead. The English were relatively late. Including all land and inhabitants that are now part of the geographic States--which we need to do if we're going to have this argument--even Chinese was here before the English and Spanish--since for some reason this language gets picked on a lot--was permeated here before any other European language. So no, not English-speaking.

Second, "Capitalism" has never been pure in America. Even the first English settlers practiced forms of government that have become hated and feared in contemporary America. The first "City on a Hill" speech that Reagan alluded to was given as a basis for a Socialist Theocracy. The Constitution was written--even some of the Framers were downright "socialist"--because pure capitalism was obviously failing. The government was too weak and so couldn't regulate trade. But this could become very tangential and make this rant very long. So to be short: no, we're not a "capitalist" nation. Yeah, we have capitalist tendencies. But we also have socialist tendencies and hardly anyone--there are exceptions--in America doesn't have them, even if they don't realize it or wouldn't ever admit it.

Third, America admittedly is predominantly Christian. But we are not a "Christian nation" just like we're not English. There are Agnostics in America, there are Hindus, there are Atheists, there are Wiccans, there are--heaven forbid--Mormons and even Muslims here and all of them are included in what makes up America. To claim America is Christian is to exclude them and we can't claim to be the land of religious tolerance--not that we've ever exactly been that--and exclude a religion from being part of our definition. Don't bring up that all Muslims are anti-America. It's not true.

Fourth, American Nationalism is not the Defender of Democracy. Let's play a game. I describe a country and the reader guesses what it is. This country began as group of colonies who sought for home-rule and her revolutionaries fought for democracy. Once the fighting had cleared, they set up a republic--not a democracy--ruled by a few elite that denied even the basic right of voting to the vast majority of the population. Skip a few generations and now this country has colonies of its own but now it calls them "territories" and denies the people of those colonies citizenship which is less than they were allowed when they were colonists themselves. Skip a few more generations and now its fighting wars on the side of dictators as the other side fights for democratic communism. This mystery country at this point has multiple puppet dictators around the world making the people of those countries very angry with it. Skip a few more and of those other countries a few have made it to democracy despite the efforts of the mystery country, but a few still have dictatorial regimes, this time with a vengeance for America. Shoot, I let it slip.

Basically, I'm Anti-Nationalist in the typical American form of Nationalism.

What I want America to be and what I want my grandchildren to see in America is the same thing: a land where it truly is the land of opportunity. The people are diverse and tolerant of differences language, culture and religion. The government lets the good happen and takes the bad and tries to transform it--as opposed to treating it like or covering it with--something good. No assumptions are made of you because of your race, language, religion, height, sexuality or anything else. You are accepted and tolerated because of who you are, not in spite of it. The environment is healthy and the people care about their own well-being as well as the well being of the rest of everybody else. The government--while being judicious about criminal behavior--allows immigration from anywhere and has no beef with any other country for any other reason. The country and people have good relations with every other country and people. War is not any option unless invasion truly is imminent and then diplomacy is sought first.

America is wonderful, and I firmly believe that it can be the greatest nation on earth--and in that sense I'm very Nationalist--but we need to keep reevaluating ourselves and keep getting better. To do that, we need a synergetic solution where everyone works to make the world a better place and hopefully we can meet somewhere in the middle and the world actually will be a better place. That means that Democrats need to keep being Democrats, Republicans need to keep being Republicans and all the people need to not succumb to indifference or hate, the two evils most pervasive in our and every society. Exclusion will never produce any solution.

So what would happen if in a presidential debate the candidates were asked questions like "What is the definition of America?" instead of "What is your view on immigration?" We would actually start having debate that would mean something, for one. People would be forced to start thinking that question of themselves for another. We'd all be better informed about the character of the candidates and their actual intentions, not the intentions FOX puts on liberals nor the intentions CNN puts on conservatives. People would start listening to each other more and have more open discussion. America would actually start to realize what she is.

I said near the beginning that the idea of the five-faced persona applies to any person, relationship, group or nation and I challenge everyone to try it. But what if we applied it to an entire continent, an entire hemisphere or even an entire globe?

Obama's Address to the UN Meme

I saw this meme and despite the obvious attempt to vilify Obama, I thought "Oh, good." For context of the quote, click on the picture. Hopefully I got the thing to work...

What the heck has Obama done so far?

Great website. Check it out.

Open Letter to President Obama

 I've edited out some of the prose in this letter so I can argue with the meat of it. This was stolen from a facebook friend's wall. (The best thing about having a blog: being able to shred someone's argument and not be yelled at for it.) I've edited out the formalities as well. Basically, it's from a WWII vet that lives within view of the Pearl Harbor Memorial.

"Dear President Obama,

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish."


I'm sorry. President Obama is equally determined to not let the country die. He just has a different approach to it than your's. If you would kindly source where you got the information that Obama is purposely trying to drive our nation into the ground, then I will kindly show you an example of some very bad research.

"I can’t figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

'We're no longer a Christian nation'
'America is arrogant'
Your wife even announced to the world 'America is mean-spirited.' Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness."

Duh: He's the president of the United States. But I'll be nice because I can see the rhetoric merit in that statement. Second, please source. Third, do you disagree with any of those? How can America claim to be a nation that is free of religious intolerance and be the melting pot of the world--ethnically, culturally and religiously--AND claim to be a Christian nation? We don't exclude Hindus, Wiccans, Atheists, Baha'i and others--although we're having problems accepting Muslims--because of their faith. Yes, most of America might claim Christianity. That doesn't make us a "Christian nation." Yes, America is arrogant. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't looked around their 4th of July picnic for a while with a critical approach. America is very arrogant. And mean-spirited? Have you heard the calls to disembowel that Chechnyan kid that bombed Boston?

"After 9/11 you said, 'America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.'

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected."


Context and citation, please. But even besides that: What are you talking about? First, America never has lived up perfectly to any of those ideals. Just spend ten minutes in a high school history classroom. Second, could he have possibly been referring to the ideal of religious tolerance? Because that was one time that America was not even close to the ideal. And where the heck did that argument about white people voting for him come from?

"Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man."

And you dared say that 'Murica isn't arrogant. Since that wasn't condescending at all.

"Shape up and start acting like an American."

Democratically running for office isn't "acting like an American"? Attempting diplomacy before going to war isn't "acting like an American"? Trying to increase the amount of money towards education isn't "acting like an American"? If not then I don't want anything to do with being "American". Luckily, I can be "American" and vote for Obama and agree with his ideas.

"And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists."

Would you rather we did jump to conclusions about that? Bad things happen when a populace jumps to conclusions about people that do crimes. They start generalizing, they start villainizing, they start sensationalizing, they start hating. Here's some citation for you: French Revolution, KKK and Jim Crow-type "trials", Bolsheviks and--oh, you'll LOVE being compared to this one--jihadists. As for the others: citation AND context, please.

"Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of."

"The life of one American soldier is not worth [your political strategy]?" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one that you meant that it's worth more instead of what you did say. But to give "your general" not one but forty thousand more troops when he asks for them?! You terrify me, sir, both with your logic and your principles. The lives of Americans to me is worth more than any of your "honor" and "courage" and "phallic fulfillment" or whatever you're hoping to achieve.

"You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. ...Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle…"

And then he salutates (which, by the way is not a word but definitely should be). 

Every president has the opportunity to be the greatest president, Obama is no different. And what do you mean by "Americans"? Because I'm betting that your definition of "American" is very different than my definition of "American". And are you saying that Obama has no heart and soul and isn't inspiring to Americans? Well, it appears as though over 50% of America disagrees with you and thus you are in the minority. And this is by no means going to be "the final battle" of the American people.

Post coming soon as a follow-up debate topic: What is the definition of "America"?

Happy Earth Day, Everybody!

Go to google.com to see the full animated thing. What are they called, "Easter Eggs"? Something like that...

Facebook Likes

Please, if you read this blog and you would like to discuss/get updates about it, "follow" it or "like" it on Facebook! Also, please let your friends and family know about it.

Boston Bomber Found

For the sake of the country, I hope this kid is the guy BPD have been looking for.

For his sake, I hope he's not.

But the evidence appears compelling, or at least the country is convinced. Yes, it appears that he was a practicing Muslim. Yes, he may have been a Communist. So what? Does that mean that all Muslims are evil bombers set on destroying innocent people? Does that mean that all people that lean Socialist are bent on bringing down the "American way?" No, of course not. So stop implying it, all you weirdos that are.

I hope America can heal from this. I really, really hope we can move on and become stronger because of this. But I'm having a hard time having faith in America's ability to come together. Something bad happens and instead of saying "let's get through this," people start pointing fingers and blaming people that had absolutely nothing to do with the issue. I even saw someone blame Obama because--supposedly--if the people who were killed were allowed to keep assault weapons, then they would have been able to protect themselves.

As for the guy, I hope America can find it in their heart to forgive him. Yes, of course he should be punished. But instead of punishing him to the point of total incapacitation, show him love and concern and help him become a benefit to society. For our part, let's help make America a society more worthy of being a benefit to.

Hugh Nibley Slams BYU Honor Code

"The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism...the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances."" -Hugh Nibley in a quote slamming the BYU Honor Code "Pharisees."

A Mormon writer so prolific and well-publicized in Mormon culture that his writings are often passed off as doctrine, even though he was just an academic, never a general authority. He was also an ardent Democrat, especially in regards to conservationism and anti-War.

He thought the Honor Code principles of sobriety and abstinence were great for the university. He just didn't think the university should be so extreme in its grooming policies, something we're now seeing moderate. As for me, I don't really care one way or another about the Honor Code. I don't go to a church school. Yeah, I'd follow it if I was there, but I'm not.

Facebook Page Active

Come and Like "Demormocrat" on Facebook, whether or not you agree with everything that's posted or said here!

Day of Silence

So I'm not silent today because of unavoidable stuff that I need to not be silent for, but here's my support for all those who are!

President Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the Muslim

No, I'm sorry. There will be a full post about this in the future, but to those who think that Obama's Muslim because his middle name is Hussein, then by your logic he's Jewish, too, because his first name is Barack. And he's animist because his last name is Obama. Seriously guys? And would it matter anyway?

Check this one out.

My Religion: Why I'm Christian and Jew and Muslim

My views could very well change in the future. But right now, this is how it stands.

The "Are Mormons Christian?" is kind of becoming annoying. The answer is really simple and as always comes down to difference of definition. Are we Christian in that we believe the Bible is perfect and God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one being? No, we're not. But that's not our definition of Christian. We believe in Christ and try to emulate His teachings. To us, that means we're Christians. So yes, Mormons are Christians.

However, this is only where it begins getting interesting to me. For myself--and I don't expect anybody else in the church to accept my views as doctrine because they're not--I am Christian and Jewish and Muslim. To understand why I believe this, you have to look at the historical background of each religion.

God distributes information--bits of "the Gospel"--to people according to what they're capable of understanding and accepting ("line upon line, precept upon precept"). However, people often misunderstand what was given or willfully change it to fit what they want it to mean. Adam received a bit, but his descendents strayed, so God sent Enoch. Then the city of Enoch got "taken up" because they became so righteous. Adam's other descendents strayed, so God sent Noah and a whole lot of water. Then Noah's descendents strayed and God sent Abraham. This is when things start getting dicey. All the righteous people up to this point didn't belong to the "Mormon Church" because there was no "Mormon Church" back then, only the religion of God. These men--yes, all of these happened to be male--weren't the only ones restoring truths or believing in the "religion of God," except in the case of Noah and Adam.

Abraham and the Hebrews--the Ishmaelites were off doing something else--went to Egypt. Then a lot of them went astray. By the way, when I say "went astray" I do not mean that they became bad people, even if the scripture label them "wicked." Nor do I necessarily mean that their religion was evil. I only mean that they forgot or lost to some extent the Gospel of God. Back to Egypt: God sent Moses to, first, deliver them from Egypt and, second, to restore truths and establish the religion again, this time in a simplified form called the "Ten Commandments" (see my blog post about them below). These eventually became changed as well. It's interesting to note the amount of people that were not Israelitish in this time period--or "dispensation"--that had at least some connection with God, if not the purest form of the religion. Balaam and Jethro are two examples.

But--as is inevitable--the Israelites strayed. Several times, in fact. But eventually they had split into two kingdoms--Samaria and Judah (where the demonym was "Jew")--and both had a form of the religion including a temple and their own respective translations of the Old Testament. Everything--or at least part of it--up to this point is in the Old Testament and certain apocryphal books. Some of the prophets in this era were very prominent, especially Jeremiah, Isaiah and Lehi. Then Jesus came, primarily to do the Atonement, but also to restore the religion back to God's. Jesus was not "Christian" because "Christianity" wasn't even a "thing" until Constantine made it the official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire. "Christianity" was just another sect of Judaism, just like the Pharisaic and Sadusaic sects. Jesus was a Jew and so--by definition--all Christians are Jews.

But--and here's where I'm going to have to be blunt about my beliefs and hope nobody is offended--Christianity went astray. I have nothing against Catholicism or Coptic Christianity or Eastern Orthodox or any other sect of any other religion. But that doesn't mean I don't think they "went astray" from the truth, just as I'm sure they think Mormons are "astray" of the truth. Up to this point I am 100% in harmony with Mormon Doctrine. So I am Christian and Jewish. Not that I accept every belief of every adherent to both religions as truth, because that's impossible. But I believe both religions--on a whole--are inspired of God and basically true because they are both really part of one religion of God.


Here is where my beliefs are "unorthodox." I've already established that Christianity had gone astray. By this point, Abraham's other descendents--the Ishmaelites or Arabs--were not exactly following the religion. So--I believe, this is not enumerated Mormon doctrine--that God sent Muhammad to restore the religion again. Not that I accept everything in the Holy Quran as truth or from God. But I also don't accept everything from the Bible as such, either (parts of Song of Solomon are downright pornographic). But I do believe that basically it is the Word of God, if with slight changes made by people or maybe given by God because it's something that the Ishmaelites could understand at that time. I do not understand the Quran as most Muslims do. In fact, many would probably be offended by me calling myself Muslim. But some Christians are offended by me calling myself Christian and I still do. But--it's interesting to know--in some Muslim countries, Mormons aren't referred to as "Christian" but "Christian Muslim" and in some countries, members of the church are asked to not call ourselves "Christian" because the word has a different meaning in those countries than in others. Also, on page 46 of Preach My Gospel, it says that Muhammad was inspired of God to restore certain truths. So I just take that one step further and say he was a prophet and so I am Muslim. Again, not because I believe everything every Islamic sect believes, but because I believe the Quran is basically the Word of God, just as I believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Then came along Joseph Smith, and now we have the church as it is today. Not that it's perfect or was perfect at any point, but we're working on that. A religion is only as perfect as its adherents.

So I am Mormon. I am also Christian, Jewish and Muslim. I also happen to believe in Zoroastrianism, but I haven't ever read the Zend Avesta nor prayed about it so I can't say that I'm Zoroastrian because I don't believe in it the same way . Yet.

Some people would say "But that's impossible. That's like saying I'm white, brown and black." (Yes, I have heard that argument, and it's as silly as it sounds.) Others would say "Oh awesome! You're like Pi Patel!" Both are false and here's why.

I don't believe in every aspect of any of the three basic religions. Basically, I believe in the area where they all meet and I call it Mormonism. But take a look at the basic tenants of the three religions and tell me you can't be all of them or that to be all of them is something special.

Judaism--Obey the Ten Commandments. Love God. Love your neighbor. Look forward to a Messiah.

Islam--The Five Pillars: testimony, fasting, prayer, alms, pilgrimage to visit the House of the Lord (or temple attendance?). Love God. Love your neighbor.

Christianity--Accept Jesus as the Messiah or Christ. Love God. Love your neighbor.

These are not mutually exclusive doctrines. They're not necessarily mutually inclusive, but they can be. And I happen to believe in all of them, especially the "Love God" and "Love your neighbor" bit. Yes, you can bring up that there can be truth to be found in all religions and yes, you can talk about individuals in each that don't adhere to each of these basic principles. But you can't judge an entire religion--especially a "broad" religion like Christianity or Islam--based on the actions of its adherents. You can't judge Islam by Al-Qaeda, you can't judge Christianity by Ku Klux Klan, you can't judge Judaism by the Zionists.

I am Muslim. I believe in Muhammad and the Quran--although imperfect--and try to follow the Five Pillars of Faith. In fact, I went to the temple today in a sort of pilgrimage for Mormons. I try to humbly follow God, which is inherent in the title "Muslim". Some day I'll observe Ramadan and other holidays.

I am Christian. I believe in Jesus and the New Testament--although imperfect--and try to pattern my life after what Jesus would do. I celebrate Christmas and Easter and their respective preceding holi-months: Advent and Lent. But that's another story.

I am Jewish. I believe the Moses--and Adam and Noah and Enoch and all the rest of those guys--and the Old Testament--although imperfect--and try to follow the Ten Commandments in the ways that I know best how to. I'd like to start celebrating Passover and Purim and maybe Hanukah. But we'll see.

For me, I can't give up any one of them and so I hope I never will. But remember I did say at the beginning that all of this is subject to change. I don't think I've had two consecutive days for years when I believed the exact same way. The only constant so far is that God loves me, and I ought to love Him and everybody.

Finally, I am Mormon. I believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon--and its imperfections are miniscule and insignificant as is stated in the Book of Mormon at several places--and try with all my heart to live its teachings. All the rest of God-given religion so far--I believe--has been building up to Mormonism and Mormonism itself claims to be building up to something even greater. But that's another discussion. Mormonism isn't perfect because the people aren't perfect, even if we claim to strive for perfection. In fact, Mormonism claims that there's a heck of a lot more knowledge out there, more prophets we don't know about yet, more truths that maybe no person ever knew. But we believe we have everything we need at this point in history to become closer to God, although that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for more.

I do not ask you to believe as I believe, although it is always an open invitation. I do not expect even Mormons to believe as I believe. That would be stupid and foolish, not to mention extremely cocky and selfish which I try--as a Muslim, Christian and Jew--to not be. Well-meaning friends and family members have raised concerns, such as that I wouldn't be able to attend the temple and claim to be Muslim because you can't affiliate with any organization against the LDS Church and attend the LDS Temple for obvious reasons. This has been my answer: I do not affiliate with any church besides the LDS Church. I do not attend any Muslim congregation or Jewish congregation or Christian congregation. I attend the Mormon Church on the corner of Juanita and Boise. Another way to look at it is I'm not Muslim or Jewish or Christian. I practice Mormonism. But I prefer to be optimistic. I am all three because they were all the Religion of God at least at one point and at a most basic level they all still are. I don't try to resolve all the discrepancies. When there are any, I go with what God's prophets have said most lately, i.e. General Conference.

My sister brought up a good way to think of it when I first started having this debate with myself. When we're all dead and sit down in heaven for those who make it, there won't be Mormons or Muslims or Christians or Jews. There won't be Hindus or Buddhists or Zoroastrians or Samaritans or Atheists. Those are labels and there won't be labels in heaven. There will only be the One Religion of God. That is what I mean when I say I am Muslim and Christian and Jew. I mean I am none of them because there is no such thing and all of them because they are all part of one religion.

Globalization of a Blog

Thanks to all my viewers in the United States, but special thanks to 12 views from Russia in less than 24 hours! Also, whoever is the German or Germans who keep watching, thank you so much. Count from South Korea is also mounting, albeit very slowly.

To come soon...Mormons: Christian?

It's more complicated than you think. Simple answer: yes, we claim to be. Complicated answer: ...it's complicated.

Hobo Jesus Statue

This is so cool! Yeah, some of the stuff on this website is a little whacky. But this bit is pretty awesome.

The White Horse Prophecy

 This is what I believe about our Constitution:

It was guided by--not given from--God to America so that we could become a microcosm for the rest of the world and be a basis for the government when Christ comes again. God finishes what He starts. If any person were to be in power--say as the President--and was truly a threat to what God wanted America to be, then that person would not be allowed to stay in power. That's not why I voted for Obama. That's another discussion entirely.

Now, certain of my LDS Brothers and Sisters quote this "prophecy" attributed to Joseph Smith when talking about the coming of "socialism" or the potential election of Mitt Romney or other LDS candidates for various offices. For those who don't know, the "White Horse Prophecy" basically states that the Constitution will "hang by a thread" and the "elders of the Church" led by a man on a white horse will rescue it and save America. But it's poorly sourced, almost as bad as the Hadith that says that suicide killings of Christians will gain the killer 72 virgins in heaven or whatever. Basically, it's not true. Bruce R. McKonkie speaks on it. But more importantly, the Church has an official statement.

"The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine."

I guess I have no problem with someone if they believe in the White Horse Prophecy--if I took issue with everything my LDS sisters and brothers believed was "doctrine" then I wouldn't have hardly anyone with which to share my beliefs--but when they pass it off as doctrine and say that Obama and the rest of us Liberals are going to ruin the country because God's a Republican, that's when I take issue.

Glenn Beck, I'm calling you out on this one, Brother. Listen to President Uchtdorf: "Stop it."

As for the typically Liberals that think Romney was part of a scheme by the Church to take over the world, you're being dumb.

Commentary on a Christian Meme

The first few times I saw this, I thought it was cute and maybe a bit inspiring. But then I realized something: how many bad things have been done that were validated from the Bible? How many "Christians" reject the basic Christian principle of "love everybody, no exceptions"? How many people claim to be in "God's Army" and then go about doing the exact opposite of what Christ would do? I don't think that Satan--or evil, human nature, whatever you wanna call it--gets scared when we open our Bibles, Book of Mormons, Qurans, Torahs, Vedas or whatever. He just shifts his plan a little bit. He perverts what we find there and with that perverted truth, he gets us to do horrible evils. The only time he gets scared is when we read the bits about loving people and we take it to heart and practice.

Really?

Let's add Jesus to this list. He gathered children around him, too.

Boston Massacre Reprise

Five days, one month and two-hundred and forty three years after the first one. I loved this quote from a certain executive who will remain anonymous--though it shouldn't be too hard to figure out--because I want to keep this as anti-partisan as possible.

"The American people will say a prayer for Boston tonight. And [my wife] and I send our deepest thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims in the wake of this senseless loss.

I’ve updated leaders of Congress in both parties, and we reaffirmed that on days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats -- we are Americans, united in concern for our fellow citizens."

For the full speech, click here.

Church's Stance on Immigration

"As a worldwide church dealing with many complex issues across the globe, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promotes broad, foundational principles that have worldwide application. The Church regards the declaration of the Utah Compact as a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform. It is consistent with important principles for which we stand:

• We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children, in all places, at all times.
• We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

 

Public officials should create and administer laws that reflect the best of our aspirations as a just and caring society. Such laws will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws."

From MormonNewsroom.org.

M. Russell Ballard in General Conference, April 2013

This talk answered some of the questions I'd been having and praying about. Particularly this quote:

"In our Heavenly Father’s great priesthood-endowed plan, men have the unique responsibility to administer the priesthood, but they are not the priesthood. Men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. In other words, in the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by husband and wife. And as husband and wife, a man and a woman should strive to follow our Heavenly Father.The Christian virtues of love, humility, and patience should be their focus as they seek the blessings of the priesthood in their lives and for their family.

It is crucial for us to understand that Heavenly Father has provided a way for all of His sons and His daughters to have access to the blessings of and be strengthened by the power of the priesthood. Central to God’s plan for His spirit children is His own declaration: “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39)."

From the Utah Democratic Party

 Email from the Utah Democratic Party, which apparently I'm a member of through LDS Dems. I don't get it. But whatever. Just substitute "Utah" for "Idaho" when reading this.

"My vision for Utah is simple: Get more Democrats elected. 
My vision is to stop the ineffectual, gerrymander-induced, one-party stranglehold that is holding Utah hostage to the 1950s.
I imagine a Utah that admits it has serious problems with clean air and oil spills. I believe in strong safety regulations (YES, more!). These controls must prevent the frequent corporate oil spills and help us clean some of America's dirtiest air.
I believe it is time to end our long nightmare of the state drastically underfunding as well as over-managing our children's education.
My vision is to protect Utah's dreamers--they are sacred, they are our children!
My goal is to stop raising tuition to our colleges and universities. Our state has raised tuition more than 40% over the last few years, way above inflation. We are pricing many of our students out of an education.
In my vision we end the no-brain Washington lobbyist 'tax pledges' that have tied our public officials' hands for years.
My vision for Utah is a state that believes in full, unapologetic equality for all.
My vision is that working families earn a decent wage with a strong and vibrant labor community to support workers.
My vision is to bring back a sense of optimism, and to restore our excitement and ingenuity about what Utah can become--and about how government can be a partner--not a scorned interloper.
My vision is for a protected Greater Canyonlands stewardship, preserved for countless future generations and open to all kinds of recreational activities - forever.
My vision is one where we have a fair immigration policy in line with the Utah Compact. A plan that gives good people a real pathway to citizenship.
My vision includes a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment including a background check for all.
I imagine a Utah where there is no education gap! Where no one sleeps well knowing that only 57% of our Hispanic children graduate from our high schools."

Crash Course, again, is AWESOME!

Where US Politics Came From

Seriously. Awesome.

Just for fun

Church's official stance on abortion

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church 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.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

Immigration: One of the Realities

The second most egregious and permeated double-standard in all the history of the world, the first concerning gender roles. But that's another issue. If we wanted to go after illegal immigration effectively, we should go after the people and companies that hire the immigrants. But heaven forbid government touch the private sector. I do love Arizona, by the way. At least what I've seen of it.

The Big Ten

The joke is that Clinton and the Pope (or a Mormon Bishop, depending on who you ask) had a meeting and discussed ten issues, of which they agreed about eight of them, conversely--and obviously--disagreeing about the other two. The issues were the Ten Commandments.

My view of the Ten is simple: Follow them.

Unfortunately, obviously they can be misconstrued and misunderstood. If they couldn't, then Islamo-Judeo-Christians--I added the "Islamo-" to emphasize the Ishmaelitish aspect of the Abrahamic religions--would probably not have all the internal debates that we have now about them. So this is my view on each of them, paraphrased and briefly explained. (This is the "bloggable" version: if you want to have more explanation you'll have to contact me individually. Some things are too sacred to be shared in such a public place.) Also, I'm not a hypocrite. I do try and live these, though sometimes--often--I fall short.

1. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me," and 2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" -- Don't let anything--real idols, obsessions, addictions, temptations or even good intentions--get in the way of your own personal relationship with God. This is why I pray and read my scriptures, why I go to a church at all. Because I believe in God.

3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain." -- God is holy. While it's important to have God in our every day lives, it's also important to not say His name so often that it becomes too commonplace. He should always stay holy in our minds and hearts. This is why I don't say certain things that I don't think I have to spell out.

4. "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy." -- Sunday--or whatever day happens to be your Sabbath--is for interpersonal and intrapersonal communication. And no, it's not a day of rest. It's a day for doing the Lord's work, even more than you usually do. Make the Sabbath special. This is why I don't spend money or do anything really "fun" on Sunday.

5. "Honor thy father and thy mother." -- Honor--respect, revere--those people in your life who have helped make you who you are, especially your parents. If your parents don't deserve that honor, try to forgive them and try your best to be the person they weren't. I love my parents. I try to thank all those who have helped to shape who I am becoming by becoming that person.

6. "Thou shalt not kill." -- All life is precious and has the potential to do much good. Respect it in whatever form it is and never destroy it, whether physically killing someone or doing anything that would harm their spirit and maybe cause them to harm themself or others. But don't just "not kill;" build as well. This is why I try to be respectful and control my anger.

7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." -- Every other person is a person and not an object for pleasure, derision, mistreatment or anything, regardless of gender, age or orientation. Never objectify anyone, even in your head. This is why I avoid saying somebody's "hot" or "sexy" because it connotes that they are a thing that pleases me. I say "beautiful" because it connotes someone to be respected.

8. "Thou shalt not steal," and 9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." -- Be honest and sincere with yourself, with other people and with God. Anything said or done with the intent to deceive for gain or escape of punishment is false witness and anything removed from another person--objects, ideas--for personal gain or gratification without consent and coercion is stealing. This is why I never lie and do as I say I will.

10. "Thou shalt not covet." -- Don't become too concerned about material things. To want something is good. To obsess over it is bad. This is why I try to not care too much about anything besides people, God, my future and who I'm becoming. This is maybe the easiest for me, by the way.

And finally the "big two" that Jesus lumped each of the others into.

1. "Love God." -- Know that you are a Child of God with divine potential and purpose. Don't let anything get in the way of your personal relationship with God.

2. "Love your neighbor." -- Know that every else is a Child of God and everything else is His Creations. Treat the world and the people in it accordingly. Love might be impossible at times, but respect is always possible.

"Monsters Among Us"

From Article

"Illegal aliens are leaving a trail of victims from coast to coast – a massive crime wave that most Americans don’t know about – because the media typically plays it down. And so frequently the victims are children or involve children – thanks to a perverse Mexican culture that virtually ensures the victimization of the young...

When we permit hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who reflect this sick culture to invade America we shouldn’t be surprised when there is a trail of victims from coast to coast."

Let me make this absolutely clear. What the man in the article did was monstrous and bestial and he should be punished accordingly and his victims taken care of.  But this is exactly the kind of mindset  that kept Italians and Irish from immigrating, blacks from being freed and allowed basic civil rights, keeps Nordic whites in the elite and gays from adopting. I'm fine if you're against Illegal Immigration. I'm slightly less fine if you're against immigration in general. But if you think like the writer of the article, I'm sorry, but I can't discuss it with you.

If the previous paragraph wasn't clear enough, let me make this clear. THIS IS RACISM. This is wrong, and it needs to be taken care of.