Glenn Beck: Mormon, Sadly

There is really nothing more to say about Glenn Beck. He is soulless. His every word is carefully chosen to illicit astonished reactions. But I'll take the bait and we'll discuss him here because, sadly, he is "Mormon." His latest erudite and intelligent bit of commentary is that he thinks Pres. Obama is racist:



Pres. Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture. But he's not saying Pres. Obama doesn't like white people. But Pres. Obama is a racist. So it appears, in Glenn Beck's mind, that racism and hatred of white people and white culture are not the same thing as not liking white people. You can be one and not the other.

First, I'd love to know what white culture is. If anyone can define it, please step forward. But it sounds a little too much like white supremacy to me.

Second, Barack Obama is half-white. His mother is white. Half his family is white. His grandmother, who he talked about often, is white. As noted in the video, his presidential campaign was run by white people and his White House is run by a white man.

But Pres. Obama made a comment about a black man getting arrested in a white neighborhood, so Beck says Obama is a racist and has deep-seated hatred for white people. I don't know if Beck actually believes stuff like this that he says, I tend to think he does, but it doesn't matter. What Glenn Beck really thinks is that calling Pres. Obama a racist will be good for ratings. He knows he has a base of listeners who are ultra-conservative, angry, white, and easily agitated, and he plays to those people.

What Beck doesn't get, tragically, is that there are consequences to such hateful and vilifying speech. We live in a nation, fortunately, and I mean that, where you can call the President a racist. Plenty of people called Pres. Bush stupid, and as far as I know none of those people were waterboarded or tortured in any way. But its not as easy as just shouting "FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" anytime someone calls you out for your awful and offensive speech. We also live in a society where we try to be tolerant and peaceful and intelligent, and speech like Beck's only lowers our nation's level of discourse, breeds hate and intolerance, and can lead to real violence. Now, if Beck was just generally inane and insufferable but did not have a history of hate-filled and violent rhetoric, his Obama-racist comment would be forgotten and/or ignored. But that's not the case.

Glenn Beck said that stem cell research will lead to Eugenics and another holocaust. You don't think someone could hear that and decide to stop it at all costs? Glenn Beck espouses traitorous secession when you disagree with the President politically. You don't think someone could hear that and start something nasty? Glenn Beck said that his political opponents were vampires and that the only way to stop them is to drive a stake through their hearts. You don't think someone could hear that and react violently? Glenn Beck said he hates, "hates," the victims of Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. Glenn Beck demanded that the first ever Muslin Congressman "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." Glenn Beck accuses Pres. Obama of leading the nation to socialism. Glenn Beck called Pres. Obama a communist. Glenn Beck (this link is a doozy) called Rosie O'Donnell a "fat witch," called Hillary Clinton a "stereotypical bitch," called countries from where immigrants are coming to the United States "dirtbag countr[ies]," made fun of Braille, said that we need to be "in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head," called Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq and who became an anti-war protester, "a pretty big prostitute," and on and on and on and on.

If he had said just one of these things, and somebody internalized it and did something violent, we certainly couldn't look back at Beck and accuse him of having blood on his hands. But when he spews hate speech as consistently and radically as he does, when the time comes, which is inevitable, that one or more of his listeners acts on these hateful feelings and ideas, Beck will be guilty. He can say whatever he wants, but when the words turn to actual violence, he'll be guilty.

The big problem, though, and what this blog is particularly concerned about, is that Glenn Beck is Mormon. Do you suppose that Beck could go from his radio show where he calls Hilary Clinton a stereotypical bitch, or a grieving mother/anti-war activist a big prostitute, directly to the temple and feel good about that? Do you suppose he could be in the foyer after sacrament meeting and call the nations directly to the south of America, where the church is growing exponentially, dirtbags as a Honduran walks by, and feel good about that?

And it's not like I'm trying to divine the intent of his heart, he purposefully and publicly made these and many other statements just like them for all to hear.

But because he is "Mormon" and conservative, he is treated like a General Authority. Check out the comments section to the Deseret News article, "Question: Is Glenn Beck a Mormon?" Members of the church revere him. They will defend him at all costs. They take his word as gospel, all because he is a prominent "Mormon" conservative commentator/entertainer. It sickens me. He is a terrible, terrible, example of Mormonism. He is affirmatively bad for our church, and I don't want his crying, hateful face associated with my religion.

The Constitution Hanging By A Thread

Ever since Mitt Romney came onto the political scene as a serious (ahem) presidential candidate it seems like we've heard a lot more talk about the famous White Horse prophesy of Joseph Smith. There is no exact quote from the Prophet, but the jist of it is that one day the Constitution will hang by a thread, and the nation itself will be in peril, and will be saved by the elders of the church.

With Pres. Obama now in charge of the nation there has been no shortage of idle chatter that the Constitution will soon, if not already, be hanging by the thread and need saving by someone like brave Mitt Romney. I enjoy the mental picture of hero-esque Mitt Romney on a valiant white steed, hair perfectly coiffed, sword in hand, riding in from the East to save the Constitution.

But I don't want to make the impression that it is a silly prophesy, or that there is no need to be vigilant in protecting the Constitution. In fact, these last few years we've come closer than ever before. We just learned that in 2002 the Bush administration, at the urging of (surprise!) Dick Cheney, considered sending the military to Buffalo, New York to make domestic arrests of suspected terrorists.

The Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures," which has been universally interpreted to ban the use of military for domestic purposes, like making arrests. There is also the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which prohibits the military from acting as law enforcement. There is also the very spirit of Democracy and Freedom itself which informs normal Americans' fear of tyranny and unrestrained executive power.

Now, I've been to Buffalo and I consider it to be part of America. I also think that if the military showed up in my neighborhood to arrest a neighbor I might have some serious doubts about the health of our Constitution and our nation. For once we can praise the good sense of Pres. Bush who nixed the idea and sent the FBI.

As far as recent Constitutional thread-hanging, lets not forget the holding of American citizens in Guantanamo without charges or trial (Fifth and Sixth Amendments), or Richard Cheney claiming that the vice president is not part of the executive branch (Article II) or really the legislative branch (Article I) with the implication that the Constitution does not apply to him (seriously, gasp), or warrantless wiretaps (Fourth Amendment), or any of a number of other offenses against our core document.

Bush's snippings of the proverbial fibers from which the Constitution is suspended are just the latest in a long line of anti-Constitutional laws passed in times of war from the Alien and Sedition Acts to the suspension of habeus corpus; from the oppression of freedom of speech to the internment of Japanese Americans.

Here is the difference I see, though. In the previous cases (we're talking the War of 1812, the Civil War, the World Wars) the wars were discrete engagements with clear goals and obvious starting and ending points. The war on terror, as defined by the Bush administration, was open-ended and poorly defined. Bush was not the political equivalent of the Anti-Christ, intent on destroying America, but he, and more overtly Cheney, laid the blueprint for how it could be done.

First, identify a legitimate threat of terror or some other nefarious non-state actor. Second, exploit Americans' fear of this threat. Third, declare a war against it with poorly defined boundaries, goals, and strategies. Fourth, enact tyrannical anti-Constitutional laws in the name of protecting Americans from this threat. Fifth, pour a martini, sit back, and enjoy the fruits of unfettered power.

We are still at a point where we see unconsitutionality and call it out and fix it. We are still vigilant. I have no doubt that the day will come when the Constitution and the nation are threatened from within, but we are nowhere near that point now, we are further away from that point than we were in the previous eight years, and Mitt Romney will not be riding in on a White Horse any time soon.

The Summer of Blah

I'm not sure if I've said everything I want to say as a Mormon liberal, but I do have to admit that I am completely uninspired by politics and politicians right now. Maybe it is the vacations and scout camp and personal issues, but this has been a summer of blah, as far as politics go.

We are a nation of people that want the military out of the Middle East, and yet we can't get out. There seem to be no new ideas about how to "win" or even "make progress." At least before we knew what the goal was, make a democracy in Iraq and get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were sloppy goals, to be sure, but we did them -- kind of. Now our military is stuck in a no man's land having achieved those goals by the letter of the law, but not by the spirit of the law. And so, blah.

We are a nation of people that want health care reform and a public option, and yet nothing is being done about it. Despite all the rhetoric and vitriol saying it wouldn't be this way anymore, we are a nation still run by special interests and neat little political one-liners of dubious veracity. Opposing political parties are more interested in torpedoing good ideas for political wins than listening to the American people and getting results.

Tens of millions of Americans, including millions of American children, are without basic health coverage. Millions are forced into bankruptcy as a result of catastrophic illnesses and injuries. Premiums are rising three times faster than wages. The system is broken. It doesn't work. But the insurance companies, those very faces of evil itself, are so rich and powerful nothing is getting done. All we talk about is how socialist health care reform would be, which of course is code for "don't you dare hurt the insurance companies!" I find it all despicable.

Plus I went from the Oregon coast (temperatures: 60s and beautiful) back to Salt Lake (temperature: 350 degrees).

So its the summer of blah. The American people appear to be completely powerless to ensure that the programs and goals they want accomplished are actually realized. Is there enough frustration out there to make a difference? Is Obama the president that can shake us from our funk? I thought the answer to both questions was yes a few months ago, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood.

Will moving to the Right work for Republicans?

The Republican party appears to have doubled-down on the idea that ideological purity is far more important than poll numbers. With congressional Republicans polling as low as 12 percent (as of July 9), one has to wonder if the strategy will work. I've read elsewhere that this is based on "lessons learned" from Democrats during Bush's presidency; that sticking to their ideological guns was the saving grace that finally got Democrats into their current electoral position of strength. Certainly the culturally relevant voices in the Republican party are enforcing a sort of discipline, such as is happening in Florida with moderate Charlie Crist facing a primary challenge from Marco Rubio.

I picked that article about Rubio because it highlights some of the challenges facing Republicans. With approval numbers as low as they are, fundraising will be a problem. More importantly, I think fundraising for primary elections will be particularly tough for challengers without a strong base of financial support. It's an interesting conundrum; on the one hand Rubio has lots of "grass roots" support and very vocal support from the cultural Conservatives. On the other, that support isn't translating into real dollars. Ultimately, I think, one of the great successes of the Democratic "surge" is the mobilization of small-dollar donations. Not just offering that option, but actually getting large numbers of people to donate money. This is the kind of thing a "populist" campaign like Rubio's could take advantage of, but people don't seem to be talking with their money (or at least not yet). I've seen it happen over and over again, anecdotally, all around the Internet. Generally speaking, Conservatives haven't been able to really draw the small-dollar donors in large numbers. Now, it's true that campaigns aren't all about money -- after all, McCain won the Republican nomination even though his campaign was pretty much bankrupt. But if the lack of small-dollar donations continues, then I suspect the war within the Republican party will not be won by the ideologues unless the corporate Conservatives suddenly change sides (they seem to support the established party leadership, which means Crist in this particular election).

So what does all this stuff have to do with the Mormonism or politics? Well, at some point in time a new Republican leadership will emerge from the ashes of these battles. And, at the moment, moderate (relatively speaking) Mormon Republicans such as Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are looking very attractive in comparison to their potential competition (i.e. Ensign, Palin, Sanford, Jindal, etc). More importantly, they seem to have the support of some large-dollar donors, or a large fortune of their own, or both. Is it possible that a moderate Mormon Republican leadership could be the end result? As I contemplate the current political playing field that seems to be much more likely.

Ugly Cap-and-Trade Logic

I think the worst argument against a cap-and-trade system to lower greenhouse gas emissions is the China-India argument. It goes like this: Since China and India are not going to do anything in the near term to reduce their GHG emissions, it would be a waste of time for us to do anything. Unless everyone does, nobody should do it.

Think if we used this (non) logic in other areas of our lives. Unless everyone at my place of employment starts working hard all day long, I'm going to slack because my effort is worthless on its own. Until every other nation on earth ends human rights violations, we are going to keep oppressing our citizens because we are just a drop in the bucket. Unless all the other people around this child at the ballpark stop swearing and cussing, I'm going to keep on doing it because it won't really make a difference if I stop.

I find it absurd. We don't do the right thing only when it is popular or common, we do the right thing because it is intrinsically good. And yet conservatives accuse liberals of moral relativism.

Conservatives want the U.S. to be the shining beacon of democracy and justice and fairness, to lead the way in creating democracies. I and other liberals agree with them. But they don't want to be the leaders global warming reduction and other environmental causes which are just as important, or maybe more important, than democracy building. In that case they want to be the followers, the last person through the door after everyone else ensures it is safe. I say we should lead out on the issue and, if so, China and India will come along too.

And we shouldn't be deluding ourselves that our emissions are just a drop in the bucket, or that our reduction of GHG emissions alone is too small to make a difference. The US emits more GHG by total emissions and per capita than any other nation in the world. We account for almost one-fourth of the total GHG emissions worldwide. We are the big fish.

Lets not wait around for everyone else to do the right thing before we act, lets be the world leaders that we are expected to be.

The Effect of Liberal Dominance on Mormon Voters

Liberals and progressives have a lot on their plate right now. The House just passed a cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse gases, which now moves on to the Senate. The Senate is debating a health care bill and whether or not it should include a public option. Al Franken just became the 60th Democrat in the Senate making Democratic bills, in theory, filibuster-proof. And Pres. Obama has begun drawing down troops in Iraq, much to the pleasure of Iraqis.

With firm majorities in both the Senate and House, a popular president, and strong public support for its policies on everything from the environment to health care to immigration, Democrats appear to be heading for something of a modern golden age of liberalism. The question I'm asking myself, though, is if this will have an effect on Mormon politics.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s when Republicans were dominating national politics, Democrats took several steps toward the center. They abandoned gun-control as a major issue, they moved toward fiscal responsibility, they became more hawkish in foreign policy, and the like. As they made this move Republicans also shifted towards the right on foreign policy, morality politics, and tax policy. Because of this, and the morality politics in particular, Mormon conservatives were able to re-entrench and solidify the base.

But Republicans seemed to have gone too far to the right and then, as all politicians are liable to do, became drunk with power, embroiled in scandals, and rank with hypocrisy. They also were in power when the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression punched the nation in the stomach. The natural result was big Democratic gains in both elected leaders and public support of policy. The big showdown in Republican circles now is whether to reinvest in pure conservatism or to moderate and become a big-tent party. The latter worked for Democrats until public opinion swung to the left in the past five years, the former appears to be winning out for now, as the dominant conservative voices are Limbaugh, Gingrich, Hannity, Beck, and Cheney.

Will all of this shake Mormon voters loose from the firm grasp of ultra-conservatism and allow them to morph into a more moderate and diverse demographic? I think the current political climate is almost guaranteed to have such an effect. Polls show that young people and minorities are identifying overwhelmingly with Democrats, and that is also exactly where the growth of the church is coming from.

So while this may be the beginning of a fairly lengthy run of liberal domination like the Republicans enjoyed recently, it might also be a time of significant shifts in Mormon political demographics. Time will tell.

A New Effort to Reconcile the Church and Gays

There is a new effort gaining some notoriety on the interwebs to soften the church's stance on gays and reconcile the two groups. The website is called ldsapology.org. People are asked to read and sign their name to a petition which will be delivered to church leaders on November 4, the anniversary of the Prop 8 vote.

As always, I went to the comment section of the story by the Salt Lake Tribune to get an idea of what people are thinking, as there is really no better representative group of the general population than the comment section of an online paper (picking up the sarcasm?).

The gist of the comments from members of the church opposed to this effort is that the prophet has spoken through revelation, the doctrine of families and sexuality is set and eternal, and no amount of public protest can change that fact. The gist of the comments who support the site is who are Mormons to decide morality for everyone else and deny rights to citizens born homosexual? As is often the case, both sides are partly right and both sides are partly wrong.

The petition and website are inaccurate in several ways, and the reactions to them are also inaccurate. The petition reads, in part:

This means scrupulously acknowledging such practices as “reorientation”-- reparative, revulsion, and shock-therapies; such teachings as homosexuality being an evil perversion, a condition that is chosen and changeable and one that can be overcome through fasting, prayer, sacrifice and heterosexual marriage; and using scriptures that are taken out of context, mistranslated or that are highly selective to condemn homosexuality.

As far as I can tell, the church did away with most of this years ago and now, even before Prop 8, emphasizes that it is not safe or effective to try to change the person. The current teaching, as far as I understand it, is that if a person is gay they can still be temple worthy by simply living the law of chastity. I say simply, but, of course, it must be agonizingly difficult. This is why Elder Marvin Jensen of the Seventy and Church Historian has said on several occasions that the church weeps with those good members going through this supremely difficult trial.

I am not aware of the church using scriptures "taken out of context, mistranslated or that are highly selective to condemn homosexuality." There are scriptures in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and take a very harsh view of it, but I don't believe I've seen the church cite these scriptures, as is the practice of many born-agains, to bolster its argument. Instead, the church relies on modern revelation, specifically The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

So far, I think we're good. This is where the common ground can be found. I do not think it would be a repudiation of our teachings on morality and the family to recognize that homosexuality is not a choice, that gays should be afforded basic rights, and even that gays should be allowed to be married under our civil laws. As a church we do not oppose many marriages that would run contrary to our views of it, such as shotgun Vegas weddings, for instance. We can stand by our belief that marriage is sacred and that eternal life is available only to those who are sealed in the temple under priesthood authority while at the same time allowing civil marriages that fall outside of our beliefs. The two are not mutually exclusive. This may not be ideal, but we live in a big, complex world and we can't control every variable or person or practice that runs contrary to our beliefs.

Where the problem comes is where the church is asked to repudiate "such teachings as homosexuality being an evil perversion." "Evil perversion" seems harsh, lets just call it sin. No matter the semantics, though, this will not change. First, it is not the homosexuality that is a sin, but homosexual actions, which is not a small difference. In any case, changing the church's teachings here would be reversing a prophetic pronouncement and one of the most basic doctrinal tenets of the church: the sanctity of the heterosexual marriage.

Not only is it theologically untenable, it is not necessary. As I stated above, there is no reason why we can't hold on dearly to our beliefs but still allow gay marriage amendments and votes to go forward without our opposition. Allowing gays to marry will not cheapen my marriage, or any other temple marriage that has ever been performed, nor will it negate or lessen the prophetic and doctrinal truth that we espouse. We can still use our influence through our missionary program and our examples and discussions with our neighbors, but going the political route is more harmful than beneficial. The church won't, and shouldn't, reverse its teachings about marriage, but it can, and should, take a different approach in public statements and treatment of non-Mormon gays. These are very different things that should not be confused and completely intertwined.

Finally, the site makes a big deal about suicide rates among gays, especially young gays. This is, of course, tragic and we should be doing everything we can to avoid this substantial problem. But to lay the blame at the feet of the church is wrong. I will admit that there has been some pretty harsh rhetoric coming out of the members of the church, and I can only guess how painful and disorienting that must be for young people who are struggling to understand their sexuality and trying to reconcile the fact that they are otherwise good kids who feel like they are being demonized for feelings they can't control. Bottle all of this up internally with no outlet, and you have a recipe for disaster.

But the church has always stressed love and sympathy and tolerance of the person. Many members can't separate the condemnation of the sin and the person, and I admit that it is very hard. When church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but that the person is to be loved and respected, many members use this as a basis for over-the-top rhetoric against the sin and the person. The fault is not with the church, but with the individual that misinterprets. The church, I believe, can and should stress this point more clearly and often for those that don't understand.

It looks to me like this is a good faith effort to bring the two sides together, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between doctrine and public policy. For the church and its faithful members, requiring that it reverse its prophetic pronouncement and no longer consider homosexual acts sins is a non-starter. But members of the church can begin separate the politics from the doctrine and reach out with more understanding and tolerance.

Because Iranians totally wish they were Republican

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Irandecision 2009 - Iranians Support the GOP
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

I read elsewhere some words of wisdom from Henry Kissinger, who said that Obama is right to not take sides in Iran's current election drama. Without going into it too much here, it's very rarely that I agree with Kissinger on anything. But, quite frankly, his brand of conservative is far more desirable than the current crop who have little to no clue about the intricacies of international relations. Kissinger knew how to dress his deceptions well, and even stumbled across a truth every now and again. Bellowing about Obama's refusal to back Mousavi, on the other hand, fails to take into account how doing so might harm future US-Iranian relations, even if (and especially if) Mousavi is the ultimate victor. In a country where the US is demonized almost as often as Israel, we do ourselves no favors by picking favorites in political disputes. Despite Obama's drastically better grasp of international relations, the image of the US abroad hasn't recovered to the point where we can do anything effective in this situation, other than voice our strong belief that the elections should be judged honestly, and that everyone should have an opportunity to freely speak their mind. It is sad that Kissinger's view on this subject is in the minority in the Republican party -- here's to hoping that won't always be the case.

Utah Escapes Global Climate Change Thanks to New Governor

I remember when Utah used to have a really normal, really smart, really pragmatic man running our state. Now we have Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert. As Gov. Huntsman begins the process of being confirmed by the Senate to take the post of Ambassador to China, he has turned the reigns over to L.G. Herbert.

This is what we call the old bait-and-switch. We are sold on a product that we like a lot and that we want to own, in this case Gov. Huntsman. Then at the last minute we get a somewhat similar product that is different enough to be of much less value, in this case L.G. Herbert. We've been betrayed. I never thought I'd have this deep sense of longing for a Republican.

So right off the bat L.G. Herbert, at the Western Governor's Association meeting, attired in the classic all-black look, professes his serious doubts on climate change and publicly mulls over whether to remove Utah from the Western Climate Initiative. Thanks for everything, Huntsman, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

By the way, can't you just imagine ultra-conservative L.G. Herbert gritting his teeth as the late Gov. Huntsman enrolled Utah in the WCI, supported civil unions and other gay rights, criticized Congressional Republicans as "irrelevant," and generally made of mockery of Utah County-style extreme conservatism? But all those worn down teeth finally paid off, L.G. Herbert, because you're in charge now.

Now, I'm no scientist. Far from it. So lets take a look at the institutions that consider climate change very likely (in scientific parlance "very likely" means 90% to 99% chance it is true) a man-made problem: the U.S. EPA, the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, NASA, the U.S. Geologic Survey, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program which include thirteen federal agencies (for those keeping track, we now have every scientific body of the United States government), the United Nations, Science Magazine, MIT, the National Academies, Britain's Royal Meteorological Society, and on and on and on. If you are able to find a scientific body that disagrees, by all means bring it forward.

But let's listen to what L.G. Herbert has to say:

"I've heard people argue on both sides of the issue, people I have a high regard for. People say man's impact is minimal, if at all, so it appears to me the science is not necessarily conclusive."

Hmmm. Compelling. "People" do say that. My uncle, for instance. Also, a guy in my neighborhood. Keep going, LGH.

"Is there a hidden agenda out there? Help me understand the science."

Yes, every-major-scientific-body-in-the-world-that-has-studied-the-issue, do help us understand.

Herbert told the Deseret News after the discussion he wasn't convinced because all he heard was "the science is conclusive, the science is over. The debate is done. I'm saying, 'Based on what?' "

Seriously, LGH. Somebody show us what the conclusion to this debate is based on. Because if you're just going to point to a bunch of scientific reports, no thanks. Rather . . .

He said polls have shown the public is divided on the issue.

"I think people are confused," he said. "Most people are ignorant of the issue. They all say it sounds good until all of a sudden you've got $4-a-gallon gasoline."

The clincher! I think we can all agree that when it comes to science and major global environmental issues, we should base our reasoning and conclusions on divided public polls and people that are unhappy about high gas prices.

This is going to be our new governor? Ugh. We can debate about just how bad global warming is going to be, and what steps should be taken to best protect us and sustain us, but there simply is no more debate over the fact that human-caused global climate change is real and it is serious. The debate is over based on scientific facts and consensus. It's not haughty to say so, it is haughty to think that you know better.

But my favorite LGH line comes way at the bottom of the story: "regardless of the debate on the science, I'm a capitalist." Thanks for clearing that up, Herbie: Science and capitalism are now mutually exclusive. Science is for commies.

DHS Was Right (about Right-wing extremists)

Here come the extremists. This type of thing is terrorism, pure and simple. The fact that our current President is black may be one of the factors that's tipping these nuts towards more direct action, but there's no question that on the Right side of the political debate there is way too much militarism. I've written here before (mostly in the comments) about hate speech on the Right being a precursor to violent actions. I expect more of the same; so does Mr. Tiller's killer (note the date on the article's byline).

Pres. Obama and Religious Tolerance in America

It will come as no surprise that I really liked Pres. Obama's speech in Cairo. I think it is absolutely necessary for America to overcome its fundamental distrust of Islam in general, as opposed to extremists in particular, in order to better secure ourselves and promote democracy abroad. Pres. Obama is doing well walking the sometimes fine line between finding common ground where it exists and condoning anti-democratic practices and customs.

But there was one section of his speech that I wanted to highlight that I thought was pretty relevant to this blog. In the section where Pres. Obama addressed religious tolerance, he said:

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.

...

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together.

We live in an America where we are lining up religion and politics, and I think that is extremely harmful to both. Politicizing religion and religious-izing politics sullies and impedes them both.

Look, I love seafood, and I love Nutella. But I do not think that they go well together. I try to keep them separate and enjoy them each on their own. I don't dip my shrimp in Nutella or smother my salmon in melted Nutella. It ruins them both when you eat them in the same bite. Likewise, religion and politics are two things that I love to talk about and debate and learn more about. But combining them almost always has very negative side effects. Of course, it is easier to separate Nutella from seafood than it is to separate your politics from your religion, but no one ever said this life was easy and it is something for which we should strive.

In America, the current trend is that the majority of those who attend church more frequently vote for Repbulicans and the majority of those that attend less frequently or not all vote for Democrats. This is becoming so pronounced that we are getting the two mushed up in our minds. Liberal activists see conservatives as a bunch of irrational, kooky born-agains and conservative activists see liberals as a bunch of godless hedonists. This then becomes a positive feedback machine where the deeply religious dig in against the liberals and the non-religious dig in against the conservatives and all of the sudden we aren't even talking about politics anymore and what is the best way to run the country, we are talking about whether a Mormon should even be allowed to run the country or if atheists can be trusted in federal office or if religion itself should be done away with because it is irrational and only leads to wars and bigotry.

On the one side, then, as Pres. Obama pointed out, we have hostility towards religion under the pretense of liberalism, and on the other side the championing of overt religion as the only way to effectively run the country. What's more, conservatives demand ideologically pure religion (with suspicious glances at conservative Catholics and Mormons). In the end it looks like we certainly deal with religious tolerance and freedom better than most Muslim countries, but we aren't really doing that great in our own right.

It does religion no good to get intertwined with politics. Whether it is fair or not, many liberals have simply discounted Mormonism completely because they see it as too politically conservative for them. Otherwise good people who love their families and believe in God have shut their ears to our message because of politics. Politics. Are we really willing to shackle our religion with politics and miss out on the chance to touch the lives of millions of Americans? I want to emphasize again that the purpose of this blog is not to justify liberal politics through Mormonism, but to show that they are at least compatible and that a diversity of political thought in the Church is good for its long-term well being.

And it does politics no good to get intertwined with religion. Religion is based on faith and personal conversion, whereas politics must be based on facts and societal good. Often what is good for one is good for the other, but using religion as the reasoning to justify politics never works. It only leads to arbitrary decisions, distrust, and disenfranchisment.

So as Pres. Obama urged Muslims to practice religious tolerance and freedom, I could not help but think of our own issues. Liberals are becoming hostile towards religion, conservatives are becoming hostile towards the non-religious, and religion in America is becoming too indistinguishable from politics. This can only turn out badly for both.

A Real Utah Senate Race?

Utah Democrats have a seemingly legitimate candidate to run against Senator Bob Bennett. Sam Granato has decided to make a run for the seat, and the timing and situation are nicely aligned such that there is definite cause for optimism.

Granato is the owner of the Salt Lake City deli chain that bears his name. He is also a non-drinking chairman of the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. He is also known in political circles as someone who is involved with local leaders, moderate, and well-liked. This is exactly the type of candidate Utah Democrats need to be running right now: moderate, connected, and likeable.

Combine Granato's personal attributes with a political climate in Utah that is complex these days, and you have the recipe for a potential upset. Pres. Obama is more popular in previously dark red Utah than could ever have been predicted. Sen. Bennett is under fire from state Republican activists because, amazingly, he isn't conservative enough. These charges stem from the unthinkable actions of trying to think through issues instead of just toeing the party line. Because of this Bennett has some primary challengers from the right in the forms of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Tim Bridgewater.

There is recent history suggesting that Utah Republican activists are willing and able to defeat a very conservative federal office holder with someone even more conservative. Jason Chaffetz, our cute little ultra-conservative from Utah county, defeated Chris Cannon in a primary and eventually won a House seat.

So what if the perfect storm occurred? What if Mark Shurtleff defeated Sen. Bennett in the primary? Mark Shurtleff, while no lightweight, isn't exactly the most charming or articulate or popular politician in the state. Combine a candidate who has positioned himself way to the right against a moderate, well-liked Democrat, in a year where Pres. Obama is polling well in Utah, and you might just have the ingredients for an upset. Or, at the very least, a competitive Senatorial race for the first time in years.

And in a state where one party dominates as much as Republicans do in Utah, a competitive statewide race that builds momentum for the Democratic party would be a huge victory.