Just and Holy Principles

Yesterday, Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave what the Church is calling “a major address…on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

His speech to BYU-Idaho students is very interesting and important for every Latter-day Saint and every supporter of religious freedom to read. I urge you to read it. Elder Oaks reviews the historical and constitutional context of religious freedom, outlines current and potential threats to religious freedom (E.g., Proposition 8 backlash), and offers “five points of counsel on how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge.”

To help give you a flavor of what people are saying about the speech, I’ll post some links and a video below.

Elder Oaks: Religious Freedom
LDS Newsroom: Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened
Associated Press: Mormon leader: religious freedom at risk
KSL News: LDS apostle says religious freedom is under attack (video)
Fox 13 News: Mormon Leader: Religious Freedom At Risk (video)
Deseret News: Freedom of religion under increasing attack, LDS leader says
Salt Lake Tribune: LDS apostle under fire for civil-rights analogy

Here’s a video of Elder Oaks’s response to criticisms of his civil-rights analogy:
 

What do you think?

Related posts:

-Prop. 8 backlash: what would Jesus do?
-Let our voices be heard
-Romney, religion, and the presidency
-The Church on civil unions
-Gay agenda: not about rights

Rob Miller (D) and Dave Hansen (R)

Last night, I attended a very interesting forum for bloggers at the Sutherland Institute. The discussion was about civility in politics and included representatives from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

As you might imagine, this debate on civility in politics was extremely civil, which was refreshing in contrast with recent overly-heated debates at town hall meetings and the incessant blabbering and bickering so common among cable and radio talk shows (is that comment uncivil? If so, then I apologize).

You likely encounter incivility in various places — political debate, the freeway, the grocery store check-out stand, sports events, and even in your own home. You and I may even be guilty of uttering uncivil words or performing uncivil actions from time to time.

I have found incivility to be most common and extreme when there is a barrier between two people and, especially, when one or both people’s identity is hidden. For example, put two people who disagree on an issue face-to-face and more than likely a relatively civil discussion will ensue. However, put those two people in two separate automobiles or in their own homes using the World Wide Web to communicate, and their tempers may flare, their word choice degenerate into insults, and their claims become stretched, exaggerated, or false.

I witness this almost daily on the road and on the comment boards of news sites and blogs, including on the articles I’ve written. I also witnessed it in anonymous student evaluations as a teacher at BYU. Anonymity shields us from the possible negative repercussions of our words and actions, which can bring out the worst in us.

How can we raise the level of discourse in our nation, communities, and families? The solutions are easy to identify but difficult to apply. I’ll offer six:

1. Remember that the worth of every soul is great in the eyes of God
2. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes to try to understand their point of view
3. Express disagreement in a way that respects other peoples’ opinions, values, and self-worth
4. Don’t write or say anything you wouldn’t say to a person’s face
5. Don’t write or say anything you wouldn’t say in your mother’s presence
6. Assume that all poor drivers are rushing a very pregnant woman to the hospital

Have any to add? I think that if we could all put these suggestions into practice, then the world would be a better place.

Finally, please consider these quotes on civility from Stephen L. Carter:

“Our duty to be civil towards others does not depend on whether we like them or not.”

“Civility requires that we listen to others with the knowledge of the possibility that they are right and we are wrong.”

What do you think?

222 years ago today, America’s founders signed the U.S. Constitution. Since 1787, this inspired document has been a bulwark of liberty and justice for Americans and a pattern for many governments around the world. We would all do well to re-read and study the Constitution so that we understand it and can defend it.

Now, perhaps you’ve heard mention of a quote attributed to Joseph Smith that the Constitution would one day “hang as by a thread.” Though no one knows for sure exactly what the Prophet said or what he meant by it, many other prophets and apostles have referred to the prophecy and expounded upon it. Orson Hyde, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from 1847 to 1875, offers probably the most reliable report of what Joseph Smith said. Hyde said this:

I believe he (Joseph Smith) said something like this–that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he: ‘If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the elders of this Church.’ I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, p. 326)

President John Taylor added his own interpretation later on:

When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men and extending the hand of fellowship to the oppressed of all nations. This is part of the program and as long as we do what is right and fear God He will help us and stand by us under all circumstances. (John Taylor, JD 21:8, August 31, 1879)

There has been a lot of speculation about whether or not the Constitution was once hanging by a thread and was saved or if it is now hanging by a thread and needs to be saved. Declarations that the Constitution is in peril have been common especially lately . Rather than fuel speculation regarding the status of the Constitution’s potentially precarious position, I’ll pass along a prudent statement pertaining to this issue from Rex Lee, former Solicitor General of the United States and president of Brigham Young University. In 1991, he said:

Seven presidents (successors to Joseph Smith) have either used the ‘thread’ metaphor or something like it. But in none of those quotations…has any Church leader ever been very specific as to the metaphor’s meaning. Unfortunately, some members of the Church have been all too ready to offer their own explanations. The only thing consistent about these explanations is that in each instance, it was the Church member’s own unresolved, often very private, grievance that supplied evidence that the thread was beginning to fray, sometimes beyond repair. Among some people, any problem from a tax increase to a failure to collect the garbage on time to a boundary dispute with one’s neighbor is likely to call forth the observation that it is certainly easy to see how the Constitution is hanging by a thread. A companion assertion is that the election or appointment of certain persons, often the person making the assertion, to designated positions provides the key to preventing the demise of our constitutional system.

In my view, this is another instance in which going beyond what our leaders have said can be misleading at best, and potentially fraught with mischief. Even though we have not been given the exact meaning of the prophets’ statements about the Constitution hanging by a thread, the scriptures do define the conditions on which freedom in the land of America ultimately depends. I am satisfied that whatever else may eventually hang in the constitutional balance, this much is clear: The continuation of the blessings of liberty depends finally on our spiritual righteousness. As the Lord told the Jaredites in the Book of Ether, this is a ‘land of promise.’ and ‘whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity,…if they will but serve the god of the land, who is Jesus Christ.’ If the people fail to keep this covenant, they ’shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity’ (Ether 2:9-12). (Rex E. Lee, “The Constitution & the Restoration,” 1991)

Certainly, I am concerned that judges, politicians in both major political parties, and others are slowly chipping away at the Constitution. As responsible U.S. citizens, we should do all we can to help maintain “the laws and constitution of the people…for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77). However, we need not speculate excessively regarding the “hanging by a thread” statement. The Lord will protect us as we strive to be righteous, and He will fulfill his divine purposes no matter what evil forces arise in opposition.

What do you think?

*To read more quotes about the Constitution from the Brethren and the Founders go here.

Independence Hall; Philadelphia, PA

The Fourth of July is almost here. To help get you in the spirit for it, you might want to read an article I recently wrote for Palacio Magazine. It’s called “Living the American Dream” and was published in both English and Spanish. Here’s the first paragraph:

Since the first colonists settled in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, millions upon millions of men, women, and children from all nations have come here to live what many today call “the American Dream.” Their quest to live this dream and to secure the same opportunity for future generations has come at no little cost, even their own blood.

You can read the whole article in English here or in Spanish here. Or if you want to see the article in English and in Spanish together in the actual magazine, then go here.

Happy Independence Day!

A responsible U.S. citizen knows the basics about U.S. government, history, and current events. Are you a responsible citizen? The Intercollegiate Studies Institute recently released a report card on America’s civic literacy. It administered a 33 question quiz about “America’s founding principles and texts, core history, and enduring institutions.” The average grade was an “F” (49%). Here are some of the major findings from the study:

Of the 2,508 respondents to the survey:

People from age 45 to 64 had the highest average score (52%)
People from age 25 to 34 and 65+ scored the lowest (46%)
Males scored 52% and females 45%
Liberals scored 49%, conservatives 48%.
Democrats scored 45%, Republicans 52%, Independents 52%, Other 46%

The average score by highest academic degree attained was:

Doctorate 72%
Master’s 64%
Undergraduate 57%
High School 44%
No High School 35%

Think you can do better than average? Take the quiz here and then enter your score in the poll below.





We can probably all increase our civics knowledge. One good way is to read more about history, government, and current events in books, magazines, newspapers, and online: another is to have more discussions about these topics with family and friends. We have a civic responsibility to do so.

What do you think?

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich

The arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) is only one of many criminal charges made recently against public officials. In the past few years, many politicians have been convicted of serious charges and sent to prison.

Distrust of public officials is rampant. Look no further than to common jokes about politicians. A very brief on-line search revealed the following:

The word ‘politics’ is derived from the word ‘poly’, meaning ‘many’, and the word ‘ticks’, meaning ‘blood sucking parasites’. (Larry Hardiman)

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks. (Doug Larson)

Do public figures merit this criticism? Some, perhaps; most, no. In my opinion, the considerable majority of public officials are good, honest people who serve their constituents with integrity. Of course, there are exceptions, and many recently, but intense public scrutiny of public officials, which is often appropriate, can create a false perception that all politicians are crooks.

It is important to exhibit trust and confidence in public figures, even when a few bad apples surface. Dallin H. Oaks’s statement shortly following the 2004 elections rings true today:

So much of public discourse and media coverage and entertainment seems to consist of content that will destroy trust in those persons and offices that should function as moral guides for young and old in our society. Many of the messages of some recent candidates seem intended to discredit the character of another candidate rather than to promote a serious discussion of the important issues on which the electorate should register their choices. Similarly, in so-called entertainment shows we often see the authority figure portrayed as scheming, dishonest, and unworthy of trust.

Discredit authority figures—whether public officials, teachers, ministers, or others—and where will it lead? It will encourage doubts about the laws and rules and principles they administer, and it will lead to skepticism about or withdrawal from the ties that bind us together as a society, a family, or a private organization. I pray that this will not be so, and I pray for a return to public discourse that is less divisive and more supportive and respectful of authority figures and the values that have built our nation. (”Where Will It Lead?” Oaks, Dallin H., November 9, 2004)

The natural reaction to political scandal is to express concern about corruption and distrust in all politicians. We should be concerned about electing and upholding the most honest, wise, and good men and women possible, but constant demonstrations of distrust weaken the rule of law and fray “the ties that bind us together as a society.”

We should assume the best of public officials and convey confidence in their ability to lead with wisdom and integrity. Should they violate our trust, we should remove them from office. The best way to encourage superior performance from any child, employee, politician, or anybody is to communicate high expectations from the outset, confidence in the person’s ability to meet them, and disappointment when they are not met. To communicate low expectations and distrust continually is to ask for continual poor performance.

The U.S. Congress and many states, including Utah, are considering ethics reform. Ethics rules and laws should make public officials accountable to the people but also exhibit trust in their ability to lead with wisdom and integrity. A culture of distrust only inhibits honest men and women from seeking office, leaving the dishonest to govern.

What do you think?

Barack Hussein Obama will be the next president of the United States. I congratulate him and all the other candidates who won yesterday. November 4, 2008 was a great day in the history of our nation.

Yesterday was not great because any particular candidate won. Yes, Obama’s victory is welcome evidence of the shrinking racial divide in our country, but more importantly, election day 2008 was one more testament to the world that liberty and democracy are essential pillars of good government. It was a testament that government of the people, by the people, and for the people is the best way for any people to secure for themselves the rights that are important to them and to expand or limit the influence of government in their lives to the degree they desire.

Some disgruntled Americans have already declared their plans to leave the U.S. for Canada before Inauguration Day, just as many did when George W. Bush won re-election in 2004. Others are prophesying the end of American civilization as we know it.

I call on every American, no matter your party, ideology, or creed, to unite in support of president-elect Barack Obama. He will be your president and mine, whether we voted for him or not. We should be grateful for the opportunity to have participated in the electoral process. We should affirm our collective choice by welcoming Mr. Obama to the Oval Office.

If you wish, disagree with his policy positions, battle against his proposals, work to replace him in four years, but whatever you do, honor and respect the office of the president and any man or woman who occupies it. Let no American spew out insults, false accusations, or hatred toward our commander-in-chief. Let us speak well of him, even as we challenge his ideas, decisions, and deeds. Let us engage in civil deliberation and debate to help create sound public policy for our nation.

The words of John McCain in his concession speech ring true:

“I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating [Barack Obama], but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.”

“Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.”

Welcome to the presidency, Mr. Obama. May you honor your office and duty to all Americans as we try to honor you.

What do you think?

Yesterday at 8:00 A.M., I found myself in the Santa Monica Courthouse anxiously awaiting the opportunity to do something I had always wanted to do: jury duty. After enjoying some leisurely reading and hearing a pep talk about civic duty, justice, and the American way, a woman instructed all 46 of us waiting in the jury room to go to courtroom 215 for jury selection.

Inside, the nice young judge reviewed the jury selection process for us and informed us that we’d be lucky to be chosen for this case since it was more interesting than most. One man was suing another for hitting him in the head with a golf ball while golfing in West L.A. The topic peaked my interest but, to my disappointment, I was not called to join the first 18 potential jurors on the stand.

I listened with great interest as the judge and attorneys interrogated the 18 jurors for almost three hours.

“What is your name and occupation?”
“Have you sued anyone for personal injury or has anyone sued you?”
“Is there any reason you can’t be an impartial juror in this case?”
“Do you golf?”
And on and on…

The judge dismissed one juror quickly because he had lost his eye from a flying golf ball at the age of 12. Many jurors were obviously saying things in hopes of dismissal from the trial. One juror claimed that he was unable to be unbiased because of past trauma from a personal injury. Another said that the case was frivolous and a waste of jurors’ time. Many others claimed that serving on a one or two week trial would cause them to lose their business, house, or a prepaid vacation. It seemed as if serving on a jury was a plague to avoid at all costs.

As each attorney took his turn dismissing jurors he feared might disrupt his chances of winning the case, the most uncooperative jurors were sent home first. Other jurors were called to replace them for questioning, but not I. At this point, I assumed my chances of being called to the jury were slim. But the musical chairs continued. To my surprise, they booted many more jurors and called me to the group of reserves as juror number 16.

After questioning me and the other new jurors, the attorneys booted more of the 12 jurors until the judge asked me to move to the juror number 1 spot. I was excited and sure that they’d have no reason to dismiss me. But no sooner had I gotten comfortable in the top spot than the plaintiff’s attorney announced, “We thank juror number one for his service and ask that he be dismissed.” I had been booted–just when I thought I would get to be on a real jury in a real trial. I was surprised and disappointed. I felt like the latest American Idol contestant voted off the show for no apparent reason. Still, I was satisfied that I had done everything I could to fulfill my civic duty for that day.

The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury. But if we as fellow citizens are not willing to serve as jurors, then this right cannot be maintained. Jurors may not always produce the best verdict, but it may be better to put decisions in the hands of 12 Americans from all walks of life than in the hands of one man or woman who is paid to judge. Jury duty is one important aspect of government by, of, and for the people. All American citizens should willingly, and even happily, fulfill their civic duty by serving as jurors when called.

What do you think?

As the primary elections end, debates leading up to the general election are sure to be intense. If the 2008 election resembles 2004, then divisions among Democrats and Republicans and “liberals” and “conservatives” will be once again distinct. Throughout this political season and always, I think it’s important to remember that in politics people usually have common goals but have different ideas about how to attain them.

In most cases, government leaders honestly want to help improve people’s lives. Few are the exception who seeks to harm specific people or groups of people. But most have very honorable, and usually similar, intentions. The difference lies in the policies they choose to advance their visions. Here are just two brief examples:

1. Poverty. Most people would like to see poverty vanish. Democrats tend to believe that society has a collective duty to help the poor through government programs. Republicans believe free markets will generate economic growth to help the poor and that private non-profit and religious organizations will help where needed. But both groups have the same goal to eliminate poverty.

2. Peace. Most people prefer peace to war. Democrats tend to believe that peace is more likely if we withhold military combat for as long as possible, negotiate with foreign leaders, and seek peace treaties through organizations like the United Nations. Republicans tend to believe that the U.S. military should be stronger than any other and prepared to defend the U.S. at any moment. They believe that the U.S. should remain independent from most treaties and strike dangerous regimes before they strike us. But both groups have the same goal to keep the peace.

Though people often have common ends in mind, this doesn’t imply that all means devised to achieve those ends are equally effective. Some policies are much more effective than others or more appropriate for a specific situation. Two people may have the same goal to build a sturdy boat to cross the Atlantic, but if one uses styrofoam and string to make his boat and another uses steel and iron to make hers, the outcomes will likely be different.

Likewise, some policies meant to reduce poverty or perpetuate peace work better than others. We must discover for ourselves and as a society which ones are best, while remembering that the goal is usually common for all.

Each person should assume that people who don’t support their ideas of how to achieve good things still desire those same good things but have a different vision of how to get them. This approach helps remove anger, malice, and childishness from the political forum. It helps us build on common objectives and progress toward achieving them together. As we participate in public deliberation and debate, let’s remember that most people sincerely want to do good, even if our ideas of how to obtain it are different.

The race for the presidency is down to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. I bet you’re all wondering who will get my vote on Super Tuesday, right? I was planning to keep silent, but I don’t think it will hurt to say.

I am a registered Republican in the all-important state of California, but I echo the words of my favorite current politician Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) who often declares that he is “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.” I vote for the best candidate (in my opinion) regardless of party, though I do tend to vote Republican.

I take very seriously my civic responsibility to choose good, wise, honest men and women to lead our nation. We need a chief executive who is intelligent, educated, ambitious, courageous, diplomatic, and honest. How do the current candidates measure up? Since I can only vote Republican in the primary, I’ll focus on McCain and Romney.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) seems to be intelligent, educated, ambitious, and courageous. Though I don’t always agree with his positions, I respect him greatly for his courage to take positions that are often not popular in his party. He seems tough and ready to lead.

Mitt Romney (R-MA) is even more intelligent and educated than McCain and probably just as ambitious and courageous. Romney is a great communicator and appears to be diplomatic. The final but far from least important attribute to consider is honesty.

Until this week, I favored Romney over McCain, but only slightly. I watched the debate on Wednesday in Simi Valley and changed my mind. McCain and Romney had a dispute about whether or not Romney supported a timeline for withdrawal of troops in Iraq. McCain had used a quote in April from Romney out of context just three days before the Florida primary and refused to admit he was wrong during the debate (see video above). I don’t trust McCain.

You know how sometimes you can assess someone’s character just by seeing or meeting them for a few minutes? I have seen John McCain speak up close in person. I felt that he was a little insincere and untrustworthy. He avoided answering tough questions and failed to back up his positions appropriately. I just didn’t feel good about him while watching him speak.

I have seen Mitt Romney speak up close in person twice, and I have met him. Romney is brilliant, wise, and kind. When I shook his hand and looked into his eyes, I felt like I could trust him. I felt much better around him than McCain. Voting solely on a gut feeling might not be the best way to go, but I think combining that with common sense works.

Romney is far from perfect. He tends to say what he thinks voters want to hear. He’s not my ideal candidate, but he’s the best we’ve got this time around. Romney will balance the budget, make government programs more efficient, and uphold good family values. I am voting for Mitt Romney on Tuesday, and I hope that Mike Pence runs in 2012 so then I can vote for him.