Defining Political Extremism
I usually don’t comment much on politics. When I do, it seems that my political posts don’t do so well, but here goes anyway. A few months ago, I got an email from a friend asking me about how the church defines political extremism. She had some relatives that were concerned about government conspiracies for population control, the New World Order, and a few other things.
Then I was talking to my sister a few days ago. She asked me what I thought of the Tea Party movement. In brief, I’m not a big fan. Anyway, I thought it might be time to put together some of my political thoughts, and quotes from former apostle Hugh B. Brown into a post. I considered waiting until closer to the election, but decided to go ahead and put this out now, since I was just talking to my sister about this issue. I have combined a few emails into this post.
My sister’s email quoted a blogger complaining about President Obama. The first question from the blogger was terrible. “If Obama wanted to destroy the United States, what would he be doing differently?”
I don’t for a second think Obama is trying to destroy the United States. People are welcome to disagree with Obama–certainly I do on a fair number of issues. However, when we try to demonize people we disagree with, we have crossed the line into political extremism.
I had an email from a friend asking me about political extremism, and how the church defines it. Well, here are some thing I told her, and I think they apply to this blogger as well.
You may be interested in this letter that was read here in Utah on Mar 22, 2010. See http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-letter-on-utah-precinct-caucus-meetings
“Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of various political parties.” (Emphasis mine.)
I usually lean republican, but I do like Jim Matheson (D-Congressman Utah) and Peter Caroon (D-SL County mayor.) I’m not real fond of Harry Reid, but it is cool to have such a high ranking Mormon. Matheson is a Mormon and crusades against wasteful government spending. He was one of the few guys who voted against the Bank Bailout (and caught a lot of heat when the bailout was popular), and voted against Health Care Reform. He’s a real fiscal conservative, opposes abortion, and I really like a lot of his stands. In states like NY, CA, or MA, he’d be a republican (more conservative than Guiliani, McCain, or even Mitt), but Utah is so ultra-conservative that he is really a very conservative democrat.
The following quote comes from Hugh B Brown’s famous speech “Profile of a Prophet.” This is the beginning of the commencement address he gave to BYU students in 1968. The first 3 minutes of the speech, Brown gives a few jokes and advice, and then gets onto Politics, before addressing his main topic of “Profile of a Prophet.”
“You young people are leaving your university at a time in which our nation is engaged in an increasingly abrasive and strident process of electing a president. I wonder if you would permit me as one who has managed to survive a number of these events to pass on to you a few words of counsel.
First, I’d like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who guide the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all.
Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which will enable you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. I’ve found by long experience that our two-party system is sound. Beware of those who are so lacking in humility, that they cannot come within the framework of one of our two great parties.
Our nation has avoided chaos, like that is gripping France today, because men have been able to temper their own desires sufficiently, seek broad agreement within one of the two major parties, rather than forming splinter groups around their one radical idea.
Our two party system has served us well, and should not be lightly discarded. At a time when radicals of right or left inflame race against race, avoid those who teach evil doctrines of racism. When our Father declared that we, his children, were brothers and sisters, he did not limit this relationship on the basis of race. Strive to develop that true love of country, that realizes that real patriotism must include within it a regard for the people of the rest of the globe. Patriotism has never demanded of good men hatred of another country as proof of one’s love for his own. Require the tolerance and compassion of others and for them. Those with different politics or race or religion will be demanded by the heavenly parentage which we all have in common.
-Hugh B. Brown, Commencement address, Brigham Young University, May 31, 1968
I’m sure he is referring to the Civil Rights, Vietnam, as well as the upcoming presidential election following Lyndon B Johnson’s announcement that he would step down. Of course Nixon won a 3 way race over D-Hubert Humphrey, and I-George Wallace. There were Vietnam demonstrations, and I think it was a much more divisive time than today, though today is a very divisive time. Let’s not forget that Wallace was later shot in 1972, and we all know what happened to Nixon. I didn’t know what happened in France in 1968, so I looked it up on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France Apparently there were some big-time riots, strikes, and protests that almost brought the French government down.
Here’s a different talk by Hugh B. Brown that gives some good advice too. http://unicomm.byu.edu/president/documents/brown.htm
[T]he possibility of coherent community action is diminished today by the deep mutual suspicions and antagonisms among various groups in our national life.
As these antagonisms become more intense, the pathology is much the same. . . . The ingredients are, first, a deep conviction on the part of the group as to its own limitless virtue or the overriding sanctity of its cause; second, grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others; third, a chronically aggrieved feeling that power has fallen into the hands of the unworthy (that is, the hands of others). . . .
Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: An excessively simple diagnosis of the world’s ills and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all. . . . Blind belief in one’s cause and a low view of the morality of other Americans–these seem mild failings. But they are the soil in which ranker weeds take root . . . terrorism, and the deep, destructive cleavages that paralyze a society.3
I am a bit wary of the Tea Party Movement, as well as MoveOn.org. I view them both as unhealthy extremes. My opinion is that it is fine to disagree with Democrats or Republicans. But when we turn to decisiveness and refer to President George W Bush or President Barack Obama as “worse than Hitler”, we are guilty of political extremism. As Hugh B Brown said, “the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism.”
What say you?
BTC:
“I make no claim that you are an idiot or that Glenn Beck is not popular.”
I guess it was the tin foil comment on Saint’s Herald that confused me.
Perhaps as a peace offering, you can send me a roll of Reynolds foil, and I can send you a box of Lipton tea (neither of us being LDS).
“The US Constitution provides government with the ability to pass laws. Laws can regulate businesses. There is nothing preventing these laws from regulating businesses to the point of bankruptcy – 100% tax for example.”
It also contains a Bill of Rights that begins with “Congress shall pass no laws…” and contains a general provision of “enumerated powers” that reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government to the States or to the people. Do you really think that a people who had just fought an 8-year devastating war to get rid of one King intended to write a Constitution that would ever put them in the hands of another one?
“…the government passed laws that discriminated against African Americans, even to the point when they were considered property and used/sold as slaves.”
That would be the American colonies under the King of England. The Constitution reduced the power of the slave holders by preventing them from counting 2/5 of their slaves as people when it was convenient for them to boost their census counts for purposes of increasing slave-holder representation in Congress and the electoral college. They got rid of the instituion entirely in the 19th Century. Another example of why people don’t like the idea of Kings.
“A better indicator, in my mind, are match up polls. Obama is shown beating in a “who would you vote for now” against all Republican challengers. This certainly doesn’t mean he will win, but when given the option between their perceived socialist, and these self-described capitalists, polls show that Obama is their choice.”
The last match up poll I saw showed Obama tied or losing in direct match up polls to four Republican candidates. I think the 4 were Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, and Palin. At this stage, that’s almost an anybody but Obama poll. (You can google it!)
Tara, throughout this conversation, I do believe that Steve has the most similar ideas to mine. As he said on page 4 comment 49, “Socialism is less desirable but, I think, calling it evil is an overreach.” Furthermore, “socialism, in practice, can be democratic in nature. Many of the European nations have heavy socialist elements but are still Democracies: Sweden, France, etc….[Democratic Socialism] is just another way of organizing society.
Now to your points.
Regardless, if dissenters were stirring up trouble for the church, then I think it is a stretch to say that they were threatened or run out of town strictly on the basis of their refusal to submit to the Law of Consecration. After all, how would you react if there were people among you who were putting the lives of you and your family and friends in danger by their dissent?
As I said before, there was no one reason here, so no it is not a simple case of not wanting to live the Law of Consecration. There was also the issue of polygamy. I have been telling you it is not solely on the “basis of their refusal to submit to the Law of Consecration”, but there are other reasons, so I don’t know why you are telling me I am simplifying the issue. It seems to me you are splitting up my comments and quoting me out of context.
So Tara, once again, what would it take for you to lose confidence in your church leaders? Let’s transport ourselves back to 1838 and try to understand things from Oliver’s perspective for a moment. You fully support Joseph. He tells you he wants to build a Zion people, like the people of Enoch. You trust him. You work for him. You go on missions for him. You preach for him. You build a bank and put your life savings in for him so you can become “one.”
The bank fails because it is under-capitalized. You realize that Joseph isn’t a business guru. If the bank had been properly capitalized, it wouldn’t have failed. You see that Joseph’s plan is to purchase real estate, and sell it to new converts for a profit. However, the new converts are so poor, they can’t buy real estate. This is another cause for the collapse. Now Joseph asks you to risk more of your assets (land) into another consecration project. Not only do you question his business acumen, but the Lord in revelation has said that Joseph will not be blessed economically. Yes you made a covenant to consecrate your land, but Joseph also made a promise that the bank would “never fail, and overtake other banks”.
Furthermore, you suspect that he is having an affair with Fanny Alger. He refuses to deny a relationship, but says it is not an affair. You have pretty good evidence, but not quite enough to be 100% sure. You also know that Joseph was involved in treasure digging, because you participated with him in it. Others accused Joseph of being dishonest with his treasure digging. You are beginning to see a pattern of untruthful patterns. You begin to wonder if this whole real-estate, banking thing is a house of cards.
You’ve expressed your reservations several times, but Joseph keeps telling you to have faith. While you accept him as a prophet, and have seen angels, you also see that Joseph really doesn’t know how to run a large financial operation. You can see the accounting, and it’s a house of cards. Do you still keep investing money in a financial organization that you can see is going to fail? At what point do you decide that you have (as Apostle William McLellin said) “no confidence in the presidency of the church.”? Let’s remember that the rank and file church member isn’t privy to the finances like you are. Tara, do you keep pouring money in a hole?
This is a lot of speculation. From these statements, you make the assumption that there were no charitable Mormons. That is a sad commentary. Why the pessimism?
Are you really asking me why the pessimism after you said that dissent was “putting the lives of you and your family and friends in danger by their dissent”? If you’re Brigham Young, you’ve been run out of Kirtland, Jackson County, Far West, and Nauvoo. The 1838 Mormon War left nearly 2 dozen dead at Haun’s Mill, and you’ve had trouble with dissent. You’re being persecuted for polygamy. Why the pessimism? Are you serious?
Oh, now, come on. I can say the same about church membership and attendance at church. Do your children currently have a choice to be in the church? The same can be said of a lot of things our children are subjected to, like school, or chores, or eating broccoli.
A young man of marriageable age buys a pair of pants and goes to a church dance where a young woman rushes up to him and kisses him, and you are comparing this to a child eating broccoli????
You don’t think? Well then, are you saying you don’t exactly know how everything played out?
I guess you didn’t understand my tongue-in-cheek comment. Let me say it again. Oliver left his house and his farm behind. He can’t transport acres of dirt and crops on his horse. His home isn’t in some trailer park that he can just pack up and take with him. He left it behind, and took only what he could. He wasn’t compensated, just as the Mormons weren’t compensated for getting kicked out of Missouri. Surely you find the mob actions against Mormons outrageous, but Oliver and the Whitmers just got what was coming to them apparently. Is that correct? You have no sympathy for Oliver or the Whitmers. Is that correct? They were free agents and were dealt with appropriately. Is that correct?
That’s difficult to say. Neither of them have officially declared they are socialist, so there is no actual date to reference for that purpose.
Well, the US hasn’t officially declared that we are socialist either, so apparently this 70 year clock has yet to begin. Certainly we are much farther behind the socialist curve than France, England, and Canada. Can you give me one other nation that converted to communism from socialism in 70 years? Where did this 70 year number come from?
If I hadn’t already lost all confidence in church leadership, I certainly would have after reading these last couple pages of comments…wow.
Ok, Bishop Rick, let me put my comments in a bit of context. We all (within and without the church) like to paint people with white hats and black hats. Brigham and company are the good guys and Oliver and company are the bad guys. However, when we truly look at the issues, we see that Brigham wasn’t always good, and Oliver wasn’t always bad. That’s my point.
Most of us know Oliver left the church, but few people can articulate reasons WHY he left the church. Once you understand the reasons, it is easier to see that his concerns were valid. He doesn’t belong in the black hat. He never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon, and neither did the Whitmers. There is something important to say about that.
Likewise, Brigham’s leadership was exactly what the saints needed to survive in the wasteland of Utah. As I said before, he could be autocratic at times, but the theocracy was needed to survive. So he doesn’t get a fully white hat either. I applaud Brigham for using his force of personality to turn the Utah desert to a rose. But there were casualties too.
The same can be said of this socialism/capitalism debate. Capitalism doesn’t get the white hat, and socialism the black hat, despite how people want to paint it. Americans point to the Greek financial crisis, but seemingly forget the Great Recession and Great Depression we have had here in the name of capitalism. The turn toward socialism of the banking industry started under George W Bush, yet only Obama is the socialist? Something is not fair here.
History isn’t black and white. It is fully of gray, and that’s my point. I am appreciative our our church leaders in our history. But they certainly didn’t handle situations perfectly (though far better than I would have done.) Let’s quit painting things in black and white and start looking at things more objectively. That’s my point.
As Steve said, “Socialism is less desirable but, I think, calling it evil is an overreach.”
I’m glad we’re done with the socialist poll issue. I assume from your silence you have finally come around to agree with me on my point.
Not at all. Tara’s point, however, was that government has now seized more or different power than it has in the past and is using this “new” power to regulate businesses into bankruptcy in a way it has not in the past. I was merely pointing out that the Constitution gives the government power to do this, within the limits you point out. None of those “Government shall pass no law,…” provisions restrict the federal government from regulating businesses. To the contrary, among those enumerated powers is the power to regulate commerce among the states and to levy taxes.
Tara is saying that the Obama administration is doing very drastic things. I’m saying they are not and are merely passing laws and doing things he promised to do to the people who elected him – and that these things are typical and in line with what other administrations have done. She has not yet demonstrated why a law regulating health insurance providers is so much more socialistic or outside of its consitutional bounds than the ADA (passed under Bush I) or NCLB (under Bush II) or any number of reforms that regulate industry.
I specifically pointed to Sarbanes Oxley (Bush II) that severly regulated all members of the financial industry and asked why this wasn’t as bad as what Obama was doing. And even if she thinks it is as bad – it still demonstrates that Obama is continuing in the same fashion other administrations have. Passing laws in accordance with their perceived powers – and being checked by the judicial branch if they go too far, like McCain-Feingold (Bush II).
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but your facts are a little off. The North didn’t want to count slaves at all in the census (as slaves weren’t people) and the South wanted them fully counted, in order to take full advantage of federal appropriations and get better representation in Congress. The Constitution compromised and provided slaves would be counted as 3/5ths of a person.
But long after this, governments, both state and federal discriminated against African Americans. I made this point to rebut Tara’s contention that somehow the Obama government is weilding some new power to stomp on individual rights and harm businesses that didn’t exist in the past. Obviously, it did.
So you agree that a better indicator is match-up polls?
I googled and couldn’t find what you suggested. Here’s info from pollster.com that collects and consolodates other polls. It provides summer numbers. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_2012_pres_ppp_647.php
If you find this poll to which you refer, I’d like to see it.
I see you have abandoned the discussion on the “socialist” poll issue, so I will assume you concede my point. I hope this was a result of my expressing my point more clearly.
Perhaps – but in that comment I was referring to Beck’s constant conspiracy theorizing, generally based on falsehoods. It did not mean to address your intelligence or his popularity.
You’re correct, but this doesn’t refute my point. None of the restrictions in the Bill of rights prevents the federal government from passing laws that regulate businesses and the enumerated powers clause includes both the ability to tax and the ability to regulate commerce. I do not think the Constitution would put them in the hands of a king and I made no such claim. It seems you are once again ascribing statements to me that I didn’t make or even imply.
Tara asked me where the government got the right to regulate business. With respect to the Federal government, the Constitution is my answer. If you disagree that the Constitution allows government to regulate industry, let me know and we can discuss.
I’m not totally clear on what you’re getting at here, but your facts are a little off. The North didn’t want to count slaves as people for representation purposes, and the South did. The compromise in the Constitution was to allow slaves to count as 3/5ths of a person.
Again, Tara is trying to make the point that the Obama administration has some new or extraordinary powers which violate the Constitution and suppress individual rights. My point regarding discrimination was that African Americans were discriminated against by law (both federal and state) centuries ago – so clearly the government has always had extraordinary powers and has used them in extraordinary ways.
My rebuttal to Tara is that all administrations pressed for laws that regulate industry (ADA – Bush I; NCLB, Patriot Act, Sarbanes Oxley – Bush II) and they are all done with the idea that they are within their constitutional authority. If they are not (McCain Feingold – Bush II) then the checks and balances of the judiciary will intervene. Obama’s legislative agenda are neither extreme nor outside the scope of traditional legislative power. I’m waiting for examples to the contrary.
I’d even go so far as to all it “extreme political rhetoric.”
2012 President
46% Obama, 44% Huckabee
50% Obama, 41% Palin
47% Obama, 39% Gingrich
46% Obama, 36% Paul
45% Obama, 42% Romney
This is from Pollster. If there is another more recent or with different results. I was unable to find it. “Anybody but a republican?”
A brief on the historical expansion of the “commerce clause” to cover just about everything, and how far it differs from 18th Century understandings is a little beyond the scope of this blog, BTC. Progressives think that’s a good thing; conservatives think it’s gone much too far. It’s the old argument of “living document” versus “original construction.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/15/ppp-obama-palin-tied-4646-in-2012-polling/
This links to and summarizes the results of a mid-July poll by Public Policy Polling (a Democratic polling firm) of registered voters. This link in turn goes to the PPP release itself if you wish to go further in the data. For years, Obama has done better among all adults than among registered voters, and better among regular voters than among likely voters. That may explain the difference in the results.
And government now doesn’t have power to pass laws “indiscriminately” and certainly not when they violate the constitution. Do you have evidence that this new power exists or has been exercised? In what way am I wrong?
I wasn’t arguing that they did. But when you say that they do have, and always have had, the ability to pass laws, even to the point of passing a 100% tax, then you are saying they have the power to pass laws indiscriminately.
Just by way of example – there was a time when the government passed laws that discriminated against African Americans, even to the point when they were considered property and used/sold as slaves. Certainly you’ll see this as a violation of individual liberty. You’re saying the government has more power now than it did back then?
The constitution states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our founding principles could not forever tolerate slavery within its midst and it did not.
The government does have more power than it did back then. As an example, in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment changed the way senators were chosen, from being selected by state legislatures–ensuring that the state governments would have a direct and meaningful voice in the operation of the federal government–to direct popular election by the citizens of each state. Enough states ratified an amendment which largely disenfranchised themselves from the federal lawmaking process. Now, the once powerful states have themselves become administrative appendages of the federal government. It is not enough that the federal government exercises powers reserved to the states, but it also blackmails the states to implement its policies by threatening to deny them “their fair share” of federal tax dollars should they object.
The lesson for us is that man is imperfect. Even good men are capable of bad things. The disgrace of slavery is a disgrace of the human condition–as is all tyranny. Man’s institutions, like man himself, are imperfect. The can be used for good or bad. Therefore, diffusing authority among many imperfect men, by enumerating federal power, separating powers within the federal government, and sharing power with the states–isolates and limits tyranny. The more centralized the government becomes, the more easily we become subject to tyranny.
Yeah, the government has always had the power to pass laws, but it wasn’t always been as centralized as it has become. The move to centralize power in the federal government over time is what has increased its power.
Interestingly, and on point, when the government outlawed slavery, it bankrupted many estates in the South. Without the free labor provided by slaves, many plantations could no longer survive.
As I stated, the founding principles of this nation were in contrast to slavery. Slaves had been viewed as property, but once they were no longer considered property, they were entitled to the same rights as other men. At that point the rights of individuals were in direct conflict: the rights of property owners and the rights of slaves to life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness. The scales were obviously tipped in favor of the slaves, as it should have been. But that wasn’t necessarily as a direct result of governmental power. It was as a result of conflicting constitutional principles which had to be resolved. That’s how I see it anyway.
Steve,
We need to be a bit careful mushing communism and socialism together.
Speaking of communism and socialism, President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. said, “The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties.”
The first is evil. The second is just another way of organizing society.
“During the first half of the 20th century we have traveled far into the soul destroying land of socialism.” (David O. McKay) I’d say “soul destroying” is evil.
“… Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan… Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet.” (Grant and McKay)
If socialism is satan’s counterfeit, as has been stated by a number of church leaders, then how can it not be evil?
I know Elder Benson used to mash them together and some, on the national scene, do so today.
He’s not the only church leader either. Brigham Young and John Taylor’s main reason for keeping Utah out from joining the Union was over the issue of Public Education (the Church strongly opposed it — Brigham Young condemned it as a communistic evil — which, according to the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, it is); John Taylor went on to be very vocal about principles of Government and politics; Wilford Woodruff was an ardent supporter of sovereignty and of a Constitutional Republic; Heber G. Grant issued a First Presidency message against Communism and Socialism; David O. McKay said that Socialism and Communism consisted of the “greatest Satanical threat” to America — David O. McKay was far more vocal than Benson; J. Reuben Clark, Marion G. Romney, Marion Hanks, and many other Apostles and members of the First Presidency condemned socialism, government welfare, and everything associated to it.
But, it is important to remember that some prominent LDS leaders have spoken positively of socialism. The modern examples were N. Eldon Tanner (he was in the Canadian parliament as a member of a socialist party) and Hugh B. Brown (a liberal but he often spoke about democratic socialism as a viable alternative).
Why do we automatically believe these church leader over other church leaders?
MH,
At what point do you decide that you have (as Apostle William McLellin said) “no confidence in the presidency of the church.”? Let’s remember that the rank and file church member isn’t privy to the finances like you are. Tara, do you keep pouring money in a hole?
I guess I’m too ignorant to see what losing confidence in church leaders has to do with being forced or coerced into living the Law of Consecration. I haven’t argued with you about losing confidence in church leaders so I’m not sure why you keep making that a point of contention.
Are you really asking me why the pessimism after you said that dissent was “putting the lives of you and your family and friends in danger by their dissent”? If you’re Brigham Young, you’ve been run out of Kirtland, Jackson County, Far West, and Nauvoo. The 1838 Mormon War left nearly 2 dozen dead at Haun’s Mill, and you’ve had trouble with dissent. You’re being persecuted for polygamy. Why the pessimism? Are you serious?
Well, let’s see. William Godbe lived in Utah when he was forced to leave, correct? Were there mobs there who were feeding off of members dissent that I’m not aware of? If there were, then I guess the members might not be very charitable. If there weren’t, then what’s wrong with what I said?
A young man of marriageable age buys a pair of pants and goes to a church dance where a young woman rushes up to him and kisses him, and you are comparing this to a child eating broccoli????
I’m sorry, but you said children. I guess I should’ve interpreted that as “a young man of marriageable age.” Okay, then is there any evidence that young men of marriageable age were forced to stay? Was there any evidence that they were not given the opportunity of choice? Do we not also in the church, give all people the opportunity to make their own covenants willingly, or not? Baptism is one thing, because children are so young, but a covenant such as the Law of Consecration would not be a covenant that was entered into as a young child. You said you didn’t think that young men of marriageable age had a choice, but I’m not sure if you really don’t know and are just speculating, or if you were just being “tongue-in-cheek.”
You have no sympathy for Oliver or the Whitmers. Is that correct? They were free agents and were dealt with appropriately. Is that correct?
I never said I had no sympathy for them, but sympathy doesn’t equate to looking the other way when covenants are broken. If it did, then that means God is not sympathetic. The demands of justice must be met, and when one doesn’t live up to their covenants, someone must bear the burden of that. Can you tell me who? Now tell me that earthly consequences are more severe than the eternal consequences and say that I have no sympathy.
FT,
Thanks for the input on my behalf. Excellent comments.
I also think the expansion of the commerce clause is irrelevant to this discussion. It certainly hasn’t been expanded by the Obama administration. Moreover, the controversy of this expansion does not relate to the degree of regulation, but the subject of the regulation (ie. which industries are regulated and/or are the subject of the regulation actually commercial in nature). So while one may argue whether a particular regulation is outside the scope of the commerce clause, one cannot argue that this does not give the federal government power to regulate industry – which was my point.
You also ignore that this was but one example of the regulatory power of government. Taxation is another – both by taxing directly (which is the specific thrust of Tara’s complaint) or by requiring a particular industry to agree to certain regs in order to take advantage of tax incentives.
These are all ways the federal government can regulate industry. I haven’t even touched on the ability of state governments.
It appears Mr. Obama’s fortunes may be shifting. Nonetheless, I’m glad you’ve come around to my way of thinking that match-up polls are far more telling than issue polls.
Do you know what “indiscriminately” means? It means without reason or rational. How does saying that “government has power to pass laws, even to the point of passing a 100% tax” qualify as “indiscriminate?” This just doesn’t make any sense.
No, the Constitution doesn’t say that. I thought all you Tea Partier Libertarians had a pocket Constitution on you at all times? The document you are thinking of is the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document in our system of government. But even if what you say is true, it only serves to prove my point – that the government has in the past pushed the limits of its power and if Obama is doing something as bad as the founding fathers did – ie. Institutionalizing slavery – then let me know.
I’m not sure you understand the history or effect of the 13th Amendment, but just because the people voted for something you think they shouldn’t have, doesn’t mean that it’s some kind of power grab. It also happened, I believe, long before Obama took office. I was trying to rebut your position that the Obama administration is somehow exercising power in a way his predecessors did not.
Perhaps we are talking about two different things. I thought you said the Obama administration was doing this extraordinary thing. Now you seem to say it is just a natural progression and politics as usual. That was my point. Have you changed your position, or stating a new one?
And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Do you know what “indiscriminately” means? It means without reason or rational. How does saying that “government has power to pass laws, even to the point of passing a 100% tax” qualify as “indiscriminate?” This just doesn’t make any sense.
I do, in fact, understand what indiscriminately means. If the government were to pass a 100% tax, as you suggest they have the power to do, I would call that indiscriminate. That would be unreasonable and irrational, even if a majority thought it was a good idea and gave good reasons for it. Just because a majority, even a 10:1 majority, finds something okay, if it infringes upon one’s individual rights, his God given freedoms, then it is indiscriminate. Our Republic was founded on the basis that the majority could not rule in this way.
No, the Constitution doesn’t say that. I thought all you Tea Partier Libertarians had a pocket Constitution on you at all times? The document you are thinking of is the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document in our system of government. But even if what you say is true, it only serves to prove my point – that the government has in the past pushed the limits of its power and if Obama is doing something as bad as the founding fathers did – ie. Institutionalizing slavery – then let me know.
Yes, I misspoke. My intent was to convey that those principles were the principles on which the country was founded, and those unalienable, be they articulated in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, are most certainly rights that are encapsulated in the constitution.
Also, I’m not a Tea Party member. I have only said that I think the Tea Party movement is a good thing.
The founding fathers did not institutionalize slavery. Perhaps you are unclear on what the word “institute” means. It means to “establish, organize, and set in motion.” I believe that slavery was institutionalized long before the country was founded.
I’m not sure you understand the history or effect of the 13th Amendment, but just because the people voted for something you think they shouldn’t have, doesn’t mean that it’s some kind of power grab. It also happened, I believe, long before Obama took office. I was trying to rebut your position that the Obama administration is somehow exercising power in a way his predecessors did not.
I said the 17th amendment, not the 13th. Also, it wasn’t the people who voted for the amendment, whichever one you may be referring to either. No constitutional amendment has been passed by popular vote. That would go entirely against the foundation of the Republic. That would be the norm in a true Democracy, which we aren’t….yet. Are you sure YOU know what you’re talking about?
And I’m only rebutting your position wherein you stated the government has always had the power to pass laws, even to the point that it can bankrupt any business or industry. Let’s try to stay on point here. I addressed much earlier in the discussion what I believed he has done to expand the power of the federal government.
Perhaps we are talking about two different things. I thought you said the Obama administration was doing this extraordinary thing. Now you seem to say it is just a natural progression and politics as usual. That was my point. Have you changed your position, or stating a new one?
When did I ever say he was the only one? A case could be made, however, that he is expanding it at a unprecedented rate, especially considering he hasn’t even been in office 2 years, and that is MY point. Always has been.
“He” meaning Obama.
It is difficult to discuss seriously with someone who says in the same sentence that “indiscriminate” means “without reason” and that you nonetheless find something to be indiscriminate even if it is passed by large majorities with very good reasons.
If you are going to use words with unique meanings known only to you, then I am at a loss.
Oh – and what is the “it” that Obama is expanding? And if a case can be made that he is doing so at an unprecedented rate, then by all means, make it.
Gang rape is not okay in America because we believe that the individual has inalienable rights, regardless of what a threatening majority says. There is no magic ration wherein the majority can claim legitimacy to rape a woman; it doesn’t matter if it is 2:1, 10:1, 100:1, 100,000:1, or 10,000,000:1 — no majority number can infringe upon the inalienable right of the individual (as was reasoned came from our “Creator”). Murder is not justifiable, even if the majority condones it, because the individual has inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Who gave the individual these “rights”? If it was the majority, then we must also stipulate that the majority can change their mind, repeal the right, and then murder the individual legitimately.
The right to property is an unalienable right. To tax 100% is to take away 100% of one’s property, and would be a violation of his rights. That would be indiscriminate; without reason.
No one has said that congress has passed laws indiscriminately, but if a majority can decide that something is okay by the fact of their majority, then anything can be condoned or justified. That means that nothing can technically be considered wrong. That is what I mean by indiscriminate.
BTC:
Direct match up polls tell you one thing. Issue polls tell you another. Right track / wrong track tells you something else. Direct approval polls tell you something else. I can refer you to a poll directly questioning whether people believe the government currently has “the consent of the governed”. Only about a quarter of the population will say it does. I think that goes to the core of the issue of Constitutional legitimacy — even more than match-up polls.
Hear about the Three Stooge’s match up poll? Do you wish to be burned at the stake or have your head cut off? Curly’s answer was “a hot stake is better than a cold chop.” I think the political class of both parties has put us all in a lot of three stooge’s match-up polls — in economic policy, environmental policy, in foreign policy.
Our world is certainly doing a good job of making D&C 1 look prophetic, unfortunately.
The “it” refers to the power of the government.
I’ll give you an example. Under Bush, the Code of Federal Regulations increased at an average rate of just over 2,000 pages per year. During Obama’s first year, which is, historically, when fewer regulations are passed, it was increased by more than double Bush’s average. At the 1 year mark, we hadn’t even gotten to health care or cap and trade (which hasn’t been passed, but is a big agenda item) which will no doubt set records where regulation is concerned.
It’s not the only yardstick, but it’s definitely one to consider.
Other definitions of indiscriminate also apply: Unrestrained or wanton; profligate. Perhaps that will better meet your requirements of correct word choice. Profligate translates to wildly extravagant. Is that better?
Tara,
from a moralistic viewpoint I agree with your post 25 on page 5. The reality though is that “inalienable” rights are given and taken away by society. Unless God comes down and states that humans have a particular set of inalienable rights, all we can say is that man came up with them, and chooses whether to uphold them.
MH,
I know exactly what point you were trying to make, and I agree with your point. That said, the “Black Hats” you and Tara have used are pretty Black…enough to push a fence sitter off the fence.
That is my point.
I mean that’s some pretty serious stuff, regardless of how great a particular leader was.
David is arguably the greatest King Israel has ever known, but I don’t think you expect to see him in the C Kingdom.
BR,
Well they CAN be given and taken away by society, but under the Constitution as it was originally founded, there were many protections which were built in to keep that from happening. That is still the case to a large degree in this country. As long as the majority holds values those rights as unalienable, then I don’t know of a scenario where they could be taken away. Once the majority is won over though, all bets are off.
To which of our “black hats” are you referring?
Tara,
“I guess I’m too ignorant to see what losing confidence in church leaders has to do with being forced or coerced into living the Law of Consecration.”
It is truly amazing that you can connect so many dots between Obama and Communism, but when I show you those exact same dots with Brigham and Joseph, suddenly you claim ignorance. You’re not consistent in your logic. Every argument you have claimed to reject socialism was shown to exist with Brigham and Joseph. You’re more interested in black hats/white hats and rhetoric than in truly recognize the problems with consecration. I’ve shown you the facts, and you choose to reject them, and replace them with political rhetoric from Pres Benson, Elder Romney, etc. Well, if you’re happier to play demonizing games, then there’s obviously nothing I can do to help you see this demonization. I’ve responded with facts and you choose not to connect the dots that are so easily connected with Obama. Your not consistent in your logic at all. At this point I agree with Chicken’s comment above: ‘I’d even go so far as to all it “extreme political rhetoric.”’
You have ignored my questions. Can you show me 1 country that has converted from socialism to Communism in a 70 year time frame? Where did this 70 year number come from? (the air?)
Tara,
I appreciated your quotes from various leaders about their opinions of socialism and communism.
The absolutely critical point is that there are tremendous differences of opinion. That indicates to me that it is not a question of right or wrong, but of personal opinion.
I really liked your J. Reuben Clark mention. He was in the U.S. State Department when communism became a worldwide force. He felt very strongly about.
David O. McKay is an interesting one. He, like most, was a hardline anti-communist. He also hated socialism. Ironically, he appointed counselors who had kind feelings towards socialism. Both Hugh B. Brown and N. Eldon Tanner served under him.
In recent years, there are some interesting figures with left-of-center views.
James E. Faust is most prominent. He was a fairly liberal democrat in the Utah legislature. He cared deeply about gambling (hated it) but always had a soft spot for socialism. I had a really interesting conversation with him once. He was far more liberal than I am.
Elder Jensen is also a Democrat and pretty liberal. I wasn’t surprised he gave the 24th address on the impact of Indians by the pioneers.
MH: Our buddy Gary is up to it again. He has a new posting. In it he claims Ezra T. Benson was the first significantly politically connected Mormon leader. And, since he became prophet, that means his earlier political views were ratified and should be accepted. Take a peek. It is quite the hoot.
Steve page 4, comment 49: (Can’t believe how fast this discussion grows!)
I think your argument about the potential stability of socialism as a way of organizing society if the revolutionaries don’t win in the first place has some validity, but your economic argument of inefficiency also means that, sooner or later, the revolutionaries are likely to get another chance. Without wealth building, there can be no wealth distribution, so eventually there is sufficient resentment among the excluded classes to light the fire.
I’m not suggesting that there is something unique to the “left” in this. It seems to be a more general characteristic of self-government that Mormons frequently refer to as the pride cycle. More classical sources have referenced the notion that once the people decide that they can vote themselves “bread and circuses”, a democracy is doomed. Fascists used it on the right in mid-20th Century Europe; military dictatorships in South America have used it to great effect; Mullahs are using it now throughout the Muslim world. The techniques aren’t much different than those used in Rome (or recounted about Zarahemla, or for that matter, recounted about the Garden of Eden.).
Stir up envy. Ask for greater power to right the wrong. Find new excuses to keep the power and expand it. Believe you deserve to be rewarded for it. Then you are not far from being devilsfood cake.
Firetag — Very interesting post. Very thoughtful. It will keep me up a bit tonight.
Tara,
I couldn’t tell from your comment that you were referring to the constitution. You seemed to infer that inalienable rights were God-given, not man-given (backed up by the constitution). If you are actually talking about the latter, then I will give that one to you.
All of them.
MH,
What do you want from me? To claim I believe something that I absolutely do not believe because that’s what you believe and it makes so much sense to you? I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. Even if I can accurately understand the point you are trying to make, I’m still not seeing a direct correlation between consecration and socialism. The two are not equal. They have close resemblances, but they are far from being fundamentally the same.
Also, I don’t think it is fair to say that I’m more interested in rhetoric than in facts. I am very accepting of the facts you’ve given. My only argument is with your interpretation of them. Why is that wrong? Perhaps you have a very good point to make. I’ve tried hard to understand it, but apparently I can’t, and now you are accusing me of claiming ignorance. Perhaps you didn’t catch the “tongue-in-cheek” there when I said that I was too ignorant? I did that because your comment prior to mine seemed to suggest that you thought my comments were less than intelligent. I responded with a little sarcasm.
Now, since you’ve accused me of demonization, please show me who I’ve demonized. I don’t believe that I have demonized anyone. You may accuse me of demonizing Obama, but I don’t think that I have, other than to say what of his policies I disagree with, or to say that he is socialist. But as I tried to determine early on in this discussion (though it wasn’t engaged), if a label is true, is it politically extreme, or even demonizing, to use it? Now we’ve spent all of this time trying to determine whether or not Obama is a socialist, whether or not socialism is evil, or whether or not consecration and socialism and communism are the same, along with a number of other issues, instead of answering my original question in response to this thread.
When did I ever say that there were no problems with consecration; that it was perfect in its execution? When? I dare say that I never did at any time during this discussion, or at any time during any discussion I’ve ever had with you. I’ve had about enough of being accused by you and by chicken of saying or thinking or believing things that I haven’t expressed in this discussion.
To sum up, you believe that I can connect dots at will, but “claim ignorance” (meaning I’m being disingenuous) when it suits me, that I am inconsistent, I choose to reject facts, am primarily concerned with rhetoric, and I choose not to connect dots. I’m feeling a bit insulted. If this is what it’s going to be, I’ll be happy to leave. If I’m bothering you that much, then I don’t even want to be here.
Oh, and capitalism was not the cause of the Great Depression. The government and its interference with the free market are the direct cause of the Great Depression.
Tara,
As FireTag said earlier to Chicken, I’m more interested in keeping you as a friend than winning an argument. I’m sorry my frustration showed through on my last comment. I really miss your participation here, and rather than have you bow out, I’ll duck out on this conversation (but continue to monitor it). I hope you’ll continue to stop by on less heated conversations. Whether you agree with me or not, I hope that you always learn something about Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, or Judaism when you stop by.
Tara, I am interested in hearing of a country that has converted from Socialism to Communism after 70 years, and I would like to know where the number came from. (I will await your response silently and without any more rancor. It probably won’t surprise you that I disagree with your characterization of the Great Depression, but I will leave it at that.)
Steve, I’m just finishing up the book “Scattering of the Saints” by John Hamer. My next book will be the David O McKay biography, and I know there are several chapters on the Civil Rights Movement, and Pres McKay’s positions on the priesthood ban. So, I am sure I will have a plethora of quotes from Pres Benson that I think you will enjoy, but it will probably be a month or so before I can get anything together. R Gary is a hoot. It’s too bad he censors comments so much; I’ve lost all interest in communicating with him on President Benson. I love Pres Benson as a prophet, but I strongly disagree with some of President Benson’s politics, especially when it comes to the Civil Rights movement. I see President Benson as prophet, seer, and revelator, but not as head politician. I know R Gary has a very hard time separating church and state (especially when it comes to Pres Benson), but I don’t.
Tara, here’s a completely unrelated question. Did you see my post “Did Paul found Christianity?” It would be nice to get your opinion there.
Perhaps. If it were true.
FT – what does this poll tell you?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6201911-503544.html
Poll Reveals Most Americans Don’t Know They Got a Tax Cut
Not sure what the majority has to do with the Constitution. The Constition can’t be modified by a simple majority, nor can the rigths given by the Constitution be taken away by a majority.
The Founders did have an understanding of their own limitations, however. It was not an accident that they provided procedures to modfiy and amend the Constitution as society demanded. They made it difficult to do, so that it could not be done whimsically (or “indiscriminately”) but, in their wisdom, the Founders did not hold themselves up on the pedestal that Conservatives now do. They recognized their obvious shortcomings which are now obvious (slaves not people, women couldn’t vote, etc.).
MH,
I appreciate the apology and I’m sorry for causing your frustration. I promise, it wasn’t intentional.
I haven’t seen your Paul post. If I get time, I’ll take a look at it. I’m not sure when that will be. It’s hard to engage more than one post at a time right now.
I didn’t say a country would change from socialist to communist in 70 years. Here is what I said:
“It is estimated that about 70 years is the amount of time a country under socialism will survive.”
That statement, and I should’ve been more clear, had to do with the perceived success of socialism, and that no socialist state has survived more than 70 years without serious economic and political abuses. The “70 years” isn’t a number I pulled out of the air. I actually read it somewhere, but now I can’t find where I read it.
I can’t really answer your other question about any country that has gone from socialism to communism in 70 years because that isn’t what I said. But since I said that none have survived more than 70 years without serious problems, then I suppose the test of that would be to come up with any socialist countries that have prospered for more than 70 years. Maybe there are some, but I can’t think of any.
BTC,
I didn’t say that the majority had anything to do with the Constitution. In a true Democracy, the majority would rule. We are not a true Democracy. I believe, however, that the 17th amendment and efforts to abolish the electoral college are efforts to take us in the direction of a true Democracy.
Also, how do you conclude that conservatives put themselves on a pedestal? I just don’t understand the animosity that you have for conservatives.
BTC,
Perhaps. If it were true.
Prove me wrong.