Distractions?…
…or Blessings?
Immigration reform may end up being the end of Obama and open doors not previously open to Mormons and especially Mitt Romney. Passions concerning race run higher in this country even than passions about religion. And immigration raises that very red flag. Obama is supposed to be “post racial, ” that is to say race simply does not matter and is not worthy of discussion. And yet, his treatment of Israel, and some, only some, reaction to it carries overtones of animosity that has existed between blacks and Jews for a very long time. – no one has talked about this.
But someone finally points out that there are racial issues endemic in the Arizona law, immigration reform in general, and even Obama’s election – the fur starts to fly. The really does seem to be a double standard at play. If we are indeed “post racial” in the nation, then it should not come up at all.
It even bleeds over into religious electoral issues. Consider this story out of Florida claiming it is hard for a Muslim to get elected in “the Bible Belt.” They try to compare it to Romney’s problems last cycle, but the analysis is way too simplistic. For one, race lies all over the Muslim issue as most are “of color.” It would take very sophisticated study to separate racial and religious issues on the matter. The Mormon analogy just does not apply here as there is no way to readily detect if someone is a Mormon on sight.
Where there are some similarities is in behavioral consequences of faith. Given the desire of some Muslims to hurt our nation – it is reasonable to make efforts to ascertain that a Muslim seeking office does not share those concerns. That may be a form of “electoral profiling” – but I do not think it rises to the level of prejudicial discrimination. Historically, it would have been reasonable to make the same investigations about Mormons and polygamy, and here lies the similarity. But polygamy is now no longer a part of Mormon practice – demonstrably so for more than 100 years – so the question has lost its reason in current time but it is where the parallel comes in.
But some it seems still want to muddy the waters. This piece about divergent Mormon views on the immigration question is interesting.
Russell Pearce, the Arizona senator who proposed that state’s tough anti-immigration law, is LDS and hails from Mesa, a stronghold of Mormonism.
Pearce did not return messages seeking comment for this story. But, according to Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, the Arizona lawmaker builds his case on the Utah-based church’s 12th Article of Faith, which says Mormons believe in “obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.”
If this is the case, Pearce does himself and Mormonism no favors. For one, this is the same line of reasoning that we often chastise Evangelicals about. Direct application of sacred texts to lawmaking simply defies how we do things in this nation. Sacred texts motivate each of us personally, but when it comes to making public policy we must argue on the basis of policy and reason alone.
Secondly, given Mormonism’s troubled, but reformed, issues with race historically, to invoke Mormon teaching on a racially tinged issue is to beg for the problem.
But here’s the thing – should we break out into a full blown national discussion on race, it will be beneficial to Romney because, 1) it is another issue that would tend to unite Evangelicals and Mormons, and 2) It would likely take so much heat out of the room that there would be no energy left for religious discussion. Bear in mind I am talking about a full throated discussion of the issue, not the kind of “Hush!” shaming tactics that have been used for a very long time now.
As we have seen, discrimination is not the issue, prejudice is – asking reasonable questions is not a problem, stereotyping is. A properly formed national discussion on race might allow for a properly formed discussion on religion as well. This could get very interesting.
And While We Are Uniting Evangelicals and Mormons…
Another reason not to move to Canada or, thanks to Mark Steyn, the UK. And another reason to be vigilant that such nonsense does not come here.
Posted in Political Strategy, Reading List, Religious Bigotry | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Tweets that mention Distractions?… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder -- Topsy.com on 03 May 2010 at 6:21 am #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Article VI Blog, Article VI Blog. Article VI Blog said: #hhrs New @ Article VI Blog:: Distractions?… http://www.article6blog.com/2010/05/03/distractions/ [...]
stevenrushing on 03 May 2010 at 7:15 am #
Unfortunately the line between discrimination and prejudice is incredibly thin, and entirely subjective. What one might call a reasonable question another will call stereotyping, and I don’t believe that in today’s America there can be a “reasonable person” test on this particular question.
John Schroeder on 04 May 2010 at 9:24 am #
Steven:
There has to be or tribalism will of necessity result. The people of this nation are smarter than that.
coltakashi on 04 May 2010 at 12:16 pm #
John: I generally agree with you that trying to turn a scriptural statement into legislation is not a good idea, since such proposals carry the usually unstated assertion that they are the authoritative word of God, and therefore no one in good conscience could oppose them. On the other hand, the Twelfth Article of Faith, along with the Eleventh Article, are statements about the relationship between the Latter-day Saints and the larger communities they belong to:
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
In essence, Joseph Smith was saying that the Latter-day Saints believe both in liberty and in the rule of law. As the official statement which is Section 134 of the Doctrine & Covenants puts it, and as other statements sprinkled through the Doctrine & Covenants reiterate, democratic government is essentially a covenant between the people and the government, whose essence is that government deserves obedience to its laws to the same extent that government affords freedom of conscience to its citizens, and conversely, that citizens are entitled to freedom of conscience to the extent that they are willing to be part of a law-abiding society. This formula emphasizes that our liberty depends fundamentally on the willingness of our neighbors to obey the law and not interfere with our freedom.
This covenant of freedom and obedience is explicit in the Declaration of Independence. The justification for disobedience to the British crown was the violation by the crown of its covenant to respect the God-given, unalienable liberties of the people. The Constitution was created as a framework of law which would “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The religious liberty ensured by the First Amendment is part of this fabric of freedom embodied in fundamental law.
So I find it difficult to see how any American who subscribes to both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution could object to the 11th and 12th Articles of Faith, which are (and were when they were first transmitted to the editor of a Chicago newspaper in 1842) a declaration that Mormonism subscribes to the American covenant, a covenant that has spread around the world as other nations sought freedom and as dictators were toppled by World War II and the Cold War.
Let me offer my own two bits on the immigration question. So long as we do not control our borders, America has no immigration policy. It is a free-for-all, which is harmful to immigrants, both legal and illegal, most of all. The illegal immigrant’s wages are depressed not only by his illegal status, but also by the fact that he can be replaced by the next person crossing the Rio Grande. No policy is possible until measures are taken to seriously enforce our borders. While no means is perfect, it is clear that America has seldom been serious about border control because many citizens want access to unlimited unskilled labor.
On the other hand, the primary difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal one is an arbitrary quota created by Congress decades ago, that is not adjusted in any way to correspond to the changing conditions of America’s population and economic needs. There is nothing holy about those numbers. They were not created through any exercise of wisdom, of scientific or economic research. The fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are employed testifies that there is a need for their labor. The unholy fixed quotas should be replaced by an adjustable number that is based on an assessment of the need for workers and the ability of the domestic supply of citizens and permanent residents who can fill that need. We live with a periodic adjustment of the Federal Reserve Bank’s rate; an adjustment of immigration levels to realistically correspond to the need for labor would provide more stability, and allow us to make honest men of both our American businesses and their workers. Once legal immigration is opened up to correspond to legitimate demand for labor, and illegal immigration made more difficult, the cost-to-benefit ratio of illegal immigration will rise significantly, and controlling the border will become easier.
Once we have the mechanisms to obtain realistic control of new immigration, we will have to face the reality that many people have been working and serving our economy for many years, in a law abiding way, despite their illegal entry. The common law recognizes that the passage of time counts for something, and converts illegal trespass by a fence built on another’s land into a legally enforceable title to the land enclosed, because it recognizes that society has an investment in the current status quo, even though it was achieved through less than legitimate means at first. If the original owners of land were able to assert their real property rights and evict unauthorized occupants, going back centuries, anyone who did not have American Indian ancestry would become a tenant-at-will in North America. While it may satisfy a desire for justice to punish people who are in effect “squatters” in the United States, the goal of peace and prosperity for society, and of mercy for those who have otherwise been law-abiding subscribers to the American covenant, will do more to “ensure domestic tranquility” than any vengeance-based approach.
After all, after World War II the United States extended a merciful hand to the defeated peoples of Japan and Germany and Italy, and in the interest of defending freedom against chaos and communism, we subsidized economic aid to our former enemies. If we can be merciful to nations that bombed Pearl Harbor, and committed the Holocaust, and brought death and suffering to millions of people, including many Americans, can we not see our best interest in forgiving those who defied our arbitrary and irrational immigration laws so they could come and pick our potatoes? Such “amnesty” is not a measure of any obligation to those who broke the law, but an exercise of American magnanimity.
Finally, I would offer to any immigrant who enlists in the armed forces and honorably serves a term of enlistment the right to permanent residency and, upon reenlistment, citizenship. America is a nation whose original citizens were identified when they stepped forward to defend liberty against the regiments of British regulars and Hessian mercenaries. They joined the new nation by taking rifle in hand. In the Civil War, African Americans, including runaway slaves, demonstrated their full entitlement to citizenship by volunteering 100,000 of their sons to serve in a war in which their capture meant their death; that courage led directly to the amendments to the Constitution that abolished slavery and guaranteed equal justice. In World War II, men of Japanese ancestry volunteered out of concentration camps that held 100,000 of their mothers and fathers, sisters and younger brothers, and earned recognition of their right to be Americans through a disproportionately bloody sacrifice in both Europe and the Pacific. A man who honors an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend all Americans with his life has joined the American covenant more surely than those who think America is defined by her sins.
TVHall on 04 May 2010 at 1:21 pm #
While there may be a certain amount of subjectivity involved, to describe it as “entirely subjective” is a fairly sizable exaggeration. Also, to suggest that there can’t be a “reasonable person” test is to imply that there is no reasonable person. This line of thought would at least appear to stem from the same root as the notion that there are no absolutes, only varying opinions.