Article VI Blog

On Friday, I attempted to make the point that the NSA data collection story was a big deal politically, but was not a serious “issue.”  And yet the story rolls on.  In fact it rolls on enough that the line that the “IRS scandal is solved” has some traction.   We have a new and juicier scandal, or so we think.

Yesterday, Michael Medved got a tweet half right:

NSA “snooping” issue is terrible for GOP- divides the base, gives Obama a controversy in which his behavior is entirely defensible

It is terrible for the GOP and it does divide the base, but the actions are not “entirely” defensible.  (Obama is on defensible ground on this one, but it is a soft position and not therefore “entirely” defensible.)  Were this the Bush administration, I think this would be evident but when we have an administration that we despise to begin with, looks increasingly like it abused the power of office to gain re-election, and is feckless in foreign affairs we are, as we have before, rising to the bait.

Simply put the story is too complex to ever amount to a useful political tool other than as further evidence that this administration has no veracity.  People are never going to sit through the endless and dull discussions of the differences between data mining and eavesdropping.  The very phrase “complex algorithm,” save as a punch line on “The Big Bang Theory,” is a nap inducer.  And yet we have lost several news cycles on this stuff now, while something everyone can hear “The IRS is going to bully you” has gone unsaid.

Religion is an excellent analogy here.  Mitt Romney lost in 2008 because people wanted to debate his theology rather than look at his life and the fruits thereof.  He lost in 2012 because a significant portion of the base refused to trust him because, essentially, he would not enter the debate on his theology.   Most of the American people do not care about theology – let alone specific Mormon theology.  And there are a lot of Christians in that group.  But enough people did to swing the election, so Obama’s lapdog media made sure it was a big deal, even though it was not.

Well, here we are again.  With the IRS, not to mention Benghazi, the DOJ, the EPA and a bunch of other alphabet spaghetti, we have Obama by the short and curlies.  But this warrant and the related issues are, for enough of us, a juicy distraction.  “SQUIRREL!”

Is the administration well-behaved here?  No, of course not, but there are issues and then there are issues.  If you had a choice of having a little dog doo stuck to your shoes or being dragged out of town, you’re going to take the dog doo.  That’s what’s up here.  The snooping issue is deliberately stepping in the pile of dog doo in hopes that by the time everybody gets through saying “Don’t come in here until you clean that up” and “Ewwwwwwww,” they will have forgotten why they were getting set to lynch you and send you about your business.  For this stratagem to work, we have to be more obsessed with the dog doo that the real and serious issues that got us to this point.

Squirrel hunting is fun, but I am after big game – which means I have to stay focused, and can’t waste ammo on the squirrels.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Make no mistake – the Scandalrama that has erupted in DC represents new fronts in the Culture War.  Two fronts to be exact.

Corporate Culture

The breadth and scope pf the scandals indicate that this is not a few individuals going rogue.  Think of the number of agencies that we have heard about in the last two weeks that have been involved in corrupt, or at least unethical practices.  IRS leads the pack, but the DOJ, State, EPA, HHS and many others have come up with one problem or another.  THAT is a cultural problem within the government.

There is an important lesson that can be learned from this – Culture matters more than issues.  This is why litmus tests don’t work.  You see, I have no doubt that Obama knew little of all this garbage going in.  That does not make him any  less culpable, I just think it accentuates his bad management and makes his sins ones of omission, not commission.  I think it is pretty easy to form an image of the president has having hired all his cronies, let them go, and then going off to play golf, assuming the dimbulbs he hired had things well in hand.  I have no doubt everyone he hired was a card-carrying, ticket-punching liberal activist that hit the issue list just right.  But they clearly did not know beans about how to run a government.  (Politics and a campaign they knew how to do in spades, but not governance.)

Consider the latest response to come out of the White House:

Struggling to find his footing after one of the most turbulent weeks in office, President Obama’s aides have ordered the White House staff to spend no more than 10 percent of their time on controversies, Mark Landler and Michael D. Shear report. Democratic strategists are now working on a plan to intensify the administration’s focus on revamping immigration laws, reaching a budget deal and implementing the new health care legislation.

That is not leadership, that is accounting (10% of their time indeed!) and optics.  That approach is denial of the problem, not an effort to change the culture within the executive branch of the government.

As those of us of faith approach the culture war it is important that we see this clearly.  The culture war is not primarily about abortion and same sex marriage, it’s about a culture where such things do not rise to the level of being issues, just as the corrupt practices of the Obama administration should never have been issues to begin with.  That means we of faith need to learn how to lead the nation, not just complain about its wrong turns.  Which leads me to the second front…

Character Culture

One of the questions that has been niggling in the back of my mind for the last week has been, “Where are the careerists?”  The government is full of employees for whom this is a career, not a political appointment.  Think of those that testified about Benghazi, they were pros, not appointees.  Where are such people in the IRS?

Now, I am guessing based on yesterday’s testimony, that there were some structural hide-and-seek going on.  Miller yesterday tried to hide behind a claim that these applications were grouped for “efficiency.”  I have little doubt that was the internal claim of the agency.  I would suspect that the unit that got these grouped claims was staffed almost entirely by appointees, not career types, and thus they were able to ply their intimidation trade without much scrutiny or counter force.  But even such structural steps would be extraordinary and should have drawn some outcry from the career types.

Why did that not happen?  Well, for one, I have little doubt that the federal employee unions were pretty active.  But more importantly, I think it is because those career types did not have sufficiently developed character to see this for the problem that it was and then to stand and take the risks involved in crying out.  I think a few may yet appear now that they can count on Congressional cover, but someone should have come forward a long time ago as far as I am concerned.  (Of course what we do not yet know is whether someone DID go forward to, say, the White House where their complaints were greeted with complacency.  Yet another sin of omission.)

This is why the “religious test” that was so clearly and unambiguously applied to these applications is so stunningly awful.  You see, if religion can be relegated into some box that reads “only for Sunday morning worship” then people of the character that would have come forward won’t exist at all, anywhere.  Such ethics and courage do not grow in the wild; they must be cultivated.  Religion is one of the few forces in our nation that does such cultivation – at least it should.

The primary front on the culture war is the one where we continue to cultivate and fight for our right to do such cultivation.  If we do that then abortion and same sex marriage will be forgone conclusions, not issues at all.  If we do that then when the inevitable corrupt influences creep into government, people will be in place that will do what is necessary to keep that corruption from becoming endemic.

Posted in character, Culture Wars, Governance, Social/Religious Trends, Uncategorized, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I know I am.  Read This

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

USAToday reports:

The youth wing of the ruling United Russia party’s held a protest on Thursday calling for a ban on Mormon missionaries in Russia, charging that they were potential American spies.

“This is an American sect,” said Ekaterina Stenyakina, co-chair of Young Guard’s coordinating committee, the RIA Novosti news agency reported. “They are funded by the United States of America, and it’s been proven that many young Mormons return to the U.S. to work for the CIA and FBI.”

OK, now – let’s follow this very closely.  Way back in August 2012, we first encountered the term “Mormon Mafia” with regards to certain financial institutions.  Then, just about 3 weeks ago, an Iranian English language news service made the charge there was a Mormon Mafia inside the US intelligence services.  Our own JMR is being queried about it.  And now, the Russians.

One can easily conclude that given these stories, our rivals (Russia) and enemies (Iran) would certainly prefer an Obama administration to a Romney one.  However, given the allegations that are being made in these stories and the timing, one must wonder if there is not actual collusion between the Obama administration and these governments.  Wait, what am I doing?  I cannot speculate about such allegations!  That would be reckless.  Politics, after all, stops at the water’s edge, or so they used to say.

But then virtually all of the Mormon speculations, from Andrew Sullivan on down, are equally speculative and reckless.  And even some not about Mormons.  The NAACP practically accused Franklin Graham of abandoning Christianity last week.  There are some pretty deep theological differences between these groups, and the NAACP is using them to declare Graham out of the fold.  There is a delicious irony in that somehow.

And Jonathon Martin has decided to play the race card indirectly:

A cadre of young and diverse Republican officials took the stage to speak before Romney. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte each made the case for their nominee and offered a reminder of the strength of the GOP’s bench.

But they did so before a crowd that was nearly all-white and their appearances were sandwiched in between slashing speeches from a familiar roster of older white males like Rudy Giuliani, who took it upon himself to demand that President Barack Obama resign over the Benghazi attacks.

Yep, that’s it – the Republican party is a white man’s club and is now just standing up its “tokens.”  Given how few qualifications the current president has for the job, I am not at all sure this is a wise charge to make.

OK, that’s twice now in pursuit of these stories that I have been set up to make outlandish, but “reasonable,” claims concerning the opposition just hours before the voting opens.  I am past weary.

We have a choice in the life – we can endeavor to help people improve their lot in life, or we can capitalize on their current limitations (in this nation no limitation is necessarily permanent – you may have to work harder to overcome yours than the next guy, but you can if you are willing) for our own gain.  These sorts of charges, innuendos and implications do nothing but capitalize on the ignorance and prejudices that live among us.

It is increasingly hard not to “return fire” in kind.  But in doing so, I let go of the real bottom line that separates our side of the aisle from theirs.  We endeavor to help people grow past their ignorance and prejudice, we do not manipulate them for our own ends.  We hold the bar high and we call people to rise above it.  They not only choose to lower the bar, they seemingly encourage people to sneak under it even as low as it is.

So let them come with their insinuations and snide implications.  They may even win with them from time-to-time.  But it is the very heart of the American people to seek to improve themselves.  That’s why we are going to win tomorrow and that is why we will prevail in the long run.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

My Facebook friends are a diverse lot, including Obama voters and uncommitted types. I am glad for it. It helps keep me honest.

I never trust a person who cannot be friends over the political divide!

However, a small (but not insignificant) number of people I know from religious and non-religious backgrounds feel that there exists a Mormon conspiracy to seize control of the United States. The Church in Salt Lake City is using her influence and money to dominate. Mr. Romney is the chosen candidate for this plot.

At times this claim is supported by concerns that Mr. Romney’s public presentations sound a great deal like those of Mormon missionaries. I am also told that there exist former Mormon leaders or “insiders” who can testify to the truth of this grand conspiracy. The fact that amongst Anglos, Mormons have a high rate of second-language skills is also part of the problem according to these folk.

“How much,” I am asked, “of the CIA and Foreign Service is Mormon?”

My first reaction is to wonder if Mormonism isn’t, for some, a “fill-in” for the old Jewish conspiracy. Of course, nothing is equivalent to the foul fruit that came from that festering sour, in part because it was allowed to continue (and exists still) for centuries. There exists a personality type always looking for someone to blame (“the gays,” “the Jews,” the liberals,” the Religious Right) by attributing to them diabolical cleverness and power.

But let me, for the moment take is seriously, since it seems to be held by voters on the right and the left (with more on the left). In a close race, it might matter. No less a writer than Sir A.C. Doyle compared Mormonism to the Mafia, so this idea has a long pedigree.

There are five reasons to doubt this view or dismiss it as a worry.

First, one assumes that the Mormon truth believes in the truth of Mormonism. They wish all of us to believe this truth and so “conspire” to spread the good news. This “conspiracy” to change my mind, at the very highest levels of the Church, is not only not surprising, but welcome.

If I were a member of the LDS Church, I would naturally want to see my values and beliefs represented in the highest levels of government. Mormons that die for their country in the Armed Forces also have the right to be Commander in Chief. Mormon evangelistic success would, in a republic, lead to eventual electoral success. The existence of Mormon persons in both parties show that this has happened.

And so much evidence of a Mormon “conspiracy” will be conflation of legitimate desire to evangelize and enjoy the fruits of citizenship with more evil goals. This is obviously wrong and allows non-Mormons to demonize the community. Of course, this is obvious to me because many on the Left make the same weird claims and errors about Evangelicals.

Most “evidence” of Mormon plots turn out to be evidence of Mormon evangelism or participation in the two-party system.

Second, if Salt Lake City has been seeking a take over of America, then their global evangelistic campaign makes little sense. The LDS Church is becoming much more global than American.

Third, I assume that a Mormon sub-culture exists and that Mr. Romney is a product of it. He will “sound Mormon” for the notable reason that he is Mormon, grew up Mormon, and was educated by Mormons.

However, Mr. Romney also shows speech patterns and reasoning influenced by Harvard. Is there a Harvard conspiracy to govern America? If so, it has been more successful than the Salt Lake City conspiracy and (arguably) more damaging to the United States. I am confident Harvard University wishes to place her graduates in positions of power and know they plan on doing so. Whole departments of Harvard are dedicated to furthering this quest.

Fourth, what would Mr. Romney do for Salt Lake City if elected as part of the Conspiracy? The President of the United States is one member of government. Would the vast bureaucracy be turned out and Mormons put in the place? Would the Congress become supine in the face of dictats from the Apostles? Would the Evangelical dominated GOP go along with the plans of the conspirators?

Finally, absent overwhelming evidence of vast Mormon patience and centuries of planning doesn’t Mormon ability to run Utah and participate in several other states in a republican manner doom the entire idea. Salt Lake City has allowed Salt Lake City to become majority non-Mormon. What kind of conspiracy is this?

In short, Mr. Romney often sounds like a Mormon missionary because he was one. Sadly, he more often sounds like a Harvard grad because he is one (twice!).

The notion of a Mormon conspiracy is, therefore, unworthy of Christian voters in a republic. We should reject it strongly with apologies to our LDS neighbors. As for speakers making the claims we should demand extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Changing one’s mind can be a good thing or a bad thing.

Before evaluating one needs to know (at least!) two things: motivation and the value of the new opinion.

We don’t normally praise a man from moving to a new opinion for bad reasons or for shifting from the truth to falsehood.

His critics oft describe Governor Romney  as a politician with no core. Over his long career in public life, which began as a boy on his father’s knee, Mr. Romney has changed his mind. I am unpersuaded he has done so more often than any other political figure. He is a decent man, but not yet a saint: unless you count the Latter Day kind.

It is here that desperate critics have hatched a new way to attack the man likely to be the next President of the United States. With some political risk, Mr. Romney has stayed true to the Church of his fathers: he is a Mormon. This appears to be proof positive that he has a core and will not choose expediently.

“Ah,” the critic says, “but the LDS Church itself is an ‘etch-a-sketch’ church. Look at changes in doctrine like that dealing with African persons in the priesthood.”

Now the critic has an immediate problem since all philosophical positions change with time.

Why attack Mormonism? Since all decent Americans believe that the change on issues like the priesthood was a good one, the criticism is surely not with the change.

The general line of attack is challenge the motives for the change or the reasoning for it. First, the critic argues the “noble” change was driven by a need to increase “market share.” It was a politically or economically motivated shift.

The problem with such a charge is that it will prove impossible to refute. The LDS claims it came as a result of divine revelation, but “hidden” motives are always possible. The LDS community was under pressure to change their point of view, so the skeptic can always claim they did so for ignoble reasons. What is a citizen to do?

He must do to other people what he would have done to him. Motives often are hard to judge and so a veil of charity should be placed over the motives of those groups we might be inclined to attack. What else can we do? The hurricane winds of hatred unleashed by any other course would tear the Republic to pieces.

“But the teachings of the Church are still racist!,” says the critic. “Look at the documents,” he says. “Look at the statements of the founders of Mormonism such as Young.”

A nation whose greatest President was a slaveholder, George Washington, has long learned to judge men by the standards of their times. It is true that the Founding generation of America defended race-based slavery. Many did so on secular grounds and a few on Christian ones. The least religious portion of the nation, the South before the Civil War, kept slavery longest, but most white Americans were infected with racism.

It is our ugly original sin as a nation.

As far as I can tell, and I am no Mormon and no expert, some of the Founders of Mormonism were no better than their times on race. Some Mormons owned slaves. Some Mormons, including important ones like Young, made racist statements wrapped in theology. However, this racism need no more be part of contemporary Mormon doctrine than the precedent of Washington having slaves in the President’s house (which continued for decades) need keep our culture racist forever.

Mormons have moved on. Young could have been inspired in some areas and not in others . . . a distinction Mormon theology made even at the time! If Washington City can still be named for a slave holder, I see no reason BYU must change her name!

As for Mormon Scriptures, reading old documents for a living makes me charitable to them. I do not see any passage in the Book of Mormon that is “white supremacist” by nature. A charitable reading of the text, like that I would give Plato or the Bible, shows alternative readings to difficult passages. It is true that Joseph may have translated the Book with the language of his time, but this language was amazingly elevated for a man of his background and education. In fact, it is amazing to me that the Book of Mormon actually has an elevated view of native Americans, Jewish people, and other persons of color given the period in which Joseph lived.

We must also look at the life of the contemporary Mormon church. It does not show any evidence of being a “white supremacist” movement. In fact, the next few decades should see the balance of power shifting fully from North America to the developing world.

When my grandmother was a little girl, secular teachers told her that African-Americans were inferior. She was taught to pity them and that science supported racism. Only her church softened these claims. Genesis taught her that all men and women were designed from the same original pair. The concept of “race” itself was foreign to Scripture. Her schooling failed her . . . but I do not, therefore, condemn schooling.

Secularists have shaken off their racist past and charity commands we allow them to do so. The eugenic ramblings of Sanger and the white-power rants of Jack London are in the past. I can enjoy “Call of the Wild” in any case.

Mormons must not be held to a higher standard. The Church claims divine revelation clarified old assumptions. Mr. Romney rejoiced in that change. Nobody has charged Mr. Romney with racism . . . and the modern Mormon church shows commendable growth in leadership of color.

In short, as a non-LDS person, I see no reason in Mormon Scriptures or teachings (as defined by the LDS community) to think the LDS church “racist” or founded on racism . . . except by the same accidental historica associations that exist in the American founding.

 

 

Posted in Latest News, Uncategorized | 7 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post