<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>	<!-- generator="wordpress/2.9.2" -->
	<rss version="2.0"
		xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
		xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
		xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
			>
	<channel>
		<title>Mormon Blogs</title>
		<link>http://mormonblogs.org</link>
		<description>Only the Coolest Mormon Blogs</description>
		<pubDate></pubDate>
		<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
		<language>en</language>
						<item>
					<title>Disobedience, Wikileaks, and Resisting the State</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/disobedience-wikileaks-and-resisting-the-state/</link>
					<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:38:31 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>J. Madson</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/disobedience-wikileaks-and-resisting-the-state/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Rally against SB-1070 this Thursday in SLC</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/rally-against-sb-1070-this-thursday-in-slc/</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>The Mormon  Worker</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/rally-against-sb-1070-this-thursday-in-slc/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Can Mormons be socialists? The case of El Salvador</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/can-mormons-be-socialists-the-case-of-el-salvador/</link>
					<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 06:34:18 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>The Mormon  Worker</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/can-mormons-be-socialists-the-case-of-el-salvador/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>The Mormon Worker’s Collective Declared Modern Day Pioneers</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/the-mormon-workers-collective-declared-modern-day-pioneers/</link>
					<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>Jason Brown</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/the-mormon-workers-collective-declared-modern-day-pioneers/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Utah Legislator Prepares to Introduce Arizona-style Immigration Legislation in Upcoming Legislative Session</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/utah-legislator-prepares-to-introduce-arizona-like-legislation-in-upcoming-legislative-session/</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>Jason Brown</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/utah-legislator-prepares-to-introduce-arizona-like-legislation-in-upcoming-legislative-session/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Lessons to Learn from The World Cup</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/xl5-KE-wJYc/lessons-to-learn-from-world-cup.html</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/xl5-KE-wJYc/lessons-to-learn-from-world-cup.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[Beginning in 1930 and played (almost) every 4 years since then, the World Cup is the Beautiful Game’s ultimate tournament.  Having spent the vast majority of my life participating in this sport, it goes without saying that I find this a magical time.<br />
<br />
I love the athleticism of 22 players on the pitch.  In enjoy the passing, the shots, the saves, the traps, the runs.  All of it.  For anyone that has spent a significant amount of time involved in a sport, this level of fascination and appreciation is totally understandable.  But my captivation with soccer (or football for the purist) goes deeper than just awe of the physical talents demonstrated.  I think there is some interesting social commentary in and around The Game.<br />
<br />
I believe that you can start to tell how dedicated a person is to something based on their response to success and failure.  While enthusiasm and jubilee are evident after success, discouragement and despair are just as apparent after failure.  Obviously there is a healthy level of despair (see below), but if someone doesn’t feel a noticeable amount of frustration or sadness when a shot goes wide; if you don’t feel a little depressed when you are down by a goal or two and the whistle blows at the end of 90 minutes; then I would argue that the game didn’t really mean all that much to you.<br />
<br />
A poignant example of this dichotomy was seen in the Round of 16 match between the US and Ghana.  The United States made it through the first stage ranked number 1 in their group – more a result of fleeting moments of brilliance than solid, consistent play.  Ghana come through ranked number 2 in their group, and while their team didn’t boast huge superstars, they had been playing hard-nose, over-achieving ball.  Both of these teams are trying to shake different stigmas: the US that our nation doesn’t really care that much about soccer; Ghana that an African team could master the Beautiful Game and truly compete on an international level.  It’s also important to note that Ghana was the last of the African teams, and as such, had the backing of an entire continent.<br />
An entertaining game that went to overtime, and effectively ended when the Ghanian star Gyan scored on great left-footed shot.  Perhaps I am overly cliché, but both teams “gave it all they could” and their effort was obvious when the final whistle polarized each team’s emotions.  Ghana won and was ecstatic.  The US lost and was devastated.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne8op2lKr_M/TEYr8_QAxnI/AAAAAAAAABs/tWKWnDc41XM/s1600/Doc2.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496128722023007858" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne8op2lKr_M/TEYr8_QAxnI/AAAAAAAAABs/tWKWnDc41XM/s320/Doc2.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 212px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 320px;" /></a><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne8op2lKr_M/TEYrLUMG6MI/AAAAAAAAABk/OBxc0FfA9pU/s1600/Doc1.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496127868650318018" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne8op2lKr_M/TEYrLUMG6MI/AAAAAAAAABk/OBxc0FfA9pU/s320/Doc1.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 208px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 320px;" /></a>Vince Lambardi’s famous misquote indeed summarizes the drive to succeed; “Winning isn’t everything.  The will to win is everything.”  I believe that the desire to succeed should permeate our existence.  That doesn’t mean “win at all costs”, that means that we put everything we’ve got into the tasks we undertake.  Be it family, or work, or callings.  When something in one of these charges fails, we should feel a significant level of dismay and disappointment.  Likewise, when something succeeds, we should feel celebratory.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne8op2lKr_M/TEYssA2h3JI/AAAAAAAAAB0/dzSJLBWHaQ0/s1600/Doc3.jpg" onblur="try  {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496129529906846866" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne8op2lKr_M/TEYssA2h3JI/AAAAAAAAAB0/dzSJLBWHaQ0/s320/Doc3.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 210px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 320px;" /></a></div><br />
Naturally one question to arise is what to do when we fail.  Do we succumb to the dismay and depression that result from failure?<br />
<br />
Turning back to the World Cup.  Germany and Uruguay both lost semi-final matches to their respective opponents.  If you watch the games, or look at images of the players of these losing teams, it is obvious how crushing the losses were.<br />
<br />
Both teams had come exceptionally close to the cup, only to miss the chance to participate in the final.  The “consolation” match for third place between Germany and Uruguay started as one might expect – two teams that felt frustrated and depressed.  The beginning of the game didn’t swell with the normal excitement or anticipation of other matches.  In fact, it almost seemed to me that the teams would rather be on a plane headed home, than playing another match.  However, not long into the game, everything changed.  I can’t put my finger on the exact moment, but sometime in that first half both teams seem to forget about their recent pain, and started paying attention to the task at hand.  In my opinion, the match turned out to be one of the most entertaining of the entire tournament.  The skills of individual players and composite teams were astounding.  The desire to win was rekindled, and the result was a courageous attempt to excel.  Only when the players dismissed the agony of recent defeats were they able to meet their potential.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne8op2lKr_M/TEYtMtYwV4I/AAAAAAAAAB8/5107PFDJFqs/s1600/Doc4.jpg" onblur="try   {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496130091617376130" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne8op2lKr_M/TEYtMtYwV4I/AAAAAAAAAB8/5107PFDJFqs/s320/Doc4.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 320px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 274px;" /></a></div><br />
Likewise in life.  Anything worth doing is worth our unbridled effort (D&amp;C 4). Success and failure are transient.  Failure should not consume us, but only be the motivation to improve.<br />
<br />
I could go on about a number of other things, like the traditional exchanging of jerseys at the end of a game, or the professionalism of stopping play when a player is (really) injured.  But I’ll stop here.<br />
<br />
There is so much joy in the journey.  The highs and lows of a game are what make it interesting.  Without missed shots, saves, goals, and all the rest, it would just be a bunch of people aimlessly jogging around with their socks pulled high.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-2371755602798661045?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/xl5-KE-wJYc" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Glenn Beck’s Twisted Theology</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/glenn-becks-twisted-theology/</link>
					<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:22:11 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>Jason Brown</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/glenn-becks-twisted-theology/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>The Condemnation of Hunting for Sport</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/g5Ho-Qf1BGo/condemnation-of-hunting-for-sport.html</link>
					<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/g5Ho-Qf1BGo/condemnation-of-hunting-for-sport.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[Utah allows  the<a href="http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/hunting-information/black-bears.html">  hunting of black bears</a>, and is currently updating its bear  management guidelines.&nbsp; There is strong support for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting#Other_uses">bear baiting</a>,  which is the practice of placing enticing food in a spot and waiting in  hiding for the bear to wander up and then killing it.&nbsp; How brave and  heroic.&nbsp; There are also multiple bear hunts during the year, including  spring hunts where many mothers are killed, leaving newborn bear cubs  orphaned and, essentially, dead as well.&nbsp; Utah also allows the hunting  of cougars, elk, deer, pronghorns, moose, Rocky Mountain goats, rabbits,  bighorn sheep, bison, sandhill cranes, and a whole flock of different  kinds of birds.&nbsp; Have a thirst for killing?&nbsp; Please come to Utah (although Utah certainly isn't alone in this regard).<br />
<br />
Now,  I don't have a problem with all kinds of hunting.&nbsp; The <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/89">Word of Wisdom</a> gives us  some helpful direction in this matter:<br />
<blockquote>12  Yea, flesh  also of beasts and of the  fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained  for the use of man with  thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used  sparingly;   <br />
<div class="verse"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=749789029915695563&amp;postID=4298847397790548640" name="13"></a> <br />
<div id="dc/89/13" onclick="return 
toggleMarked(event, this)">13  And it is pleasing unto me that they  should not be used, only in times of  winter, or of cold, or famine. </div></div><div class="verse"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=749789029915695563&amp;postID=4298847397790548640" name="14"></a> <br />
<div id="dc/89/14" onclick="return 
toggleMarked(event, this)">14  All grain is ordained for  the use of  man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man  but for  the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild  animals  that run or creep on the earth;</div></div></blockquote><div class="verse"><blockquote>15  And these hath  God made for the use of  man only in times of famine and excess of  hunger. </blockquote></div>Hunting  for food is so ingrained in our culture, and essentially every culture  on Earth, that I don't have any meaningful objections.&nbsp; I also admit to  eating my fair share of meat, meaning I can't point to hunters as  violating the tenet that meat is really only to be used sparingly and in  times of winter or famine without also indicting myself.&nbsp; I am,  however, trying to make a conscious effort to reduce my meat intake.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately,  a substantial amount of hunting that goes on here in Utah has nothing  to do with procuring food and raiment, and thus must be condemned.&nbsp; Do  bear hunters eat the bear meat?&nbsp; How about cougar hunters?&nbsp; Do you think  Sarah Palin is landing the helicopter to gather the succulent wolf meat  after her <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/aerial-wolf-hunting">aerial  hunts</a>?&nbsp; How important to our society is the availability of moose  and bison burgers?&nbsp; What wine goes best with sandhill crane, do you  suppose?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
So if these hunters aren't in it for the  food, what are they in it for?&nbsp; The kill.&nbsp; They love to kill.&nbsp; They  also love this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AFBkbJQSxcM/TESm6QrKRmI/AAAAAAAAADw/3bCPlkNVmBA/s1600/Bison+Trophy.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AFBkbJQSxcM/TESm6QrKRmI/AAAAAAAAADw/3bCPlkNVmBA/s320/Bison+Trophy.JPG" /></a></div><br />
Let's return to the scriptures, this  time in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/49/21#21">Doctrine and  Covenants 49</a>: "And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that  wasteth flesh and hath no  need."&nbsp; Hunting predators and hunting for  sport is wasting flesh and is needless.&nbsp; It is directly against the  Lord's will to do such things.&nbsp; Let me also throw some quotes from  modern-day prophets at you.&nbsp; First, from President Kimball:<br />
<blockquote>Now,  I also would like to add some of my feelings concerning the   unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life.&nbsp; I think that   every soul should be impressed by the sentiments that have been   expressed here by the prophets.&nbsp; And not less with reference to the   killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon   the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind.&nbsp; It is   not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion.&nbsp; I  think  that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but  to the  life of all animals.&nbsp; (President Spencer W. Kimball, Fundamental   Principles to Ponder and Live, Ensign (CR), November 1978, p.43).</blockquote>Here  is George Q. Cannon:<br />
<blockquote>We should by every means in our  power impress upon the rising generation  the value of life and how  dreadful a sin it is to take life.&nbsp; The lives  of animals even should be  held far more sacred than they are.&nbsp; Young  people should be taught to  be very merciful to the brute creation and  not to take life wantonly or  for sport.&nbsp; The practice of hunting and  killing game merely for sport  should be frowned upon and not encouraged  among us.&nbsp; God has created  the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience  and comfort and for his  consumption at proper times and under proper  circumstances; but he does  not justify men in wantonly killing those  creatures which He has made  and with which He has supplied the earth.&nbsp;  (George Q. Cannon, Gospel  Truth: Discourses and Writings of President  George Q. Cannon, selected,  arranged, and edited by Jerreld L. Newquist,  p.24). </blockquote>Finally,  President Joseph Fielding Smith:<br />
<blockquote>I never could see  why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire  to kill and  destroy animal life.&nbsp; I have known men -- and they still exist  among us  -- who enjoy what is, to them, the “sport” of hunting birds and   slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport,   boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to   slaughter, and day after day, during the season when it is lawful for   men to hunt and kill (the birds having had a season of protection and   not apprehending danger) go out by scores or hundreds, and you may hear   their guns early in the morning on the day of the opening, as if great   armies had met in battle.&nbsp; And the terrible work of slaughtering the   innocent birds goes on.&nbsp; (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel   Questions, vol 4, p.45).</blockquote>It seems pretty clear to me  that hunting for sport is at odds with Mormonism, and yet it is more  popular in Utah and the West every year.&nbsp; I suspect that there must be quite a  bloodthirsty thrill when you are peering through your scope with a  bison, bear, crane, or bighorn in the crosshairs and you know that by  just squeezing your finger a little you will destroy that animal.&nbsp; Then  you can have it stuffed and placed in your house for all to gaze upon  and wonder.&nbsp; I can't think that this is the type of feeling that our  Heavenly Father would like engendered in His people.<br />
<br />
This type of hunting is only by degrees more shameful,  in my opinion, than the person who is willing to exploit every possible  natural resource, develop every lucrative tract of land, or carve up  every possible recreation area for the almighty dollar at the expense of  all the life that they are destroying through habitat destruction and  pollution.&nbsp; All life has intrinsic value, and spiritual worth and  intelligence, and we value it far too little.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-1503053319792945652?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/g5Ho-Qf1BGo" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Top Things you Think You Know about Iran that are not True</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/top-things-you-think-you-know-about-iran-that-are-not-true/</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:58:08 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>The Mormon  Worker</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/top-things-you-think-you-know-about-iran-that-are-not-true/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>The Right Kind of Justice For Illegal Immigration</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/Tx4zFKorgrg/right-kind-of-justice-for-illegal.html</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/Tx4zFKorgrg/right-kind-of-justice-for-illegal.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[We've entered a new era of creepy in the Utah immigration debates.&nbsp; A group of "Concerned Citizens," who cowardly chose to remain anonymous, quietly spied on Hispanics and <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700047867/Group-lists-1300-illegal-immigrants.html">compiled a list of 1,300 names</a> of people they claim are illegal immigrants.&nbsp; They listed names, birthdays, addresses, phone numbers, workplaces, Social Security Numbers, and due dates of women who are pregnant.&nbsp; There is good evidence that the group had illegal access to private information through government databases.&nbsp; Besides being creepy and despicable, and this should come as no surprise, the list is also <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&amp;sid=11552722">inaccurate</a>.<br />
<br />
The most common trope about illegal immigration is that it is just that, illegal, and that we shouldn't allow any illegal activity in America to go unpunished.&nbsp; Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration undermines the rule of law, cheapens our legal system, and threatens our security.&nbsp; These conservatives want the illegals rounded up and shipped off.&nbsp;  Their rhetoric, unfortunately, usually goes beyond simply wanting the immigration laws  enforced, it usually contains a level of vindictiveness and anger that  is easily associated with racism and xenophobia.&nbsp; It is unChristlike and  unbecoming of members of our faith.&nbsp; They want justice through punishment.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
What they are less interested in, however, justice through mercy, which is just as valid.&nbsp; It is equally as just for me to forgive a neighbor of his trespasses against me as for me to prosecute my neighbor and demand the full weight of the law be brought down on him.&nbsp; Of course, different crimes require different demands of justice.&nbsp; We don't simply forgive a murderer, that is too heinous to apply easy mercy.&nbsp; But we don't typically require speeders to be fully fined and prosecuted.&nbsp; We have to use some judgment about where it is humane and reasonable to demand full justice through punishment or full justice through mercy.<br />
<br />
So the question is where does illegal immigration fall in our sense of justice.&nbsp; The facts are that most illegal immigrants come here to find a better life.&nbsp; There are more jobs, security, and opportunities in America than nearly anywhere else on Earth.&nbsp; We are a nation built upon the very idea immigration, most of it illegal or at least unethical, and that is not lost on those coming today.&nbsp; They would likely go through the legal process of immigration if it were  reasonably available to them, which it is not.&nbsp; The vast majority of illegal immigrants are peaceful, otherwise law-abiding, intelligent, and hard working.&nbsp; And Hispanic, which makes it easy for some to delineate differences from themselves and single them out.&nbsp; It makes it easier to hate them.<br />
<br />
My idea of justice is that it is not morally sound to harbor such hatred-filled feelings towards Hispanic illegal immigrants and demand full justice by punishment.&nbsp; I don't think it fits the crime.&nbsp; The crime is that they are simply here, they haven't infringed on any of my rights and haven't hurt me in any way.&nbsp; The jobs argument is slippery at best.&nbsp; They are simply generally good people trying to make their lives better in the only way they know how.&nbsp; They have families and are trying to give their families the best life and most opportunities that they can.&nbsp; Then some racist and McCarthy-istic group comes along and spies on them and feeds on their fears and threatens to bring down full punishment on them.<br />
<br />
Justice through mercy is much more fitting.&nbsp; If we identified them, gave them a path towards citizenship, enforced some penalty such as a fine or a loss of some social benefits until they become citizens, and dealt with them humanely and morally, we'd be much better off and justice would be much better served.<br />
<br />
I would hope that Americans, and members of the Church in particular, learn to treat illegal immigration differently that other sorts of crime.&nbsp; I would hope that we see them as children of God and try to help them instead of punish them.&nbsp; I hope we enact the right kind of justice, and not the ugly kind that these "Concerned Citizen" predators are demanding.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-7208969479750778578?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/Tx4zFKorgrg" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Global Warming House Cleaning</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/s-f18J6H2KE/global-warming-house-cleaning.html</link>
					<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/s-f18J6H2KE/global-warming-house-cleaning.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[Two quick global warming related issues:<br />
<br />
First, two reports were recently released exonerating the Climategate scientists.&nbsp; One was released by the <a href="http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2010/Assessing-an-IPCC-assessment.-An-analysis-of-statements-on-projected-regional-impacts-in-the-2007-report.html">Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency</a>* and another by a special <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575352623519599344.html">British investigation</a>.&nbsp; The scientists "didn't skew science to inflate evidence of man-made global warming," but were a little too secretive and acted like doofuses in some cases.&nbsp; But the science is sound.&nbsp; Should we expect apologies from all the people (I'm looking your way, Beck, Hannity, DeMint, et al) that smeared them in a political ploy to debunk the idea that humans are causing global warming thereby avoiding regulations on greenhouse gases?&nbsp; Probably not.<br />
<br />
Second, a large chunk of America is now suffering under a <a href="http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/heat-wave-to-scorch-americas-east-coast-power-blackouts-a-concern/19542787">massive heat wave</a>.&nbsp; Can we assume that the skeptics will take this as evidence of global warming just as they <a href="http://mormonleft.blogspot.com/2010/01/sadly-your-personal-observations-alone.html">take news of cold weather</a> as <a href="http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/01/03/hey-al-gore-more-global-warming-its-cold-everywhere/">evidence of its falsehood</a>?&nbsp; Again, probably not.<br />
<br />
*<i>On a side note, as a person of Dutch heritage with the most outrageous Dutch name you will ever encounter, let me just express my extreme pleasure with how the World Cup is unfolding.&nbsp; Once David Villa gets a mouthful of Van Bommel's elbow and a thighful of his cleats, I expect Spain to fold and become as irrelevant in world soccer as they are in world politics.&nbsp; Am I taking this too seriously?&nbsp; Probably.&nbsp; Hup!</i><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-6893200999148806190?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/s-f18J6H2KE" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Independence Day: Political Prisoners Freed in Mexico</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/independence-day-political-prisoners-freed-in-mexico/</link>
					<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:23:34 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>tristan call</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/independence-day-political-prisoners-freed-in-mexico/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>George Washington's Foreign Policy and the Middle East</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/WB9n_itIUGk/george-washingtons-foreign-policy-and.html</link>
					<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/WB9n_itIUGk/george-washingtons-foreign-policy-and.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AFBkbJQSxcM/TDY_qdObh8I/AAAAAAAAADo/_pJXYTe3_Jk/s1600/George-Washington.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AFBkbJQSxcM/TDY_qdObh8I/AAAAAAAAADo/_pJXYTe3_Jk/s320/George-Washington.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Glenn Greenwald <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html">highlights</a>,  once again, the fundamental problem with America's current foreign  policy towards the Middle East.&nbsp; In an effort to combat extremism we  have attacked and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, committed torture, held  supposed extremists in prison indefinitely without charges or hearings,  and failed to push back against Israeli aggressions.&nbsp; As a result, no  surprise, we have likely created far more extremism than we have  destroyed, we are likely less safe now than we were before 9/11, and we  are certainly a bigger target.<br />
<br />
After reading Greenwald I  stumbled across the following (kind of long) passage from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address">George  Washington's farewell address</a> regarding foreign policy:<br />
<blockquote>Observe  good faith and justice towards all  nations; cultivate peace and  harmony with all. Religion and morality  enjoin  this conduct; and can  it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin  it -- It  will be  worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a  great   nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a   people  always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can  doubt  that, in the  course of time and things, the fruits of such a  plan would richly repay  any  temporary advantages which might be lost  by a steady adherence to it?. .  .<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In the execution  of such a plan, nothing is  more essential than that permanent,  inveterate antipathies against  particular nations,  and passionate  attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in  place  of  them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.  The   nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual   fondness  is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or  to its  affection,  either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from  its duty and its  interest.  Antipathy in one nation against another  disposes each more readily to  offer  insult and injury, to lay hold of  slight causes of umbrage, and to be  haughty  and intractable, when  accidental or trifling occasions of dispute  occur. Hence,  frequent  collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The  nation,   prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the   government,  contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government  sometimes  participates in the national propensity, and adopts through  passion  what reason  would reject; at other times it makes the  animosity of the nation  subservient  to projects of hostility  instigated by pride, ambition, and other  sinister and  pernicious  motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of  nations,   has been the victim.  <br />
<br />
So likewise, a passionate  attachment of one  nation for another produces a variety of evils.  Sympathy for the  favorite  nation, facilitating the illusion of an  imaginary common interest in  cases  where no real common interest  exists, and infusing into one the  enmities of the  other, betrays the  former into a participation in the quarrels and wars  of the  latter  without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to   concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which   is apt  doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by  unnecessarily  parting  with what ought to have been retained, and by  exciting jealousy,  ill-will, and  a disposition to retaliate, in the  parties from whom equal privileges  are  withheld. And it gives to  ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens  (who devote  themselves to  the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the  interests of  their own country, without odium, sometimes even with  popularity;   gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a   commendable  deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public  good, the  base or  foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or  infatuation.  <br />
<br />
As avenues to foreign influence in   innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the   truly  enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do  they  afford to  tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of  seduction, to  mislead  public opinion, to influence or awe the public  councils. Such an  attachment of  a small or weak towards a great and  powerful nation dooms the former to  be the  satellite of the latter.  <br />
<br />
Against  the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to  believe me,  fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be  constantly  awake, since history and experience prove that foreign  influence is   one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that   jealousy to be  useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument  of the very  influence  to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.  Excessive partiality  for one  foreign nation and excessive dislike of  another cause those whom they  actuate  to see danger only on one side,  and serve to veil and even second the  arts of  influence on the other.  Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of  the  favorite are liable  to become suspected and odious, while its tools and  dupes usurp  the  applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their  interests.</blockquote>Our  attitude and actions towards the Middle East and certain other  countries shows why President Washington was right.&nbsp; We've meddled and  meddled so long in this region, mostly because they have a lot of oil  and we <i>love</i> oil, that we have become a slave to it.&nbsp; The War in  Afghanistan is almost nine years old and the Iraq War is over six years  old.&nbsp; We have so much time and emotion and lives and money tied to those  wars and our general conduct towards Muslim nations that we are now not  able to even extricate ourselves without doing major harm to both  ourselves and that region.<br />
<br />
I wonder what the situation would be now if we had followed  President Washington's advice from the start and treated that region  with "an exalted justice and benevolence."&nbsp; I wonder if where we would  be if we sacrificed our short-term desire for revenge and power for  long-term strategies of patience, peace, and harmony.&nbsp; But we didn't,  and the prophet Washington was right, our failure to follow his advice  in the Middle East has led to "  frequent collisions, obstinate,  envenomed, and bloody contests. The   nation,  prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war  the  government,  contrary to the best calculations of policy."<br />
<br />
It  is not at all naive to think that this policy could be implemented  today and yield long-term benefits to our nation.&nbsp; It would not only  help us in avoiding future wars and avoiding the creation of more  extremism and hatred toward America, but it would make us as individual  Americans more free.&nbsp; It is not too late to change course and live up to  the high ideals upon which the nation was founded.<br />
<br />
President Washington is right, our religion and morals  require us to have a more benevolent attitude towards nations we  currently revile or consider our enemies, and it happens to be good  public policy as well.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-4423618171341716716?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/WB9n_itIUGk" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Accompanying the Peasant Movement Part 2: Conquistador with a Briefcase</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/accompanying-the-peasant-movement-part-2-conquistador-with-a-briefcase/</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:28:58 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>katysavage</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/accompanying-the-peasant-movement-part-2-conquistador-with-a-briefcase/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Abu Zubaydah and the Case Against [Mormon] Torture Architect James Mitchell</title>
					<link>http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/abu-zubaydah-and-the-case-against-mormon-torture-architect-james-mitchell/</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>The Mormon  Worker</dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/abu-zubaydah-and-the-case-against-mormon-torture-architect-james-mitchell/</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Cancer, Healing, and the Meaning (Or Lack Thereof) of This Life</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/yPCMtdG-e9A/cancer-healing-and-meaning-or-lack.html</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/yPCMtdG-e9A/cancer-healing-and-meaning-or-lack.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA["Cancer" is one of the five worst words in the English language.&nbsp; It  sounds ugly.&nbsp; It has ugly, death-ish connotations.&nbsp; It evokes images of  some alien life taking over one's body.&nbsp; It has two c's that make  different sounds, which is lame and annoying.&nbsp; And when you learn that a  young, healthy loved one has cancer it is so devastating.&nbsp; You find  yourself doing verbal somersaults to avoid saying the word out loud, as  if by saying it you will make it worse.<br />
<br />
So I recently had the  occasion to give a loved one a priesthood blessing related to a cancer  diagnosis, and as I've contemplated mortality and healing I've started  having a lot of questions which I've never thought about before.&nbsp; After  that blessing I went and read Elder Oaks' talk from the most recent  conference called "<a href="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&amp;locale=0&amp;sourceId=57d6b73f64838210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&amp;vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD">Healing  the Sick</a>".&nbsp; The takeaway point, I think, is the following:<br />
<blockquote>From  all of this we learn that even the servants of the Lord, exercising   His divine power in a circumstance where there is sufficient faith to   be healed, cannot give a priesthood blessing that will cause a person to   be healed if that healing is not the will of the Lord. <br />
<a name='more'></a></blockquote>This  has left me somewhat puzzled.&nbsp; Elder Oaks is saying that the will of  the Lord always trumps everything else, including priesthood blessings  and faith of the person that is sick.&nbsp; I don't think anyone would argue  with this.&nbsp; So what, then, is the role of faith and priesthood  blessings?&nbsp; If they can never change the will of the Lord, why bother?&nbsp;  This leads, I think, to a sort of Calvinistic determinism that is  incompatible with our faith.&nbsp; If nothing we do will ever change the  already-determined future that the Lord has created for us, it renders  moot our most important heavenly endowment, free agency.<br />
<br />
The  only way for me to reconcile all of this is, and maybe this is common  knowledge and I'm a little slow, is if there are situations, and  presumably fairly common situations since we are encouraged to have  constant faith and exercise our priesthood often, where the Lord has no  particular will one way or the other concerning whether a person will  live or die, be healed or not be healed -- if there are situations where  the Lord essentially challenges us to persuade him.<br />
<br />
If  this is the case it opens up a whole mess of possibilities.&nbsp; If we have  the power, even the duty, to persuade the Lord one way or the other, we  can do some pretty serious miracles and good works.&nbsp; I've always known  all of this, I think, but I've never given it much thought and I've  never really internalized it.&nbsp; It is also a very liberating idea.&nbsp; To  know that our future is really and truly not already mapped out for us,  that the Lord knows our capabilities and potential but that our choices  are still ours, that we have absolute power over our choices, frees us  to act more boldly and with less fear.<br />
<br />
But I've also  encountered another puzzle in all of this, one I don't think I  understand.&nbsp; When you encounter the mortality of a young and otherwise  healthy person, it is natural to wonder what the point of this whole  life is, anyway.&nbsp; It is such an infinitesimally small slice of our  eternal existence, and good and bad opportunities are so unevenly  allotted, it is getting harder and harder for me to ascribe too much  meaning to it.&nbsp; I've started really considering and accepting the idea  of <a href="http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/some-pro-progression-between-kingdoms-quotes/">progression  between kingdoms</a> and strong <a href="http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/01/on-my-creeping-universalism/787/">universalism</a>.<br />
<br />
That's not to say that my loved one with cancer is in danger of  not making the celestial kingdom if that person should die today (very  unlikely, we have a pretty fortunate cancer diagnosis), so I'm not just  trying to justify a bad or lukewarm life about to be extinguished.&nbsp; My  loved one would assuredly be a shoe-in for a pretty sweet afterlife and  anyway has a long time to live yet.&nbsp; But as I've considered how short  life can be, and how seemingly random and unfair it can be, I just can't  bring myself to believe that any person can make or break the entire  rest of eternity in this short mortal existence.<br />
<br />
I guess  what I'm saying is, I've got a lot to think about.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-8539635524537969291?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/yPCMtdG-e9A" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Religious Freedom and the Ground Zero Mosque</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/qXv56id_s6w/religious-freedom-and-ground-zero.html</link>
					<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/qXv56id_s6w/religious-freedom-and-ground-zero.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.richmonddiocese.org/cst/religions.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="http://www.richmonddiocese.org/cst/religions.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>The <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1">Eleventh Article  of Faith</a> states: "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.<br />
<br />
I  stated in my last post that my evolving three pillars of Things I Care  About The Most In Politics are peace, a healthy sustainable environment,  and moral/religious agency.&nbsp; I think if we safeguard these three things  we can live in a pretty great world for a long time.&nbsp; Of course the  three are intimately intertwined.&nbsp; War is usually based on scarcity of  resources (the environmental aspect) or religious conflict.&nbsp; If we could  focus on cleaning up our religious conflicts and our environment,  sustainable peace would surely follow.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately,  there are many right here in America who want to restrict the religious  freedom of anyone that worships different than they do, thus creating more conflict and less peace.&nbsp; The latest and  most public incarnation of this <a href="http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/mosque-at-ground-zero-adding-insult-to-agony.html">bigotry</a>  is the <a href="http://gawker.com/5542643/mosque+mad-tea-party-leader-not-a-fan-of-muslims-or-their-monkey+god">uproar</a>  <a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid79070336001?bctid=88176575001">over</a>  the <a href="http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=119328">plans</a> to build a  mosque and Muslim information center a few blocks from ground zero.<br />
<br />
The  opponents of this mosque truly believe that those who died on 9/11  would be dishonored by the mere fact that Muslims would have a place of  worship so near ground zero.&nbsp; The only way this thinking makes sense is  if you believe that <i>all</i> Muslims are responsible for the actions  of al Qaeda and the extremist factions that want to harm the United  States.&nbsp; This is, of course, absurd and bigoted.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Only a very tiny fraction of the around 1 billion Muslims in the  world have radicalized and condone terrorism and violence against  civilians.&nbsp; Granted, that tiny fraction is doing some serious harm, but  it is still no reason to condemn an entire religion.&nbsp; What's more,  Muslims in America are showing no signs of radicalization and some polls  have shown that they are <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/06/07/cairo_speech_year_open2010/index.html">less  likely</a> than the American population at large to condone terrorism.<br />
<br />
And lets not pretend that some of our actions in the  Middle East played no part in creating extremism to begin with.&nbsp; It does  not justify terrorism, but it is relevant to understanding why such  extremism exists.<br />
<br />
If we were to hold every religion to the standard that those  protesters  are holding Islam, we would not allow any religion in our borders.&nbsp;  Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Mormons all have extreme factions and  skeletons in their closets, but we are willing to overlook those because  we are a supposed "Judeo-Christian" nation.&nbsp; Frankly, I'm more afraid  of extremist Christian groups like the <a href="http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp?xpicked=4&amp;item=Christian_ID">Christian  Identity</a> and other racist, nationalistic groups than anything else.<br />
<br />
And if we allow the intolerant to dictate how, where, and what Muslims in this country worship, what is to stop them from coming after Mormons next?&nbsp; They've got some pretty weird beliefs, don't they?&nbsp; Then they can go after the Jehovah's Witnesses, then Buddhists, then Catholics.&nbsp; Where do we draw the line?<br />
<br />
Fundamentally, we have to let all religious people  peaceably practice their religion, or practice no religion at all, if we want true religious freedom in  this county and if we want to retain our moral agency.&nbsp; That means  coming to terms with Islam and extending a hand of fellowship.&nbsp; It means  truly respecting all peaceable religions and demonstrating true tolerance of  differing religious beliefs.<br />
<br />
If we let this sort of bigoted religious thinking to  become mainstream in America we will all become less free.&nbsp; We will be  less free to practice any religion we want, less free to exercise our  moral agency and strive to become more like Heavenly Father in the way  we best see fit, and less free to hold points of view of any kind that  are unpopular with the majority.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-754367668386566084?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/qXv56id_s6w" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>It's Probably Time For A Little More Optimism Around Here</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/-om-fkxMgoI/its-probably-time-for-little-more.html</link>
					<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/-om-fkxMgoI/its-probably-time-for-little-more.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[In the latest iteration of how we treat our planet, we have now  released probably between <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/01/us/20100501-oil-spill-tracker.html?ref=us">50  to 100 million gallons</a> of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and we're  probably only about <a href="http://kdka.com/national/BP.oil.spill.2.1722332.html">halfway</a>  through the the release.<br />
<br />
It is the sort of disaster  that just makes you sick.&nbsp; Birds and dolphins and fish are dying and  people are losing their livelihoods.&nbsp; We care so much about cheap energy  that we are willing to downplay or ignore even the most heinous risks  to get it.&nbsp; Doing the hard things and making the hard decisions for our  long-term good is not a particularly strong attribute for us, and the  gulf oil spill is the perfect reminder of that fact.<br />
<br />
And  this applies to more than just the environment.&nbsp; Israel and Palestine  won't make the hard decisions in order to come to peace.&nbsp; The same goes  for many other nations, including America, which value short-term  benefits and military force over long-term solutions and true and  lasting peace.&nbsp; <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The more I write on this blog and  think about the world, the more I gravitate towards just a few political  issues that I feel really passionate about:&nbsp; peace, protection of our agency and  right to choose to become like Heavenly Father, and the environment.&nbsp; I  think if we can learn to treasure these three things we will have a  wonderful world to live in that will last us for a long time.&nbsp; I also  think we treat these issues glibly.&nbsp; Too many Americans and members of  the church are constantly looking for the next fight (Iran seems to be  the Next Big Thing for the hawks), downplaying the disastrous effect we  are having on the environment and the long-term problems that will arise  as a consequence, and focusing on false issues like liberalism and  health care reform as threats to agency instead of real issues like  addictions, totalitarianism in places like Africa where the church is  trying to create a real presence, and our freedom to practice our  religion.<br />
<br />
One of my all-time favorite Mormon blog posts  is from Cool New Thang called <a href="http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/06/mad-max-mormonism-vs-star-trek-mormonism/1126/">Mad  Max Mormonism vs. Star Trek Mormonism</a>.&nbsp; It really captures a frame  of mind that I think we are severely lacking in the church and in our  nation: optimism.&nbsp; The idea is that while some Mormons just look for the  signs of the coming apocalypse, others believe that we humans are  capable of working things out and creating a peaceful and somewhat more  utopian society, thereby delaying the apocalypse.&nbsp; President Hinckley  has expressed his realistic optimism several times, but I particularly  like this quote from 1989:<br />
<blockquote>I feel very optimistic.  Things are happening in the world that are  salutary and good. There are  wars, yes. There is conflict, yes. But  there also is much of peace  among the nations of the earth. Something of  tremendous significance is  happening in the USSR and the People’s  Republic of China. There is  growing freedom of expression and activity. A  new openness is  developing. I feel the spirit of Christ is brooding  over the nations of  the earth.<br />
<br />
Of course there are problems, many and  serious. We sorrow over the  plague of drugs with its bitter harvest. We  deplore the terrible scourge  of pornography. We grieve over the wicked  flood of immorality and  abortion. We are concerned with the epidemic  of infidelity, of divorce  and broken homes. We are disturbed over the  plight of the homeless and  over stark hunger in many parts of the  earth.<br />
<br />
But the remarkable thing is that so many people  care. More than at  any time in the history of the world, I believe,  there are men and women  by the tens of thousands who are reaching out  with their strength and  their substance to help those in distress.  Modern science and medicine  are doing wonders to alleviate pain and  prolong life. There is greater  fulfillment in the lives of millions.<br />
<br />
Concerning  our own work—that is, the work of this church—I feel even  more  optimistic. We are growing stronger. I hope our people are growing   better. I think they are. There is increased activity, increased   devotion, increased faithfulness.</blockquote>So we can either  look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and sigh in disgust and see  it as another sign of the times, or think about Israel killing  humanitarian aid workers and view it as another step towards Armageddon,  and I've done both of these, or we can redouble our optimism and our  efforts to leave our slice of humanity better than how we found it and  hope for a better world.&nbsp; We can be Star Trek Mormons and try our best  to convert Mad Max Mormons over to our side.<br />
<br />
<br />
I really believe it comes down to those three issues I posted  before.&nbsp; We should be strong voices for peace and not get mixed up in  whether we appear weak or strong or whatever.&nbsp; We should protect our  Earth for ourselves and countless future generations, thereby avoiding  the conflict and depredation that come with dwindling resources.&nbsp; We  should ensure that all people are free to make choices which would allow  them to become more like our Heavenly Father and not get bogged down in  spats about whether or not something like reform of our financial  institutions is akin to the plan of Lucifer.&nbsp; We are above such  nonsense, or at least we should be.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-1056001703791235521?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/-om-fkxMgoI" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>It's Time to Condemn Israel and Require More Concessions for Peace</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/cUqF2Huiy_I/its-time-to-condemn-israel-and-require.html</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/cUqF2Huiy_I/its-time-to-condemn-israel-and-require.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/palestine/images/gaza-west-bank_map.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/palestine/images/gaza-west-bank_map.jpg" width="259" /></a></div><i></i>What came first, the  Palestinian terrorism, targeting of civilians, and suicide attacks on  Israel chicken or the Israeli targeting of civilians and brutal  oppression of Palestinians egg?<br />
<br />
The latest escalation  of the problem <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians">occurred  over the weekend</a> when Israeli commandos stormed a humanitarian aid  ship headed for Palestine and killed at least ten civilians.&nbsp; The ship  was attempting to violate an Israeli embargo of Gaza.&nbsp; This horrendous  act is just Israel following the script, though.&nbsp; The next few scenes  will inevitably go something like this:&nbsp; Palestinians will react to the  killings at sea with protests and violence; Israel will react to  Palestinian protests and violence by entrenching further, demolishing a  few buildings, tightening their grip on Palestine and the decades-long  embargo leading to even more soul-crushing poverty and desperation;  Palestinians will resort to suicide bombings and terror; Israel will  crush a Palestinian uprising.&nbsp; The rest of the world will have some  harsh critiques for the script but allow the play to go on.<br />
<br />
<i>* For some reason I'm having difficulties embedding the video, so go  watch it on Youtube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE&amp;feature=player_embedded">here</a>.</i><br />
<br />
Glenn  Greenwald, of course, does a <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/israel/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/05/31/israel">masterful  job</a> outlined just why this latest attack is so repulsive, and the  inept handling of the situation by the Obama administration, which  refuses to join countries like Russia, Turkey, Brazil, France, Spain,  and China in condemning the attack.&nbsp; This was a boat in international  waters delivering badly needed food, medicine, and building materials to  Palestinian civilians who live in abject poverty and under dictatorial  oppression.&nbsp; The United States must send a strong message that human  rights and basic human decency are of paramount importance, more  important than Israel's right to oppress the Palestinians, and condemn  this act.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I don't pretend to understand all the complexities of  the Middle East conflict.&nbsp; I don't think any American can fully grasp  the centuries old dynamics that drive this mess.&nbsp; I understand that  Israel is a sovereign nation that has the right to defend itself and  maintain its security.&nbsp; I understand that Israel is our most important  ally in that chaotic region, and that a strong Israel is a buffer for  our own safety.&nbsp; I also understand that Palestinians have just as much  of a claim on the territory as the Israelis.&nbsp; I understand that  Palestinians are human, too, and the horrible weight of Israeli  occupation under which they live is inimical to their basic human  dignity and at the very least a major factor driving Palestinians to  violence against Israel.<br />
<br />
This attack by Israel, though, is the  perfect time to take a harder stance and demand more action from Israel  to resolve this conflict.&nbsp; With so much international outcry, now is the  time to press for lifting the blockade on Gaza, ending illegal Israel  settlements in the West Bank, and the creation of a two-state system.&nbsp;  Only by giving Palestinians hope for a better future can peace be  achieved.<br />
<br />
And I've said it before and I will reiterate it  now:&nbsp; As members of the church, living the Gospel of Peace, we should be  among the strongest voices for peace in this conflict and worldwide.&nbsp;  We should stand up and say that the atrocities committed by both sides  must end and not fall into the trap of turning a blind eye to Israeli  aggressions.&nbsp; I would love for the church to call for a concerted effort  among the members to gather and ship humanitarian aid to the  Palestinians to relieve their suffering and demonstrate that Christlike love for neighbors and enemies alike.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-8453963801813019735?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/cUqF2Huiy_I" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>The Great Mormon Novel</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/KuU88Pe7x0M/great-mormon-novel.html</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 21:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/KuU88Pe7x0M/great-mormon-novel.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I am going to wade into a conversation that occurred about a year ago but which was rekindled recently by an&nbsp;<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2253914/">article in Slate</a>&nbsp;that asked the question:&nbsp; "Where is the Great Mormon Novel?"&nbsp; The article was written as a critique of the new novel by Mormon Brady Udall called&nbsp;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393062627?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=slatmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0393062627"><i>The Lonely Polygamist</i></a>.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">This article lead back to an&nbsp;<a href="http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/jerry_johnston/?id=9119">article in the Mormon Times</a>&nbsp;that stated that the Great Mormon Novel is impossible for impossibly shallow reasons thoroughly discredited&nbsp;<a href="http://dallas.typepad.com/slant/2009/06/a-big-steaming-pile-about-the-great-mormon-novel.html">here</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.motleyvision.org/2009/abandon-all-hope-mormon-lit-cant-be-great/">here</a>. &nbsp;The gist was that Mormons are not self-critical enough and not willing to question beliefs enough to write great literature. &nbsp;The discussion then turned a bit more meta with the proposition that we&nbsp;<a href="http://www.motleyvision.org/2009/no-worries-great-mormon-novel/">shouldn't even be worried about creating the Great Mormon Novel</a>&nbsp;because the concept itself is outdated and unworthy of our attention.&nbsp; This is my incredibly glib recap of the discussion and I encourage you to read through those links and flesh out the arguments for yourselves.&nbsp; (As a side note, if you haven't spent some time exploring Mormon artistic endeavors at&nbsp;<a href="http://www.motleyvision.org/">A Motley Vision</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://dialoguejournal.com/">Dialogue</a>, it is worth your time to do so.)</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I think transcendent literature is something that is universal to our shared human experience.&nbsp; What makes a piece of literature timeless is that it speaks to people from different backgrounds, cultures, eras, and genders, and can reveal something new to each. &nbsp;My initial reaction, then, was that a Great Mormon Novel is not very likely, not because we aren't able or willing to question faith and authority and embrace ambiguity and conflict, but because we are pretty weird.&nbsp; Pres. Hinckley, on several occasions, reiterated the words of the apostle Peter in referring to us as a "peculiar people."&nbsp; We have always been encouraged to live apart from the world and embrace our peculiarity.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Of course the Gospel is universal, but a piece of Mormon literature is not just a rephrasing of the Gospel.&nbsp; Mormon literature is about Mormon culture and the internal and external difficulties we face in our quest for faith, individualism, collectivism, and understanding.&nbsp; There really has never been anything remotely like Mormonism and the culture we've created, I think, and therefore trying to connect it to a wider audience through literature might be a task that cannot be perfectly accomplished (which would, in my mind, be the definition of "Great").</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I'm not implying that there is not great Mormon literature out there, there certainly is.&nbsp; But a novel by a Mormon about Mormonism that is widely regarded as a masterpiece of literature that crosses boundaries might be too much to ask. &nbsp;We're just too different.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The more I've thought about this, however, the more I think my initial reaction might be wrong and that might be an indication of unhealthy pride more than anything. &nbsp;A Mormon's journey through life is not so much different than other people's. &nbsp;Like everyone we are trying to develop stable relationships, confront our internal and external demons, make sense of contradictions, and find peace in a decidedly unpeaceful world. &nbsp;We're not above any of that, and the ability to illuminate these issues is what makes literature great, and potentially Great, and I think doing so in the context of Mormon beliefs and culture is just as likely as any other culture or point of view.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The lack of the Great Mormon Novel is not an indictment of our literature or beliefs, it's just that there are very few Hemingways, Foster Wallaces, and Jameses and there are really just very, very few Mormons in the world. &nbsp;But it might just be that very uniqueness of point of view that makes a Great Mormon Novel possible. One of the ways that Great literature is able to provide that freshness and universality that people crave and remember is by providing a new point of view that sheds a slightly different light on an otherwise mundane subject (think of the way Elder Bednar is able to talk about subjects we've heard hundreds of times from a new perspective that sheds some new light on it and gives us a deeper understanding).</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I recently came across an idea from Mormon writer Karl Keller that I think expresses all of this well. &nbsp;His point was that great Mormon art is "not art filling a religious purpose, but religion succeeding in an aesthetic way." &nbsp;We have this incredibly beautiful and rich religion that can succeed in an aesthetic way, and our literature can reflect that and cross boundaries and be recognized as something Great.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">But we, as a religion, really need to do a better job promoting that art. &nbsp;We need to consume it, demand more of it, and think and talk critically about it. &nbsp;We need more than the traditional Deseret Book fodder, which only strives to inspire rather than find true understanding through a confrontation of ambiguity and conflict. &nbsp;There is nothing wrong with inspiration from time to time, but it can't be the principal goal of our art. &nbsp;</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-9027546138279810999?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/KuU88Pe7x0M" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>A Lean To The Right?</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/jf-_To8STfk/lean-to-right.html</link>
					<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 09:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/jf-_To8STfk/lean-to-right.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkpHQQk8MRAr0E78U2PEWrB_crMgD9FITJNO1">Bennett is out</a>.<br />
<br />
“When it was announced that Bennett had been eliminated from the race, a huge ovation swept through the convention hall and there were hoots and shouts of 'He's gone! He's gone!' Other delegates hugged and tea party members waved their yellow 'Do Not Tread On Me' flags.”<br />
<br />
I am exceptionally curious about what, specifically, Bennett did that resulted in this level of vitriol.  Even more, I am interested in what the Republican delegates see in Tim Bridgewater that has him as their nominee.  If anybody out there has an answer better than “Bob Bennett was too liberal to represent Utah,” I would love to hear it.<br />
<br />
My greatest fear is that democracy is slowly being smothered by popular media.  Do “democrats” understand “liberal” policy?  Do “republicans” truly agree with “conservative” ideology?  Are “independents”  and party swappers (and everyone else for that matter) simply opportunistic snakes, waiting for the chance to strike?<br />
<br />
I don’t live in Utah, but I found a <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/D=g/ci_15087790">recent article</a> from The Salt Lake Tribune that I felt brought up some excellent questions for conservatives.  Naturally, one could make a similar, polarized list for “liberals”.  What I struggle with is that the major gripe of the Tea Party movement is that the incumbents are not conservative enough, and as such, I thought it would be interesting to point out what “ultra-conservative” really means. Here are the ten questions from the recent article I cited above:<br />
<br />
1. Do you oppose or support socialized medicine? If you answered "I oppose socialized medicine," will you introduce legislation to repeal Medicare for seniors -- socialized medicine brought to us by Great Society liberal Lyndon Johnson? If not, explain why you support socialized medicine for seniors and but do not support Obamacare for working families.<br />
<br />
2. Will you introduce legislation to repeal all agriculture, grazing and mining subsidies? If not, please explain why you support socialized agriculture, grazing and mining.<br />
<br />
3. Will you introduce legislation to sell off all federal lands in Utah to the highest bidder? If not, please explain why you think the big federal government, not the private sector and private landholders, should own Utah's lands. (Note, giving the land to the State of Utah just transfers the socialism to a different level of government, so that is not a valid answer).<br />
<br />
4. A major criticism of Sen. Bennett was his support of the TARP in 2008. Will you pledge to oppose all government bailouts, even if that means a freezing of the credit markets and the failure of small businesses across the United States?<br />
<br />
5. Which federal regulatory agencies will you eliminate? The Securities and Exchange Commission? The FDIC? The Consumer Product Safety Commission? The Federal Mine Safety Administration? The Environmental Protection Agency? The Agricultural Inspection Service? The Food and Drug Administration? If you support these agencies, please explain why we need big government in these areas, none of which are expressly provided for in the U.S. Constitution.<br />
<br />
6. Do you support repealing the Small Business Administration? If not, please explain why you think big government bureaucrats know better than the free market which small businesses deserve help and support (and what a bureaucrat could possibly do to help a free market capitalist business person).<br />
<br />
7. Do you support the National Weather Service? If so, please explain why big government can track the weather better than the private sector.<br />
<br />
8. Will you oppose all appropriations earmarks for Utah?<br />
<br />
9. Will you pledge to oppose government interventions to bring jobs to Utah? If not, please explain why you think you, and not the market, should determine where jobs are located in the United States.<br />
<br />
10. Will you introduce legislation to repeal the Federal Communications Commission and the work of its nanny state, liberal, politically correct bureaucrats who regulate the words people can say on the television and radio and the images shown on TV? Or do you think bureaucrats, not the free market, should decide what is appropriate to air in America?<br />
<br />
I’m sincerely curious about people’s responses to these questions.  I will never suggest that a party member must adhere to all of said parties’ ideology; however, considering the cry that the GOP needs to be more conservative, I wonder how many people out there are ready for what that really means.  Comments?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-4407680286771882842?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/jf-_To8STfk" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Moderation In A Crowded World</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/17G9oH9HKbY/moderation-in-crowded-world.html</link>
					<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 10:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/17G9oH9HKbY/moderation-in-crowded-world.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png" width="313" /></a></div>In 1800 just after the United States was formed and the Constitution  ratified, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population">world  population</a> was about 978 million, just under 1 billion.&nbsp; North  America had about 7 million people.&nbsp; If you had suggested to them at the  time that they really should consider moderating consumption and  conserving natural ecosystems, they probably would have laughed you to  scorn.&nbsp; "The world has more natural resources and available land than we  ever could possibly develop," they would say to you with a  condescending chuckle.&nbsp; "Why on Earth should moderate anything?"<br />
<br />
Today  the world population is approaching 7 billion and North America has  about 340 million people.&nbsp; In a hundred years we'll be pushing 10  billion people.&nbsp; It is a crowded world we live in now and it is not  difficult to imagine running out of oil, chopping down the Amazon rain  forest, and polluting our entire atmosphere and oceans to near  sterility.&nbsp; For thousands of years leading up to now humans have never  had to moderate because the world was so big and we were so small.&nbsp; So  it is not altogether surprising, then, when so many people today,  Americans in particular, continue to scoff at the idea of moderation, at  the idea that we have to pull back in order to preserve what we have.<br />
<br />
The  oil <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37046178/ns/us_news-gulf_oil_spill/">gushing  into the Gulf Coast</a> at a rate of 210,000 gallons a day, which we  are apparently powerless to stop any time soon, is a fitting example of  how we are failing to be proper stewards of the Earth because we are not  willing to moderate our thirst for oil.<br />
<br />
But the idea of moderation in an ever more crowded world doesn't just pertain to the  environment and consumption of goods.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
As world population increases so  does our proximity to other people.&nbsp; As infrastructure increases and  improves information is more easily shared, goods are more easily  shipped around the globe, people travel more easily and are not confined  to their ancestral land, and divisions based on ideology, race,  national origin, habits, ways of life, and religions are no longer  easily maintained.&nbsp; We are forced to live and interact with people and  ideas that before were easy to avoid.<br />
<br />
It was easier to  take more extreme positions because we could easily insulate ourselves  from the consequences, but that is no longer the case.&nbsp; In order to  survive we have to find common ground.&nbsp; We can't elevate the <a href="http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/anti_immigrant/">rhetoric against  immigrants</a> like we used to because there is no longer any buffer  between Us and Them.&nbsp; We can't <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-sparks-church-state-separation-debate/story?id=10419289">demand  that our government be Christian</a> because there is no longer any  buffer between Us and Them.&nbsp; We can't demonize people of other political  ideologies because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.&nbsp;  We are crowded together on the same subway train now and it does no use  yelling at the person standing next to you to make more room because  more room doesn't exist anymore.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to two things:&nbsp; Pres. Obama and the Gospel.&nbsp; As  for the president, he has been a liberal disappointment.&nbsp; The far-right  wing wants to paint him as a dangerous liberal, a socialist, a  communist, a fascist, extreme in every way.&nbsp; The reality is much  different.<br />
<br />
His newest nomination to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is a safe choice meant to <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/">avoid any sort of conflict or strong statement</a> about what liberals believe.&nbsp; Liberals wanted a single-payer health system,  or a strong public option at the very least.&nbsp; Universal health care was  never on the table and the public option was bargained away before the  bargaining even started.&nbsp; Instead we got a bill that amounts to a  give-away to private health insurance companies.&nbsp; Liberals wanted  Guantanamo Bay shut down, full light shed on the torture issue, the Bush  Administration torturers prosecuted, and the end of executive power  overreaching.&nbsp; Instead Guantanamo remains open, torture was swept under  the rug, and the president is not letting go of unconstitutional  executive powers like the right to <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?page=3">indefinitely  detain</a> terror "suspects" without any evidence.&nbsp; Don't Ask, Don't  Tell has not been repealed.&nbsp; The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/03/03greenwire-sen-graham-slams-push-for-a-half-assed-energy-54765.html">energy  bill</a> is going to be another give-away to private industry instead  of hard choices in reducing climate change.&nbsp; And I could go on.<br />
<br />
I let this bother me for quite a while, but I'm starting to come  around.&nbsp; It's okay to hold liberal and conservative views, but it's not  okay, in my opinion, to hold them at the exclusion of compromise and  mutual respect.&nbsp; Our nation is simply too big and diverse to cling to  extreme ideas.&nbsp; Partisanship is good and healthy, America needs to  debate the different positions and fully explore all good ideas, but in  the end we have to move towards each other and work together.&nbsp; Despite  what the anti-government movement and other far-righties might try to  tell us, I think Pres. Obama is doing a good job trying to bridge  differences and moderate.&nbsp; He'll never hear that from those groups or  Washington politicians, but it's true and I think America sees that.<br />
<br />
And I think the Gospel is the perfect vehicle for this sort of  moderation and is more and more relevant as the world grows more and more crowded.&nbsp; It teaches us that all people are children of God and have a  common divine heritage.&nbsp; It teaches us to love and respect everyone,  regardless of race, politics, age, sex, religion, or any other Earthly  distinction.&nbsp; And when we are able to love and respect anyone, looking  beyond arbitrary differences, we are able to find common ground and  moderate our more extreme impulses.&nbsp; I think members of the church need  to employ the Gospel to bridge differences instead of widen them and to  promote peace instead of conflict.&nbsp; I don't think polarization, whether  it be my country against yours, my politics against yours, or my  religion against yours, is in line with what the Savior taught.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-222101094715009026?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/17G9oH9HKbY" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>Approaching Immigration With A "Spirit of Compassion"</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/1-SYWgAoW4w/approaching-immigration-with-spirit-of.html</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 09:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/1-SYWgAoW4w/approaching-immigration-with-spirit-of.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[Perhaps you heard that Arizona passed an immigration law that is <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15954262">controversial</a>.&nbsp;  Most of the controversy centered around the following language from the  bill (read it <a href="http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf">here</a>  in pdf), Article 8 paragraph B:<br />
<blockquote><style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
 {font-family:"Cambria Math";
 panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
 mso-font-charset:0;
 mso-generic-font-family:roman;
 mso-font-pitch:variable;
 mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}
@font-face
 {font-family:Calibri;
 panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
 mso-font-charset:0;
 mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
 mso-font-pitch:variable;
 mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
 {mso-style-unhide:no;
 mso-style-qformat:yes;
 mso-style-parent:"";
 margin-top:0in;
 margin-right:0in;
 margin-bottom:10.0pt;
 margin-left:0in;
 line-height:115%;
 mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
 font-size:11.0pt;
 font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
 mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
 mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
 mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
 mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
 mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
 mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
 mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
 mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoChpDefault
 {mso-style-type:export-only;
 mso-default-props:yes;
 mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
 mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
 mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
 mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
 mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
 mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
 mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
 mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoPapDefault
 {mso-style-type:export-only;
 margin-bottom:10.0pt;
 line-height:115%;}
@page Section1
 {size:8.5in 11.0in;
 margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
 mso-header-margin:.5in;
 mso-footer-margin:.5in;
 mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
 {page:Section1;}
-->
</style>For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a  law  enforcement agency of this state or a county, city, town or other  political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists  that the person is  an alien who is unlawfully present in the United  States, a reasonable  attempt shall be made, when practicable, to  determine the immigration  status of the person.</blockquote>As  for the legal side of the thing, first, "lawful contact" may be the most  broad language ever written in the history of American legislation.&nbsp; It  encompasses almost anything apart from an explicitly illegal traffic  stop (which almost doesn't exist anymore: one mph over the speed limit,  faulty tail light, "you looked like you were swerving within you lane",  you vaguely fit the description of an alleged malfeasor, etc.) or the  police barging into your home without a warrant.&nbsp; Basically, lawful  contact is not a limitation at all, let alone a reasonable one.<br />
<br />
Second,  the Constitution’s equal protection clause forbids the government from   differentiating between anyone, including illegal immigrants, on the   basis of race.  Under the Arizona law no one has suggested any other   potential grounds for the police to reasonably suspect someone is an   illegal immigrant besides the fact that they have Latin American-colored   skin.&nbsp; What else could possibly fall under "reasonable suspicion"?&nbsp; I  can't think of anything.&nbsp;  Governmental racism is, bluntly,  unconstitutional.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Third, being an illegal immigrant is a  crime of status.  There are no other  real objective facts besides skin  color that would indicate that a person is here  illegally, unless a  police officer actually saw them sneak across the  border.  Without  objective facts beyond skin color, any time a police  officer stopped  someone asking for proof of legal residency would be an  illegal search  under the Fourth Amendment.<br />
<br />
All of this was impressed  upon Arizona in fairly strident terms and, as a result, they decided to <a href="http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Governor-signs-several-changes-to-Arizona/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx">change  the language</a> a little to read, instead of "lawful contact," "lawful  stop, detention or arrest."&nbsp; Slightly, but not much, better.&nbsp; This  change may or may not improve the legal side of the bill but it doesn't  improve our basic approach to immigration.<br />
<br />
It is  important to first dispel a nasty bit of false information and state  that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are <a href="http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Crime%20Fact%20Check%2012-12-07.pdf">less  likely</a> to commit crimes or be incarcerated than U.S. citizens.&nbsp;  These are not inherently violent people.&nbsp; They come here, almost  universally, to get a job and, more often than not, to send the money to  family back home in Latin America.&nbsp; This makes for a complicated  economic issue.<br />
<br />
One the one hand businesses love  illegal immigrants because they provide cheap labor.&nbsp; They cannot avoid  paying sales tax and gasoline tax and the like.&nbsp; On the other hand they  are likely taking jobs away from legal Americans, likely suppressing  wages overall, likely not paying any income taxes while likely taking  advantage of things like public schools and  hospitals, and likely not  spending very much money in our economy as they send a huge amount back  home.&nbsp; This last point, euphemistically called remittances apparently,  is fascinating because it represents Mexico's <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/money-sent-home-by-mexicans-almost-stagnant-in-2007/">second  largest form of income</a> behind the oil industry.&nbsp; It's a mixed  economic bag but probably mostly negative.<br />
<br />
The moral  bag, on the other hand, is less mixed, in my opinion.&nbsp; I think we fail  to take into account how much of this is our fault.&nbsp; I cannot abide  arguments that we, the United States, should never admit our weaknesses,  and here is a pretty glaring one.&nbsp; The reason illegal immigration is  mixed up in our minds with violence is almost completely related to the  drug smuggling.&nbsp; Guess what, America, if we weren't so addicted to  heroin, cocaine, and, to a lesser extent, marijuana, there wouldn't be  drug smuggling problems.&nbsp; We have created a huge market for illegal  drugs and, as a result, a huge problem with violence.&nbsp; Mexico's number  one problem, and the number one reason regular old non-drug related  immigration is at the levels it currently is, is tied directly to our  insatiable appetite for drugs.&nbsp; The corruption and violence in Mexico,  leading to a depressed economy and emigration to the United States, is  caused by the drug cartels.&nbsp; Take away America's need for drugs and we  take away the immigration problem.<br />
<br />
No amount of harsh  language and unconstitutional legislation will fix this problem.&nbsp; We  will only fix the problem by partnering with Mexico to reduce drug  trafficking.&nbsp; And racist laws like Arizona's will make it more difficult  to work with Mexico, exacerbating the problem.<br />
<br />
But more  than that we have to ask ourselves how moral our general attitudes are  regarding immigration.&nbsp; And the <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695253342,00.html">church  has made clear</a> that this is a moral issue more than a political  one.&nbsp; The church's stance on illegal immigration was given  by Elder Marlin K. Jensen:&nbsp; "The church's view of someone in  undocumented status is akin, in a way,  to a civil trespass.&nbsp; There is  nothing inherent or wrong about that status."&nbsp; He stated that  immigration legislation should be enacted in a "spirit of compassion."&nbsp;  In response to criticisms of this position church spokesman Mark Tuttle  said, "I wonder how they'd feel about the second great commandment, to  love thy  neighbor as thyself. It's not an answer to your question, but it's  another question."&nbsp; Actually, it seems like a perfect answer to those  criticisms.<br />
<br />
Now go back and look at Arizona's approach to illegal  immigration, and the anti-immigration rhetoric being spewed throughout  Utah and the United States, and members of the church.&nbsp; Does it seem  infused with a spirit of compassion?<br />
<br />
Additionally, should we be morally satisfied by arbitrarily  drawing a line on the map and telling the people below that line that  they must live in poverty while we above that line live in wealth?  Especially considering that they did not choose where they were born any  more than we did?&nbsp; Would we treat Canadian or English immigrants like  we treat the darker-skinned Mexican immigrants?&nbsp; Knowing how successful  the church is in Latin America, should we really be looking down on  these immigrants and wanting nothing more than to put them in prison or  send them back from whence they came?&nbsp; Are we truly treating them like  equal children of God?<br />
<br />
It is an incredibly complicated issue.&nbsp; I understand that there  are national security implications, economic implications, and  counter-moral implications.&nbsp; None of this is lost on me.&nbsp; But it seems  that too many of us are staking out dubious moral and ethical positions  that are not in harmony with the Gospel's spirit of compassion.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-6967696938890315022?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/1-SYWgAoW4w" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>The Enumerated Powers</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/nMmozHxZR-0/enumerated-powers.html</link>
					<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/nMmozHxZR-0/enumerated-powers.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[I wish I could be a libertarian.&nbsp; I really do.&nbsp; In fact, I think we  all do.&nbsp; Nobody loves paying taxes, nobody loves a big bloated  government, nobody loves politicians who are almost universally slimy  and packaged and plastic.&nbsp; I think we all have our own certain ideal for  a government-light society.&nbsp; But there is where the problem comes in:  everyone's ideal is different.&nbsp; Not only that, but those with the most  money tend to force their ideals upon the rest of us until we can't take  it anymore and turn to government to try to inject some sort of  counter-balance.&nbsp; The rich and powerful then try to game the new system,  and away we go.<br />
<br />
That is a basic back and forth we have  in America today.&nbsp; We are presented with a choice of who we hate more:  corporations or government.&nbsp; Both are big and ugly and powerful and  inhuman and seemingly untouchable and, to our horror, actually really so  intertwined as to be almost the same thing.&nbsp; The <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/financial_regulatory_reform/index.html">financial  reform legislation</a> process highlights this fact nicely.&nbsp; On the one  hand you have Democrats trying to reform the system and put some  regulations on how Wall Street functions in order to avoid another Great  Recession, on the other hand you have Wall Street there every step of  the way trying, and succeeding, to make the new reform as painless to themselves as  possible, and with as many loopholes as possible.&nbsp; The majority of Americans  could not possibly be more confused about who to hate more.<br />
<br />
Those  that hate the government more have tended recently to question the  constitutionality of federal government action, particularly as big  reforms are being enacted to rein in the the insurance and financial  industries' excesses.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html">Constitution</a>  is a document in which "We the people" give certain powers to the  federal government in some instances and explicitly deny it powers to  act in other instances.&nbsp; For instance, we have given the federal  government, specifically Congress, the power to declare war, but we  explicitly deny the federal government the power to quarter soldiers in  our houses.&nbsp; The former are called enumerated powers and they are what  are at issue more and more these days.&nbsp; Does the Constitution give the  federal government power to regulate the insurance companies and require  every American to purchase health insurance?&nbsp; Does the Constitution  give the federal government the power to regulate the derivatives  market?<br />
<br />
Explicitly, no.&nbsp; Implicitly, yes.&nbsp; And here is  where Constitutional interpretation becomes a big effing deal.&nbsp; Article  II Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress power to "lay and  collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and   provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United  States."&nbsp; This is called the General Welfare Clause.&nbsp; It also gives  Congress power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the  several States."&nbsp; This is called the Commerce Clause.&nbsp; Finally, for our  purposes here, the Constitution gives Congress power "To make all Laws  which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into  Execution the  foregoing Powers."&nbsp; This is called the Necessary and Proper Clause.<br />
<br />
What  we have here are three incredibly broad and vague statements that can  be interpreted pretty much any way you want.&nbsp; The only restriction would  seem to be the Bill of Rights and other protections found elsewhere in  the Constitution.&nbsp; Since they are so open to interpretation, what some people want to know is what the Founding  Fathers meant when they wrote those clauses.&nbsp; In fact, the Necessary and  Proper Clause was one of the most hotly <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/8775/Necessary-Proper-Clause.html">debated</a> items in the  Constitutional Convention.&nbsp; Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry opposed it because  they thought it would lead to a limitless federal government that trampled  civil liberties.&nbsp; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison argued for its  inclusion, and George Washington agreed, and laid out their argument in the <a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm">Federalist  Papers</a>, the main thrust of which was that a strong central government was necessary and desirable.&nbsp; It was on the authority of this clause that the Founding  Fathers created the early <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001110000000/www.ios.com/%7Ealstone/forthebk.htm">National  Bank</a>, which was a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States#Opposition">contentious  issue</a>, to say the least.<br />
<br />
Two things.&nbsp; First, we  see that trying to divine the capital-I "Intent" of the Founding Fathers  for purposes of Constitutional interpretation is a red herring because  just as today we have a great diversity of political thought and  opinion, so did they.&nbsp; They rarely, if ever, agreed completely on what a  certain clause or section meant.&nbsp; Many will attempt to turn to the  Federalist Papers as definitive proof of what the FFs meant when they  wrote certain words, but this is only the opinion of a certain few.&nbsp;  There were many others that opposed the viewpoints of the Federalist  Papers for many different reasons.&nbsp; Simply, there is not single  "Intent."<br />
<br />
Second, as I pointed out in the previous  post, there is no overwhelming reason to even give their opinions and  writings any more value than our own.&nbsp; We have the actual words they  wrote, and that should be enough.&nbsp; We are now free to use those words to  solve our problems in which way we deem best.&nbsp; They simply could not  have imagined the complexities and problems we face, and therefore are  not in a position to dictate to us how to solve those problems beyond  the framework they gave us in the Constitution.<br />
<br />
So I  can understand and respect the argument that the Constitution should be  interpreted strictly to limit the federal government to a very small  mass that stays out of our lives almost completely.&nbsp; I disagree, but I respect.&nbsp; But I cannot  understand and respect the argument that this is the <i>only</i> way to  interpret the Constitution.&nbsp; It is too vague and broad in some areas,  and the FFs were too sharply divided on their meanings, to be limited to  a single interpretation.<br />
<br />
It is therefore altogether  reasonable, in my mind, to oppose the actions of the federal government  regarding health care reform and financial reform on public policy  grounds, but not on Constitutional grounds.&nbsp; There is plenty of space in  the broad language of the enumerated powers laid out above to find that  those actions, and others like them, are for the general welfare of the  United States, are transactions in interstate commerce, the passage of  which are necessary and proper in the carrying out of the duties of  Congress, and do not conflict with other protections found in elsewhere  in the Constitution.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-2962568525361262616?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/nMmozHxZR-0" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
								<item>
					<title>What Would the Founding Fathers Have Thought About Ebay?</title>
					<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/q7V111inyNo/what-would-founding-fathers-have.html</link>
					<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator></dc:creator>
												<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
												<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~3/q7V111inyNo/what-would-founding-fathers-have.html</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[So let's pretend that you discovered a new continent with seemingly limitless natural resources, fertile soil, and a varied climate.&nbsp; It began to be populated by people from every nation, religion, and walk of life and was thus tolerant and dynamic.&nbsp; Essentially, the potential for growth and progress was boundless.&nbsp; And let's pretend that those people turned to you and your colleagues to establish a government that would endure and upon which they could rely for generations to come.&nbsp; What would you do?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.tmcc.nevada.edu/%7Edomitro2/Images/Const_Conv.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="204" src="http://www.tmcc.nevada.edu/%7Edomitro2/Images/Const_Conv.jpg" width="320" /></a>Remember that this Constitution could endure for hundreds of years and see changes in the world that you cannot possibly imagine. Would you write a short document that gave a basic framework and allowed for a variety of interpretations to fit the needs of future generations?&nbsp; Would you write a document that that had some broad language but a strict interpretation to be followed by all future generations?&nbsp; Would you create essentially a large volume of specific statutes to be followed for all time?&nbsp; Would you be confident that your wisdom should be followed explicitly by the progeny of your generation hundreds of years down the line?&nbsp; Or would you want them to be able to adapt to a changing world while holding on to a few key principles of freedom that you hold dear?<br />
<br />
These are, in essence, the issues that America's Founding Fathers faced while creating our new nation and producing a Constitution.&nbsp; For a little context, here's a real rough sketch of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census">America in 1790</a>, just a couple of years after the Constitutional Convention.&nbsp; America had about four million inhabitants, including about 700,000 slaves.&nbsp; New York City was the largest city with about 33,000 people, Philadelphia was next with about 28,000, which means that the nation was overwhelmingly rural.&nbsp; Most people were self-sufficient to the extreme, meaning they produced their own food and made their own clothes and built their own houses and bred their own horses.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Items not in existence when our Constitution was written: the computer and thus the internet, the lightbulb (still more than a <i>hundred</i> years off), harnessed electricity of any kind, the automobile, the airplane, refrigerators and freezers, the cotton gin, plastic, the Industrial Revolution, the telephone, the ballpoint pen, television and radio, the internal combustion engine, trains . . . should I go on?&nbsp; The FFs simply could not have imagined even the world of 1910, let alone the world of today.<br />
<br />
Can you imagine writing a document that would contemplate the changes that will occur over the next couple hundred years for our pretend new nation?&nbsp; Do you feel confident enough to dictate to those future people the specifics on how they should run their country?&nbsp; I know I don't.<br />
<br />
So how would the FFs have dealt with interstate highways and railways?&nbsp; How would they have dealt with the internet?&nbsp; How would they have dealt with the rising cost of health care?&nbsp; Who cares?&nbsp; Seriously, why would we possibly care what they had to say about these issues?&nbsp; They could not have even fathomed them, let alone anticipated them in our Constitution.&nbsp; When I hear people today go on about how important it is stick as close as possible to the original vision of the FFs I can only disagree.&nbsp; They left us an amazing Constitution which lays out the most basic and cherished ideals of our nation (and some repugnant ideas which we have cast off), and I hope we cling to those forever.&nbsp; But to suggest that we should use our time to decipher their inner-most thoughts about every word they wrote strains the issue, in my mind.&nbsp; We should be free to use the Constitution to solve our problems today without having to rely on the opinions of men that lived over 200 years ago.<br />
<br />
That's not to say their thoughts and opinions are not useful, they did write the thing and some of them were exceptionally brilliant, but they purposely wrote a Constitution that is broad in scope, often using vague language, and open to interpretation and reinterpretation as our needs require.<br />
<br />
Over the next little while I want to talk about Constitutional interpretation.&nbsp; I want to look at what the Constitution actually says, take a look at what the FFs thought about their <i>magnum opus</i>, and look at how we are treating that document today.&nbsp; I hope it becomes clear that the Constitution <i>is</i> open to interpretation and that it <i>is</i> a living document that we can adapt to our own specific issues and problems.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/749789029915695563-6665731402048685980?l=mormonleft.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheMormonLeft/~4/q7V111inyNo" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
				</item>
					</channel>
	</rss>
	<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->