The Islamic Center at Ground Zero

I apologize for my absence. I've learned that it's hard to be an avid blogger. But I've conceded that not every post is going to be eloquent and thought out.

There is a current controversy in the news about whether an Islamic cultural center should be built next to ground zero in New York. The argument against sort of goes like this:

Why are they building an Islamic center next to a national site of mourning? That is insensitive to everything that American stands for. Why are we going to allow a religion that supports terrorists to build a center so close to the buildings they destroyed and the lives they took? The Imam over the new center is radical and dangerous, etc. and so forth.

The other argument goes something like this:

Freedom of religion, as enumerated by the Constitution, states that all religions should be allowed to practice their religion and build places of worship wherever they desire. Why should Muslims be held to a different standard than everyone else? It doesn't matter where it is, religions shouldn't be prevented from building places of worship just because of its proximity to places of national disaster.

Though I probably didn't hit all the points in every argument I think you get the gist. On this issue, most conservative thinkers have been against it while more liberal thinkers have been for it. What happened to conservatives being guardians of the Constitution? Are we going to just argue constitutionality when it is convenient? The Constitution is not something you trumpet when it's beneficial throw by the wayside when its not. I even find myself disagreeing with those I usually admire and with whom I usually agree. People like Mitt Romney.

Let me try to personalize the issue with what I believe to be a mostly fair comparison. We all know all hell breaks loose when we Mormons try to build a temple somewhere in the world. Neighbors and fellow residents oppose the temple's construction vehemently. Let's say they argue against it by saying we are a crazy cult that practices polygamy. We all know that that's not true and that they're associating us with our fundamentalist counterparts who have nothing to do with the church. Isn't that what we're arguing when we're opposing an Islamic center from being built because Muslim "fundamentalists" are terrorists and it's so close to a place the terrorists destroyed? Mormons have been and still are in many ways a persecuted minority. Are we as Americans going to do the same thing to Muslims? Just as the polygamist communities are gross distortions of our faith, so are terrorists to the Muslim (though admittedly in drastically different ways). Mormons should have an extra sense of sympathy for our fellow believers in this situation.

I'm all for a little compassion and building an Islamic center next to ground zero isn't the smartest idea in the world but nonetheless I must support their freedom of worship. Call me a liberal pussbag, but I believe it is times like these that demand bravery in maintaining the freedom of worship, an inalienable, God-given right, no matter which religion it is.

AZ law and immigration

Below is a response I gave to a friend who sent me a link to a blog posting on the AZ immigration law. The friend is currently in Mexico on a BYU Study Abroad. The blog posting trashes the new law pretty hardcore. I think my response gives you a general idea of how I see the issue and where I stand.

Points where I agree:

1) Any law that increases the power of the police will make people fear them and immigrants will likely not report things to the police as much if they are not legal immigrants. Whether that increases or decreases crime is dependent on many other factors.

2) This law will inevitably lead to some racial profiling especially in AZ where the immigrants are overwhelming from south of the border. Every law is not perfect. But if a law overall has a positive effect even though there might be some flaws is it still a bad law? That depends on your view. Also, knowing almost all the immigrants are latino, is "profiling" a bad thing? On this one...I tend to side with civil liberties and say yes.

Point where I disagree:

1) His comparison of this law to becoming like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany is ungrounded and immature. I think he is caught up in the emotional intensity of the moment. I bet being in Mexico exacerbates that. He tries to lessen it with the line: "People tend to reject such comparisons outright because of how extreme they are but every time a government makes any power grab it should alarm us." But that's not far enough. If he included the comparison for satirical emotional impact, all the power to him, if he actually believes that, then I think he's off his rocker. But hey, I'm a forgiving individual and I'm against government grabbing power in many cases too.

2) The police can only ask people about their immigration status AFTER they have been caught for a different crime. For example, the police cannot just see a car with a MX liscence plate and pull it over just to see if they're legal or not. In this situation, the law is just enforcing immigration status while enforcing other laws. Enforcing the law on immigration laws seems logical. Laws have no effect if they aren't enforced. I'm all for limited government but I'm not an anarchist. Laws have reasons; we are a republic after all.

3) I'm not sure the law is unconstitutional. I can definitely understand where he is coming from by saying the law violates the constituion through search and seizure measures but as I addressed before, I don't think it's as bad as he says. Immigration opens up a whole new can of worms on the constitution. I would have to look more into the constituion to determine whether this law is as he asserts, unconstitutional.

Those are my views. I tend to make hardcore conservatives upset on this issue because I'm too compassionate toward illegal immigrants, especially those already here. Liberals on the other hand think I'm compassion-less. In brief, I support legal immigration and think we should make LEGAL immigration easier and ILLEGAL immigration harder. I'm all for comprehensive immigration reform.

Defeating the Deficit

I think everyone by now knows this country has got a serious issue on its hands: an ever-exploding federal deficit. Everyone knows that you don't spend money you don't have unless you've got a plan to get out of it. (Yes, my own deficit soon will be exploding with law school tuition payments to make.) The federal deficit now stands at $12.8 trillion dollars! With the estimated population of the United States at 308.1 million that is about $41,000 debt per United States citizen. Our debt is excessive. Now there will always be economists who debate whether or not that is a bad thing for growth, but fiscally we're experiencing a disease that will continue to eat away at us until it's too late.

Today the director of the Congressional Budget Office said, "US fiscal policy is unsustainable, and unsustainable to an extent that it can't be solved through minor changes." Yesterday Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, expressed similar concerns when he said, "Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability or healthy economic growth." The debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to go from 63% to 90% by 2020!! 90% of our GDP! Imagine a debt that big. Greece is currently experiencing a fiscal crisis with a similar debt ratio. Are we going to avoid the same course?

Now, we know that a sudden, dramatic stop to controlling the deficit would be economically devastating, but don't expect that to happen anyway. Our leaders in Washington love spending money and bringing home the bacon for their constituents so they can win reelection. They also just need quick spending fixes to solve the immediate economic needs so the political environment is better the next time they run for election. Serious and thorough changes need to be made if we're going to tackle the deficit.

One idea floating out there is to institute a VAT tax. Now, for those that have never been to Europe this might not stir any fear in your souls but it definitely does mine. The VAT, or Values Added Tax, is a tax on most all products and services that averages about 20%! Everything you purchased would cost 20% more and your purchasing power on your savings would be now 20% less. Washington would be seeing green but the everyday American would be suffering. Instituting a VAT tax would also move our country into slow-growth economics of Europe. Let America stay America!

To solve our deficit problem lets get unnecessary and corrupt spending under control before we start taxing the heck out of every American citizen. I'm afraid if we don't get that under control then to everyone's detriment higher taxes are definitely on the horizon. Let's stay the land of the free.

Mormons in American Politics

An interesting Gallup poll was recently released showing members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the most conservative group in the United States. You can take a look for yourself but the survey was pretty extensive with high statistical confidence. According to the poll, 59% are conservative, 31% moderate, and 8% liberal. The next most conservative religious group is protestants who are 46% conservative, 37% moderate, and 16% liberal. So as a group, Mormons are much more conservative. Even when taking the ultra-conservative Utah into consideration, there is no significant difference. The percentage of Mormons who are conservative in Utah (60%) and outside Utah (58%) is practically the same. Surprising? For most of us probably not.

The interesting numbers from this poll I found was Gallup's measurement of active versus in-active (Gallup refers to them as "lapsed Mormons) members. Among church-going members, 65% are conservative, 29% moderate, and 5% liberal. Among "lapsed members" the numbers flux greatly, 36% conservative, 41% moderate, and 20% liberal, very similar to all other Americans regardless of religion. I find it very intriguing that such is the case. I am a firm believer that you can be a church-going Mormon and extremely liberal politically (I know this may surprise or disgust many of you). For me, that cannot be the case but that is just the decision I've made.

So, if Mormons are so conservative what impact do we have in American politics and will we have increased importance in the future? Currently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is the most powerful Mormon in the United States government. [Note: I know his "power" doesn't really count.] There are also an additional 11 members of the House and 4 of the Senate who are Mormon. Considering we only make up 1.7% of the US eligible voting population that is pretty good. Practically all of the congressmen, however, hail from the western half of the country, where the Mormon population is the greatest.

Can a Mormon ever be voted President of the United States, a national ballot? Recently in 2000 Senator Orrin Hatch tried but that puttered then quickly died. Former Governor Mitt Romney also tried in 2008 and came closer than any other Mormon in history, but in the end he was defeated. Did he lose because of his politics or did he lose because of his religion? Or was it a combination of the two? Many of us would like to believe it was his politics, but I'm afraid it was more his religion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints got a lot more media requests during Romney's presidential campaign than any other event including the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Elder Ballard recently addressed one event during Romney's campaign while speaking at BYU-Idaho:

"'You remember Mr. Huckabee who among other things said that Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil were brothers? Remember that? It went all over the media. Well, they are,' Ballard exclaimed to a laughing student body. 'But they don't understand that, because they don't have the Restoration. They don't understand that spiritual relationship...'"

So considering our small proportion of the US population and the lack of understanding among people not of our faith, I am afraid it going to be a long while, if ever, before a Mormon is elected president. I don't think it really matters whether in the future we remain reliably conservative or become more politically diverse. Our faith must be more understood before people are confident enough to vote for a Mormon.

[Below is a funny video from during the Romney campaign that exemplifies my point.]

We the People?

I usually avoid commenting on the day's political bickering but this subject seems to be more far-reaching. Currently the healthcare bills passed by the Senate and the House back in December are in reconciliation. The Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House and other congressional leaders get together and determine how they are going to combine the two health bills. Once they've combined the two to their heart's content they send the bill to the House and then the Senate for a vote. Once it passes in both chambers the bill goes to the president to be signed. So in the bill's current stage no votes are taken and no amendments are given but the end result of the bill is in great flux. Given this fact, who should have access to the proceedings?

While on the campaign trail candidate Obama promised to "broadcast heathcare negotiations on CSPAN so the American people can see what the choices are." Well, clearly he isn't doing that. That is at least one campaign promise down the drain. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't a partisan criticism, Republican politicians do it all the time too. Unfortunately, it is something we've all just come to expect. But the situation does beg the question, how transparent should government be?

Showing the healthcare negotiations on CPAN would definitely slow the process down as lobbyists and other organizations try to work their influence. Keeping the negotiations behind closed doors allows Reid and Pelosi the opportunity to do their work without interruption. But doesn't overhauling 1/5 of our nation's economy at least merit showing the public what is going on? The taxpayers are going to pay for it, shouldn't they be allowed to at least know what they're going to be paying for as the bill develops?

Now this brings me to the bigger issue. How responsive should our representatives be to the people they represent? Should a congressman always vote as he believes his constituents would want? Should a president broadcast more of the meetings and other negotiations that form our laws? I recognize there needs to be a balance, but I believe in more transparency and not less. Our nation has developed to a point where we have career politicians who really don't have much of an idea what is going on in main street America. We seem to be represented by an elite class of individuals who don't represent but rather dictate. Now I recognize that it isn't completely every politicians fault. Our election finance laws and other regulations have created the beast over the years. I am afraid though that when the framers of the Constitution changed the wording of the preamble from "we the undersigned representatives" to "we the people" they actually understood where the power lies. In the hands of the people. Today, I'm afraid those in government have forgotten that.