I am posting it here for your commentary/review, etc...
Why it is difficult for a good Mormon to be a Republican
by Steve Warren
First, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: It isn’t impossible to be a good Mormon and a Republican.
In fact, moderate Republicans often support policies that seem in harmony with gospel principles. The most prominent example may be the late George Romney, the former governor of Michigan who served in President Nixon’s Cabinet. Romney’s progressive stance on social issues was similar to that of today’s moderate Utah Democrats—or of enlightened Republicans in such states as Connecticut, New York, California, Oregon.
Utah Republicanism, on the other hand, has long been hijacked by right-wingers.
But enough of generalities. What follows is an analysis of four major arenas (freedom vs. coercion; the greedy vs. the needy; war vs. peace; pride vs. humility) in which our actions reveal if we are indeed followers of Christ. In each case, I will explain why the views of Democrats are generally more in harmony with the gospel than are the views of Republicans.
Freedom vs. coercion
No people on Earth should be more committed to freedom than Mormons. Here’s why: Mormons believe that God’s spirit children came to Earth in order to prove themselves. They prove themselves by exercising agency to choose right or wrong. Not having freedom to choose hinders God’s plan because it limits man’s ability to progress and renders him a perpetual child whose decisions are made by others.
Mormons also believe that the companion of freedom is responsibility. For example, if a person has progressed beyond the young-child stage and is allowed freedom to choose which foods he will eat, he has the responsibility to choose wisely. If he chooses to eat too many sweets or all meat or no vegetables or fruit, he pays a price for his wrong choices. That price may consist of illness, growing fat, lacking energy or going to an early grave.
When one man exercises agency in a way that hurts another man or restricts another’s freedom, God and man agree that penalties should follow. For instance, the Constitution gives citizens a right to bear arms as long as such arms-bearing is “well-regulated.” If a man abuses that right and guns down his neighbor, strong penalties follow. The severity of those penalties depends upon the circumstances of the abuse. If a man kills another out of carelessness, he ought to be penalized less than a man who is a member of the National Rifle Association who deliberately uses his rifle to rob and kill.
Republicans in general, and Utah Republicans in particular, often demonstrate hostility toward freedom and laxness toward responsibility. Among the areas of public policy where this hostility and laxness are demonstrated are liquor laws, church-state issues and abortion.
In terms of liquor laws, Utah’s establishment has long chosen to aggressively attack residents’ right to consume, advertise and sell alcoholic beverages but has been woefully lax (at least until recent years) in passing laws and in establishing a justice system that would get repeat-offender drunken drivers off the road. Utah’s laws—in particular the private-club rigmarole—have displayed contempt toward responsible drinkers, including visitors from out of state who have no religion-based aversion toward having a drink with dinner. The Republican-dominated Legislature’s response is, “Yes, but because our rules make it tougher for people to get a drink, there will be fewer drinkers and hence fewer irresponsible drinkers.” What they are really saying is that they are unwilling to get tough on lawbreaking drunks, so they make up for it by harassing law-abiding drinkers. This attack on freedom, coupled with indifference toward responsibility, is not in harmony with gospel principles of agency.
When it comes to religion and prayer, Mormon doctrine teaches that man should be free to choose which church he belongs to and whether to engage in religious practices such as prayer.
America’s religious right, including Utah Republicans, have long pushed for prayer in public schools and for posting the Ten Commandments in government buildings. They insist that the Constitution’s guarantee of “free exercise of religion” allows prayer as part of the public school agenda and that it permits them to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings.
What they fail to understand is that in a government setting, one person’s “free exercise” is coercion to someone else. In other words, a prayer at the start of classes is nothing more than government saying to a captive audience (i.e., children, who are required by law to attend) that “this is what is expected, and if any of you little twerps don’t like it, leave the room and return when we are done.” This is coercive. It is government promoting, endorsing and favoring religion. Does prohibiting the saying of a prayer at the start of class show hostility toward religion? Absolutely not. Those who think otherwise should ask themselves: Does prohibiting the singing of a country song at the start of class show hostility toward country music? Of course not. It shows neutrality. It favors neither country nor pop nor rhythm & blues nor rap nor hip-hop. The First Amendment requires neutrality toward religion on public property.
Likewise, stand-alone displays of the Ten Commandments restrict freedom. How? Look closely at the court rulings. In virtually every case where Ten Commandments displays have been removed from public buildings and parks, the courts did not rule that the Ten Commandments could never be posted in such places. The courts merely said that if such plaques or monuments are allowed, then other viewpoints must also be allowed. Sounds fair enough, right? Not to the Christian right. In nearly every case where such a ruling has been made, the “Christian” response has been to proceed in a huffy manner to remove the monuments in order to prevent anyone else from expressing another viewpoint. In other words, what the Christian right clearly wants is freedom for themselves, not for others. They say, “I won’t play the game unless I can make the rules.” It is time for them to let go of their persecution complex.
In clamoring for prayers in schools and the Ten Commandments in public places, conservative Republicans hide a dirty little secret. Their secret is this: They don’t much care if students pray or if the Ten Commandments are on display. You may ask, “But how can this be?” Very simple. Many lawful opportunities are available to hold school prayer and to promote the Ten Commandments, but Christians ignore them. They have failed in their churches to educate young believers about their rights. For instance, they have not told students that no law prevents them from voluntarily gathering during their school lunch break (or during other free time) to have a prayer in a vacant classroom or in an unused part of the gymnasium or in a lunchroom or in a commons area. Before, during and after sporting events, students and other residents can meet at prearranged locations for voluntary prayers. The key word is voluntary. Voluntary prayers don’t coerce. No one is told that they must get up and leave the room if they don’t wish to participate. Yet how many Christian students throughout America take advantage of these opportunities? Precious few. Conservative Christian leaders simply aren’t interested in educating young believers about such opportunities. There’s no money in it. TV preachers know that concerned Christians won’t send money to fight liberals and godless atheists if the word gets out that the liberals and atheists agree that voluntary prayers are legal. The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells, not to mention many Utah Republicans, prefer to grandstand for Jesus by fighting for what they can’t have rather than taking advantage of what they can have.
Republicans have been long on complaining about a so-called loss of freedom to post Ten Commandments in public places, but they have been short on assuming responsibility to ensure that the Ten Commandments are posted in private places where the public at large may view them. How many wealthy Republican owners of sports arenas have bothered to post the Ten Commandments in their buildings where thousands may scrutinize them on a frequent basis? (In fact, with the Jazz struggling in recent years, it should also be noted that no law prevents Larry Miller from setting up prayer booths in the Delta Center.) How many banks, stores, gas stations, private residences, etc., display the Ten Commandments? They are free to do so. Could it be that Republican hearts are more set on imposing religion on property that belongs to all of us than in practicing religion on their own property?
In the matter of abortion, faithful Mormons agree that fewer abortions is a worthy goal. Republicans in America, however, don’t focus on reducing abortions. Rather, they initiate myriad legal battles and attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. But, you may ask, wouldn’t a successful legal assault on abortion laws end up reducing the number of abortions being performed? Not at all. It would simply reduce the number of legal abortions. In this era of low airfares, if Roe v. Wade were overturned most women needing an abortion who find themselves living in an abortion-restricting state could simply fly to Nevada, Massachusetts, Mexico, Canada, etc., or any other place where laws are less restrictive. Doing so would be a minor expense for females in wealthy families. For poorer women unable to afford the airfare, some would submit to locally performed illegal and less-safe abortions. The legal fight against abortion would not produce fewer abortions. It would merely (1.) shift the venues where abortions are performed, (2.) lead to an increase in unsafe abortions and (3.) create abortion-statistics-reporting that would give the appearance of fewer abortions.
Democrats have promoted sex education, planned parenthood, safe-sex public service announcements and availability of contraceptives to reduce the numbers of abortions. U.S. abortion data suggest their efforts have succeeded. From 1981-1992, a time when Republicans occupied the White House and the position of surgeon general, U.S. abortion rates ranged from 376-435 per 1,000 live births. From 1993-2000, the Clinton years, the abortion rate was 323-375 per 1,000 live births. After Republican President George W. Bush’s first year in office, abortion rates again inched upward. What Republicans have done is grandstand about moral values and abstinence and the wrongness of abortion. What Democrats have done is take steps to reduce abortions.
The LDS stance on abortion is more liberal than that of many conservative Republicans and of many other churches. Mormons are allowed to get abortions and remain members in good standing in these four circumstances: health of the mother, rape, incest and severe fetal deformity. It is a virtual certainty that if abortion law reverts back to the states, some would choose to place restrictions on abortion that are tighter than those advocated by the LDS Church.
Mormons believe that before anyone came to Earth, there was a war in heaven. One side favored God’s plan, in which Christ would redeem mankind and all men would come to Earth with freedom to choose right or wrong. Some of us would choose right and be able to live again in God’s presence. Others would choose evil, and would not be allowed to return to him.
Satan, however, proposed a zero-freedom plan. He volunteered to force men to choose right so that no one would be lost. In his program, the Ten Commandments would be posted in all buildings. Prayers would be uttered in all schools as part of the regular classroom agenda. Public swimming pools would be closed on Sundays (as currently occurs in Provo, Farmington and many other Utah cities where Republicans call the shots) so that everyone would keep the Sabbath holy. No one would be permitted to sin. Mormon doctrine teaches that under Satan’s regime there would be neither freedom nor responsibility.
Their propensity for trumpeting “moral values” cannot hide the fact that today’s Republicans are no friends of freedom and responsibility.
The greedy vs. the needy
Latter-day Saints and other Christians believe that followers of Christ must care for those who are poor and afflicted.
Joseph Smith taught that it is impossible to be a good Latter-day Saint unless one reaches out to the less fortunate. When asked what constitutes good church membership, the prophet said, “He is to feed the hungry, to cloth the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all, wherever he finds them.” Democrats have done a better job than Republicans of embracing this broad commitment to the downtrodden.
The Republican philosophy is that laws and taxes too often unduly hamper the production of income. Republicans assert that capitalism rewards diligence and skill, that real freedom allows individuals to accumulate wealth and that they, not government, should decide whether to bestow a portion of that wealth on those who are less fortunate.
While many wealthy people do impart a portion of their goods to the less fortunate, throughout history the portion of goods that they have imparted has been so small as to guarantee that the less fortunate will remain less fortunate. In the late 19th century, the rise of capitalists and industrialist robber barons demonstrated that America cannot rely upon the wealthy to improve the lot of the poor and working classes. The barons plundered the country’s resources, subjecting workers to low pay, long hours and unsafe conditions. Their excesses gave rise to a strong labor union movement coupled with congressional action that restricted their monopolies and depredations. Democrats in Congress, not Republicans, spearheaded these improvements.
Many of today’s multimillionaires and billionaires aren’t far from being robber barons themselves. They pay low salaries in order to maximize profits. After amassing a mountain of money, some turn over a new leaf. They become benefactors, bestowing a portion of their goods upon the society that they have plundered. On the evening news, they are praised for their generosity, which, of course, is always tax deductible.
Democrats are called “bleeding-heart liberals” when they condemn economic inequality, racial profiling, hate crimes and harsher sentences imposed upon minorities than upon whites. But Democrats wear the bleeding heart label proudly. They are outraged that in America a black man who robs $100 from a 7-Eleven can expect several years in prison while a corporate crook in suit and tie who plunders millions upon millions of dollars while gutting the 401(k) plans of thousands of workers can often expect to plea-bargain his way to little or no jail time along with a payback scheme that leaves his victims with pennies on the dollar.
The Democratic view is that government has a constitutional duty to promote the general welfare of all Americans. As a result, Democrats generally advocate (and Republicans generally oppose or show little enthusiasm for) initiatives that improve the lives of the less fortunate. These include increasing the minimum wage, tax breaks for lower income Americans, access for the disabled, labor laws that protect workers, aid-to-education programs for poorer schools and disadvantaged students, free school lunch, food stamps, universal health coverage and tough environmental laws.
Wealthy Republicans counter that they deserve their riches because their risk-taking and entrepreneurship benefit mankind with improved technologies and lower-cost products. Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley, a Democrat, has a slightly different take: “There are many who really feel very strongly that those who prosper are good and those who don’t deserve what they have. So we talk about the deserving rich; well, there are no deserving rich. To be rich is to have more than you need. No one deserves more than he needs, as King Benjamin said.”
In the 20th century, programs aimed at improving the lot of lower-income Americans almost always were fostered by Democratic presidents, notably FDR, John Kennedy and LBJ.
Utah itself offers an excellent example of how federal programs are crucial in order to provide a safety net for all of the people. During the Great Depression, Utah ranked in the top 10 in virtually every statistical category of federal relief spending. “Utah would have blown away during the Great Depression except for federal relief; one in four Utahns was on direct relief. The state ranked second in per-capita volume of relief spent,” wrote historian Neil Morgan. In their great time of need, Utahns overwhelmingly demonstrated at the ballot box that they were grateful to have a Democrat (FDR) in the White House.
Utah, the most Mormon and now perhaps the most Republican state in the nation, has long been known as a state where get-rich scams flourish. Among these are pyramid schemes aimed at enriching the few at the entry level while impoverishing the many who climb aboard too late. The Beehive State has been called the fraud capital of the country in national publications and often leads the United States in bankruptcy rates. It is a state where right-to-work laws (i.e., the right to pay low wages) are strong and unions aren’t. As a result of its low wages and business-friendly laws and taxes, it attracts companies that pay low wages. Utah women, in order to make ends meet, join their husbands in the workplace and are employed outside the home at a higher rate than the national average. The economic struggles of families in worker unfriendly, heavily Republican Utah come with a price. The state’s divorce rate is consistently at or above the national average, and the consumption of mood-altering prescription drugs is among the highest in the nation. Not surprisingly, the state to date has had weak laws regulating lobbyists.
Democrats, like Republicans, also believe in free enterprise. Many Democrats are wealthy. They know that a healthy profit incentive increases production and jobs. But they also recognize that a society that offers myriad tax breaks to businesses in order to create jobs is entitled to attach higher taxes to the subsequent increased incomes of those who benefit most from such tax breaks.
BYU professor Richard E. Johnson sums up nicely the conflict between the greedy and the needy: “The inescapable conclusion is that when one person lives a life of luxury in a society or a world of limited and finite resources, others are forced to have less. Many, in fact, have so much less that they will suffer and die, but only after watching their loved ones suffer and die . . . How long can we ignore the scriptural description of socioeconomic inequality as evil? How long will we be guided by the ‘traditions of our fathers’ instead of the Savor of humanity? How long will Church members join mainstream America in not only condoning but promoting and admiring materialistic self-aggrandizement?”
War vs. peace
It almost goes without saying that if a world government existed with the Prince of Peace calling the shots, there would be no war. Nevertheless, the Scriptures make it clear that men are allowed to kill in self-defense or when God commands. (Note: The Jewish “Thou shalt not murder” version of the sixth commandment makes more sense than the “Thou shalt not kill” of the Christian King James version.) The Book of Mormon also declares that nations are justified in making preparations to defend themselves against possible attack.
In the early part of the 20th century, little separated the views of Republicans and Democrats in terms of war and peace. Both parties favored America’s entry into the two world wars. Democrats generally exhibited more support toward Woodrow Wilson’s desire to join the League of Nations, which had as a main purpose the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. In more recent decades, Democrats also have more strongly supported U.S. involvement in the United Nations, which also makes peace a top priority.
The Vietnam War and subsequent conflicts, however, have provided more distinct lines of separation between the two political parties.
At the beginning of the Vietnam War, both parties backed American involvement. They believed America was helping defend South Vietnam against Communist aggression. Only two members of Congress, both Democrats, opposed the Tonkin Gulf resolution that paved the way for U.S. offensive operations in Vietnam. As the war progressed, however, it became clear that U.S. involvement was a mistake. (Decades later, former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara admitted, “We were terribly wrong.”)
By 1967, prominent Democrats, including J. W. Fulbright, George McGovern, Frank Church and Eugene McCarthy, were joining fellow Democrat Wayne Morse, the earliest prominent opponent of the war, in speaking against the war.
For Republican backers of the war, a magic moment occurred in 1967. Out of the blue, they received a golden opportunity to repent. The moment arrived when Michigan Gov. George Romney, leading in polls of contenders for the 1968 GOP presidential nomination, said that he had been “brainwashed” by President Johnson into backing an unnecessary war. Did conservative Republicans quickly align themselves with the Mormon Republican? It could have been a turning point in history. God was watching. Did Republicans have the vision to call for America to get out immediately, thereby preventing another 1.5 million deaths in Southeast Asia? Not a chance.
Romney’s campaign quickly capsized as Republicans rushed to distance themselves from him. Brainwashed? No way. We’re too smart for that. Utah Republicans, as usual, remained unwavering in their loyal support of a president in time of war.
No institution in Utah appeared more pro-Vietnam War than BYU. Speaker after speaker at the Y., as well as university President Ernest L. Wilkinson, enthusiastically backed the war. It was the patriotic thing to do, they said. BYU administrators ignored a request to provide balance by inviting Wayne Morse to campus to counter the pro-war propagandists. The reason I mention BYU’s support is that people and institutions are accountable for the positions they take. Organizations that continued to support the Vietnam War gave the White House, Pentagon and congressional hawks an excuse to get out of Vietnam later rather than sooner, thereby escalating the body count.
It is quite clear in hindsight that if the United States had supported rather than sabotaged a Vietnam unification election in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won with about 80 percent of the vote (President Eisenhower’s estimate), and the subsequent war and 2.5 million Southeast Asian deaths could have been prevented.
Republicans have also declined to align themselves with democracy in other conflicts. In Central and South America and elsewhere, Republicans have backed U.S. participation in the overthrow of democratically elected leaders. Republicans, not Democrats, were behind Iran-Contra.
Republicans also have pushed more vigorously than Democrats for ever-higher defense budgets that would fill the coffers of the military-industrial complex rather than go toward balancing the budget or toward programs to help the struggling middle class and the afflicted and needy of America and the world. Among the dubious and enormously costly ventures have been Star Wars and the MX missile.
In Utah, Democratic state senator Frances Farley was the staunchest foe of MX, a project that would have based an underground railroad of mobile nuclear missiles in the western desert. Republican Congressman Dan Marriott said that those who oppose it are “people with their heads in the sand.” On May 5, 1981, members of the LDS First Presidency, without a trace of sand on their faces, announced the church’s opposition to MX. Democrats were elated.
From the First Presidency statement: “We repeat our warnings against the terrifying arms race in which the nations of the earth are presently engaged. We deplore in particular the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. . . . Our fathers came to this western area to establish a base from which to carry the gospel of peace to the peoples of the earth. It is ironic, and a denial of the very essence of that gospel, that in this same general area there should be constructed a mammoth weapons system potentially capable of destroying much of civilization.”
Three years after the United States and heavily Republican Utah overwhelmingly re-elected Richard Nixon while rejecting the peace candidate, Democrat George McGovern, LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball offered this view of Americans:
“We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; ‘That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.’ (Matt. 5:44-45.)”
In the current Iraq war, the Republican administration has deceived America into following a course that is entirely contrary to teachings of the Book of Mormon relating to entering wars and to the conduct of those wars. We have chosen, as Jimmy Carter observed, to follow the Prince of Pre-emptive War (George W. Bush) rather than the Prince of Peace. As a result, the United States has reaped—and spread—much grief.
Pride vs. humility
In 1989, LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson warned church members to beware of pride. In his address, considered by Mormons to be the major message of his presidency, Benson called pride “the great stumbling block” of the church. “The proud are not easily taught. They won’t change their minds to accept truths, because to do so implies they have been wrong. . . . the proud do not receive counsel or correction easily.”
As mentioned above, early in the Vietnam War, Republicans and Democrats both were wrong. When their mistake became apparent, most Democrats admitted it and began to oppose the war. Most Republicans, conservatives in particular, stuck to their guns. Many insist to this day that the war went bad only because the politicians refused to let the generals run the show. During the 1960s and early 1970s, they appeared to be saying “I’m more patriotic than you” by attacking the patriotism of those who called for a pullout. America’s hawks didn’t want any long-haired hippies with flowers in their hair telling them they were wrong about the war. Could it be that nationalistic pride prevented them from changing their minds?
Similarly, on issues such as abortion, prayer in schools and liquor laws, Republican Christians who trumpet “moral values” seem to imply that they are closer to God than those who disagree with them. Could it be that pride makes it hard for them to change their mind even when their positions lead to higher rates of abortion, less prayer and more DUIs?
Conclusion
Mormons have allowed Republicans to lead them astray. They have been led to believe that restricting freedom promotes God’s plan. They have been told that economic inequality is acceptable because the Lord blesses the righteous. They have been told that patriotism requires them to support the amassing of weapons of war and to back the president’s policies in times of war, even when those policies result in needless deaths. The Scriptures warn us that distorters of the truth would arise in the latter days: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil.” (Isaiah 5:30)
While it is true that many Mormons have been deceived into thinking that the Republican Party is more in harmony with God’s will than the Democratic Party, it is equally true that God is merciful and allows people to repent. A Book of Mormon prophet observed that many of the humble followers of Christ “do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.” To Utah’s right-wingers, Democrats say, “Break free. Shake off those chains. Cease to serve the devil.” We recognize, however, that the chains of precept and tradition are strong. Many otherwise good people who may sense the error of their ways will find that they are unable to shuck such shackles. They are addicts, hooked on meaningless prattle called “moral values.”
We Mormon Democrats will pray for them.
