O:9:"MagpieRSS":23:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:20:{i:0;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:44:"Why Does My Church Oppose Medical Marijuana?";s:4:"link";s:76:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-does-my-church-oppose-medical-marijuana";s:8:"comments";s:85:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-does-my-church-oppose-medical-marijuana#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 02 Oct 2016 22:01:50 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3458";s:11:"description";s:363:"In February I found myself in a private meeting with the infamous &#8220;home teachers&#8221;—the somewhat pejorative nickname given to the two lobbyists employed by the LDS Church to influence politics in Utah. The meeting was in the office of Senator Madsen, who was sponsoring the medical marijuana bill that Libertas Institute was helping with and [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:19294:"<p><a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-3459" src="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg" alt="utahmmj2" width="585" height="164" srcset="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg 585w, http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2-300x84.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 585px) 100vw, 585px" /></a></p>
<p>In February I found myself in a private meeting with the infamous &#8220;home teachers&#8221;—the somewhat pejorative nickname given to the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/2323383-155/mormon-church-lobbying-in-utahs-capitol">two lobbyists</a> employed by the LDS Church to influence politics in Utah.</p>
<p>The meeting was in the office of Senator Madsen, who was sponsoring the medical marijuana bill that Libertas Institute was helping with and supporting. The senator and I sat together with these two church representatives who informed us that they had just come from the office of the senate president, conveying to him their opposition to our bill. (Their going straight to leadership is a common tactic to help ensure the church&#8217;s will is carried out in Utah government; they visited the House Speaker as well.)</p>
<p>As you might imagine, the meeting was rather tense. We had clearly anticipated that the LDS Church would not support the legislation, but were hopeful that they would remain neutral rather than opposing it. Unfortunately, that was not to be.</p>
<p>So I took advantage of the opportunity to inquire why they opposed the bill—one that would clearly help thousands of people in Utah, and which was more tightly regulated than any other state, where the Church had not weighed in on, let alone opposed, any other program.</p>
<p><span id="more-3458"></span></p>
<p>No answer was provided—only that they were following orders and delivering the message. Noting that &#8220;we&#8217;re not science experts on this,&#8221; the lobbyists said that two apostles, who are physicians (Elders Nelson and Renlund), believe that &#8220;the science isn&#8217;t settled&#8221; and that the other leaders felt that the bill was &#8220;too broad, too loose, too much.&#8221;</p>
<p>When Senator Madsen asked who had presented what material that led to the decision, one of the lobbyists replied that &#8220;the church has attorneys who evaluate these things.&#8221;</p>
<p>I asked if there would be an opportunity for us to address an apostle or another leader to present the scientific evidence in favor of medicinal cannabis use, and we were flatly and immediately told no.</p>
<p>When I inquired as to whether the Church was opposing the bill because it allowed for cannabis that contained THC, they affirmatively replied that that was &#8220;a significant part&#8221; of the reason for their opposition. So Senator Madsen asked if the Church opposes members being prescribed Marinol, an FDA-approved synthetic substance that is 100% THC. Awkward silence ensued; the lobbyists had no response. Finally, they suggested that going through the &#8220;FDA process&#8221; is what made the latter okay, while other forms of cannabis would be frowned upon by the Church for circumventing the FDA.</p>
<p>Quick tangent: Church scripture <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.6-7#5">holds</a> that anything &#8220;more or less&#8221; than the Constitution &#8220;cometh of evil.&#8221; There is no constitutional clause that justifies and authorizes the existence of the FDA, let alone one that allows the federal government to prohibit the use of any substance for medical reasons that has not received the blessing of this federal agency. You can draw your own conclusions, then, as to church leaders deferring to the unconstitutional (and therefore evil?) FDA.</p>
<p>After some tense conversation, I slowed things down a bit by addressing the home teachers directly. Here&#8217;s what I said, verbatim:</p>
<blockquote><p>It&#8217;s tough because we&#8217;ve put a lot of work into this bill. We feel it is more tightly controlled than in any other state where church members are able to use cannabis.</p>
<p>This opposition could, as you well know, kill the bill. Just yesterday, there was a Mormon mother in Oregon who had been <a href="http://www.people.com/article/utah-mom-illegally-treat-daughter-cannabis-oil">giving cannabis to her daughter</a> who has a malfunctioning pituitary gland. She had to return to Utah, where she lived. Somebody reported on her that she was using it for her daughter who has thrived under a regimen of cannabis under a doctor&#8217;s approval in Oregon. And DCFS showed up at her door yesterday. She&#8217;s now under investigation. [She fled the state that same day to avoid having her daughter taken from her.]</p>
<p>For my part—and I&#8217;m sorry to get a little emotional—I know hundreds of people who are in this predicament. This bill would help them. It would be very tightly controlled. But the bill stands a good chance of dying with the church&#8217;s opposition, and these people are going to continue to face the criminal justice system. I think that&#8217;s wrong.</p></blockquote>
<p>My remarks were not addressed; they provided no response, other than nodding their heads when I noted that the Church&#8217;s opposition would likely kill the bill.</p>
<p>I also noted that &#8220;every other organization that has opposed the bill has walked us through it saying &#8216;here&#8217;s what you can do to address our concerns,&#8217; and we&#8217;ve been very forthright in doing all of that.&#8221; But for the previous ten minutes, the Church&#8217;s representatives had been unwilling to address specific questions or provide any detail that would remove their opposition to the bill. &#8220;What can we do?&#8221; I implored one final time, wondering what amendments would alleviate the Church&#8217;s concerns.</p>
<p>&#8220;We can try to give you more, certainly,&#8221; we were told. &#8220;We can circle back.&#8221; The meeting ended.</p>
<p>After some phone tag, that &#8220;circling back&#8221; happened roughly one week later. We were told on that phone call, quite simply, that they had nothing more to give us. The conversation was over.</p>
<p>While our meeting left me quite frustrated, I felt more sadness than anything. Thousands of Utahns would be threatened with fines and jail time for using a plant to improve their lives—to become a functioning mother or father to their children, a productive member of society, and a person with increased quality of life.</p>
<p>And the emissaries sent to represent my own Church were unapologetic and indifferent to the plight of these church members. It was very sad for me.</p>
<p>Many people have wanted to know what happened in this meeting; I have been asked <em>many</em> times since the legislative session by friends and strangers for more detail. I had planned, without much strong feeling on the matter, to not disclose detail publicly. The reason I have changed my mind is the recent publication of purported &#8220;leaks&#8221; from a disaffected church employee. I&#8217;ve not paid these revelations much attention, as the summaries I read indicated that they are rather benign, and merely reveal a large organization managing things prudently. Good.</p>
<p>But one of the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4423214-155/leaked-videos-show-mormon-apostles-discussing">very recent items</a> caught my attention: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8hVH919KmY">a video</a> of an area committee meeting for western states in November, 2010, involving many of the apostles and other general and regional leaders.</p>
<p>The subject? Marijuana.</p>
<p>The presentation provided by <a href="https://www.lds.org/church/leader/gerrit-w-gong?lang=eng">Elder Gerrit Gong</a> is an update on how legislatures and voters in several states had decided on questions relating to marijuana in the months and years prior to the 2010 meeting.</p>
<p>Noting that not all arguments raised in the debate over marijuana merit response, Elder Gong advised the brethren that some arguments &#8220;gained credibility&#8221; because they were not challenged. As an example, Elder Gong cited the &#8220;far-fetched argument&#8221; that &#8220;unlike alcohol, no deaths are directly attributable to marijuana use.&#8221; On occasion, he said, &#8220;some of these things need to be refuted.&#8221;</p>
<p>Elder Gong addressed the shifting public perception of marijuana legalization, showing that polling has changed drastically over time, leading to steady, increased support. He remarked that &#8220;we sometimes focus on the high intensity battle, but we also have to make sure that we win the long term war&#8221;—presumably referring to the &#8220;war&#8221; of maintaining the criminalization of marijuana, which has had horrendous consequences, filling prisons, forcibly removing children from families, empowering drug cartels, and imposing significant costs on taxpayers without any viable return.</p>
<p>The presentation notes that the Church &#8220;generally defines&#8221; the <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng">Word of Wisdom</a> &#8220;to include tea, coffee, alcohol, and illegal drugs.&#8221; This is consistent not only with the conventional interpretation of that revelation, but also the <a href="https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.3?lang=eng&amp;_r=1#21.3.11">Official Handbook</a> which states, under the section titled &#8220;Word of Wisdom&#8221; (my emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote>
<p id="p339" class="">The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (<a class="scriptureRef" href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89.9?lang=eng#8" target="_blank">D&amp;C 89:9</a>) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.</p>
<p id="p340" class=""><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs.</span></em> Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, nothing in Doctrine and Covenants 89 (the section from which we derive the Word of Wisdom) states anything about hinging God&#8217;s law of health upon the ever-changing majoritarian votes of legislative bodies or ballot initiatives. A product being classified as &#8220;legal&#8221; or &#8220;illegal&#8221; through democratic action does not change its material composition or the beneficial qualities it may provide to our bodies.</p>
<p>Indeed, Elder Gong himself noted that church members should be &#8220;clearly reminded that popular classification of a substance, as legal or illegal, is not what determines obedience to the Word of Wisdom.&#8221; Unfortunately, he was using the inverse of the argument—that the legalization of marijuana does not mean its use allows one to still be in compliance with the Word of Wisdom. The flip side, of course, is that one is not necessarily violating it merely because some politicians decades previous decided to prohibit the use of cannabis.</p>
<p>It bears repeating: the Word of Wisdom <em>contains no language</em> that suggests that God frowns upon a person for consuming a substance that has been banned by a government. The &#8220;illegal substances&#8221; benchmark is one of modern creation, and without any scriptural (or, I think, logical) support.</p>
<p>If anything, one can <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana">quite reasonably argue</a> that the use of cannabis is not only <em>not</em> banned by the Word of Wisdom, but that it is in fact <em>explicitly condoned</em>. Rather than handbook codification of conventional interpretation, here&#8217;s what the text <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89">actually states</a> (again with my emphasis):</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="">And again, verily I say unto you, <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em>all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man</em></span>—</p>
<p class="">Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those who have researched the components of the cannabis plant, and their supplement to the endocannabinoid system within our bodies, are, like me, in awe at the wonderful properties this wholesome herb can provide. I praise God that he has &#8220;ordained&#8221; it for the use of man, as I have seen it substantially benefit and improve the lives of many of my friends and family.</p>
<p>Parenthetically, one could argue that the &#8220;spirit&#8221; of the Word of Wisdom centers more around abstention from addictive substances, encouraging us to be masters of our bodies and not become subject to the &#8220;evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days&#8221; (D&amp;C 89:4). And yet, just this weekend in his conference address, President Dieter Uchtdorf <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663755/President-Dieter-F-Uchtdorf-O-How-Great-the-Plan-of-Our-God.html?pg=all">admitted</a> to heavy consumption of &#8220;many liters of a diet soda that shall remain nameless,&#8221; to much laughter from the worldwide audience. Obedient Latter-day Saints may abstain from alcohol, but many are heavily addicted to Diet Coke and other drinks, which govern their lives and alter their behavior and mood. Yet these remain in good standing with the Church and are of no apparent concern. These sweetened drinks are, after all, a legal substance.</p>
<p>And then there&#8217;s prescription drugs, including opioid painkillers that lead to the deaths of 24 Utahns on average each month. These are legal, and not a single bishop has initiated disciplinary proceedings for their use. Hundreds of thousands of Utahns are handed legal narcotics—packaged versions of street drugs—with the blessing of their doctor, and apparently church leadership. This heavy reliance upon actual drugs leads to stories <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/utah-mormons-prescription-painkiller-addiction">like this</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Maline Hairup was a devout Mormon. No alcohol, no coffee. She didn’t smoke. Until the day she died, she had never used illegal drugs. Yet she was an addict for most of her adult life.</p></blockquote>
<p>Methinks we&#8217;re missing the mark.</p>
<p>Elder Packer, in the discussion on marijuana, shared a story of a single-toothed individual using meth who has a &#8220;wasted life,&#8221; though it was unclear what it had to do with the subject at hand. Elder L. Tom Perry lamented the apparent inconsistency of emphasizing &#8220;getting rid of tobacco&#8221; while also &#8220;start[ing] a project to increase marijuana,&#8221; though it was unclear to what project he was referring.</p>
<p>Elder Russell M. Nelson noted that he had been at a conference in Colorado where the first question asked during a Q&amp;A session was about medical marijuana—perhaps unsurprising, given the legal activity in that state on the subject at the time. It was noted that the person was told that &#8220;the church has no position&#8221; on medical marijuana and that the Bishop &#8220;would counsel with the individual and teach him about the Word of Wisdom&#8221; using the scriptures and the handbook.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many cannabis-using members of the Church have reported differing approaches their bishops have taken—some instructing them that its use is inconsistent with church doctrine and that the person would therefore not be worthy of admittance to the church&#8217;s temples. It is unclear if bishops have been given any uniform instruction on the matter since 2010, given the drastically changing political landscape on the issue of medical marijuana. Otherwise, sincere Saints using cannabis are subject to so-called &#8220;leadership roulette&#8221; whereby some bishops say it&#8217;s okay, and others say it&#8217;s not, using differing interpretations of the same doctrine.</p>
<p>I find my church&#8217;s opposition to the beneficial and medical use of cannabis to be troubling. Given decades of prohibitionist propaganda, it is not surprising to see church leaders maintain that position and resist any change to it. And having worked on this policy for several years, I completely understand how some people come from this background and are slow to adapt to new research, new stories, and new attitudes.</p>
<p>But I find it worrisome that the well-intentioned policy positions of these leaders are inherently presumed to be sanctioned by and given of God, when I fail to find any evidence of such—and when they themselves do not make the claim. Unfortunately, as the &#8220;home teachers&#8221; have carried the message to Capitol Hill, they consistently conveyed that their opposition to Senator Madsen&#8217;s medical cannabis bill was upon instructions &#8220;from the very top,&#8221; insinuating that the prophet of God, and therefore God himself (in the minds of many faithful church members), had directed the bill be killed.</p>
<p>I believe the Word of Wisdom explicitly allows for the beneficial use of cannabis, and that criminalization of this product not only denies law-abiding citizens its wonderful properties, but necessarily brings along a whole host of collateral consequences readily evident to anybody who has surveyed the damage caused by the so-called &#8220;war on drugs.&#8221; I find nothing in our faith&#8217;s doctrine that suggests this plant be made illegal, and ample societal evidences to suggest that it should not be.</p>
<p>I come at this from a different perspective than some. I am not hostile to the LDS Church, nor am I an unbeliever. I am a committed Mormon and love our theology. It is rich, inspiring, and wonderful. I am a firm believer and committed (though quite imperfect) disciple of Christ.</p>
<p>But I also believe that leaders of the church, though definitely well intentioned, are <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-lords-leaders-are-fallible-and-thats-okay">not always conduits of revelation</a>; their decisions and beliefs are not, in every single case, a reflection of God&#8217;s will. So I am comfortable in my belief while still providing for the leaders of my church taking incorrect positions—even ones that harm many Utahns through maintaining criminalization of cannabis.</p>
<p>Hopefully the near future will be one in which church leaders will be open to considering new evidence, hearing from members directly and positively impacted by the use of cannabis. There are many. And they don&#8217;t deserve to be punished for using wholesome herbs ordained by God to help them.</p>
<p>With or without the Church&#8217;s support, Utah&#8217;s law will soon be altered to provide for the legal, medicinal use of cannabis. Of that I am certain. It&#8217;s the right thing to do.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:81:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-does-my-church-oppose-medical-marijuana/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"53";}s:7:"summary";s:363:"In February I found myself in a private meeting with the infamous &#8220;home teachers&#8221;—the somewhat pejorative nickname given to the two lobbyists employed by the LDS Church to influence politics in Utah. The meeting was in the office of Senator Madsen, who was sponsoring the medical marijuana bill that Libertas Institute was helping with and [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:19294:"<p><a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-3459" src="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg" alt="utahmmj2" width="585" height="164" srcset="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg 585w, http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2-300x84.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 585px) 100vw, 585px" /></a></p>
<p>In February I found myself in a private meeting with the infamous &#8220;home teachers&#8221;—the somewhat pejorative nickname given to the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/2323383-155/mormon-church-lobbying-in-utahs-capitol">two lobbyists</a> employed by the LDS Church to influence politics in Utah.</p>
<p>The meeting was in the office of Senator Madsen, who was sponsoring the medical marijuana bill that Libertas Institute was helping with and supporting. The senator and I sat together with these two church representatives who informed us that they had just come from the office of the senate president, conveying to him their opposition to our bill. (Their going straight to leadership is a common tactic to help ensure the church&#8217;s will is carried out in Utah government; they visited the House Speaker as well.)</p>
<p>As you might imagine, the meeting was rather tense. We had clearly anticipated that the LDS Church would not support the legislation, but were hopeful that they would remain neutral rather than opposing it. Unfortunately, that was not to be.</p>
<p>So I took advantage of the opportunity to inquire why they opposed the bill—one that would clearly help thousands of people in Utah, and which was more tightly regulated than any other state, where the Church had not weighed in on, let alone opposed, any other program.</p>
<p><span id="more-3458"></span></p>
<p>No answer was provided—only that they were following orders and delivering the message. Noting that &#8220;we&#8217;re not science experts on this,&#8221; the lobbyists said that two apostles, who are physicians (Elders Nelson and Renlund), believe that &#8220;the science isn&#8217;t settled&#8221; and that the other leaders felt that the bill was &#8220;too broad, too loose, too much.&#8221;</p>
<p>When Senator Madsen asked who had presented what material that led to the decision, one of the lobbyists replied that &#8220;the church has attorneys who evaluate these things.&#8221;</p>
<p>I asked if there would be an opportunity for us to address an apostle or another leader to present the scientific evidence in favor of medicinal cannabis use, and we were flatly and immediately told no.</p>
<p>When I inquired as to whether the Church was opposing the bill because it allowed for cannabis that contained THC, they affirmatively replied that that was &#8220;a significant part&#8221; of the reason for their opposition. So Senator Madsen asked if the Church opposes members being prescribed Marinol, an FDA-approved synthetic substance that is 100% THC. Awkward silence ensued; the lobbyists had no response. Finally, they suggested that going through the &#8220;FDA process&#8221; is what made the latter okay, while other forms of cannabis would be frowned upon by the Church for circumventing the FDA.</p>
<p>Quick tangent: Church scripture <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.6-7#5">holds</a> that anything &#8220;more or less&#8221; than the Constitution &#8220;cometh of evil.&#8221; There is no constitutional clause that justifies and authorizes the existence of the FDA, let alone one that allows the federal government to prohibit the use of any substance for medical reasons that has not received the blessing of this federal agency. You can draw your own conclusions, then, as to church leaders deferring to the unconstitutional (and therefore evil?) FDA.</p>
<p>After some tense conversation, I slowed things down a bit by addressing the home teachers directly. Here&#8217;s what I said, verbatim:</p>
<blockquote><p>It&#8217;s tough because we&#8217;ve put a lot of work into this bill. We feel it is more tightly controlled than in any other state where church members are able to use cannabis.</p>
<p>This opposition could, as you well know, kill the bill. Just yesterday, there was a Mormon mother in Oregon who had been <a href="http://www.people.com/article/utah-mom-illegally-treat-daughter-cannabis-oil">giving cannabis to her daughter</a> who has a malfunctioning pituitary gland. She had to return to Utah, where she lived. Somebody reported on her that she was using it for her daughter who has thrived under a regimen of cannabis under a doctor&#8217;s approval in Oregon. And DCFS showed up at her door yesterday. She&#8217;s now under investigation. [She fled the state that same day to avoid having her daughter taken from her.]</p>
<p>For my part—and I&#8217;m sorry to get a little emotional—I know hundreds of people who are in this predicament. This bill would help them. It would be very tightly controlled. But the bill stands a good chance of dying with the church&#8217;s opposition, and these people are going to continue to face the criminal justice system. I think that&#8217;s wrong.</p></blockquote>
<p>My remarks were not addressed; they provided no response, other than nodding their heads when I noted that the Church&#8217;s opposition would likely kill the bill.</p>
<p>I also noted that &#8220;every other organization that has opposed the bill has walked us through it saying &#8216;here&#8217;s what you can do to address our concerns,&#8217; and we&#8217;ve been very forthright in doing all of that.&#8221; But for the previous ten minutes, the Church&#8217;s representatives had been unwilling to address specific questions or provide any detail that would remove their opposition to the bill. &#8220;What can we do?&#8221; I implored one final time, wondering what amendments would alleviate the Church&#8217;s concerns.</p>
<p>&#8220;We can try to give you more, certainly,&#8221; we were told. &#8220;We can circle back.&#8221; The meeting ended.</p>
<p>After some phone tag, that &#8220;circling back&#8221; happened roughly one week later. We were told on that phone call, quite simply, that they had nothing more to give us. The conversation was over.</p>
<p>While our meeting left me quite frustrated, I felt more sadness than anything. Thousands of Utahns would be threatened with fines and jail time for using a plant to improve their lives—to become a functioning mother or father to their children, a productive member of society, and a person with increased quality of life.</p>
<p>And the emissaries sent to represent my own Church were unapologetic and indifferent to the plight of these church members. It was very sad for me.</p>
<p>Many people have wanted to know what happened in this meeting; I have been asked <em>many</em> times since the legislative session by friends and strangers for more detail. I had planned, without much strong feeling on the matter, to not disclose detail publicly. The reason I have changed my mind is the recent publication of purported &#8220;leaks&#8221; from a disaffected church employee. I&#8217;ve not paid these revelations much attention, as the summaries I read indicated that they are rather benign, and merely reveal a large organization managing things prudently. Good.</p>
<p>But one of the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4423214-155/leaked-videos-show-mormon-apostles-discussing">very recent items</a> caught my attention: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8hVH919KmY">a video</a> of an area committee meeting for western states in November, 2010, involving many of the apostles and other general and regional leaders.</p>
<p>The subject? Marijuana.</p>
<p>The presentation provided by <a href="https://www.lds.org/church/leader/gerrit-w-gong?lang=eng">Elder Gerrit Gong</a> is an update on how legislatures and voters in several states had decided on questions relating to marijuana in the months and years prior to the 2010 meeting.</p>
<p>Noting that not all arguments raised in the debate over marijuana merit response, Elder Gong advised the brethren that some arguments &#8220;gained credibility&#8221; because they were not challenged. As an example, Elder Gong cited the &#8220;far-fetched argument&#8221; that &#8220;unlike alcohol, no deaths are directly attributable to marijuana use.&#8221; On occasion, he said, &#8220;some of these things need to be refuted.&#8221;</p>
<p>Elder Gong addressed the shifting public perception of marijuana legalization, showing that polling has changed drastically over time, leading to steady, increased support. He remarked that &#8220;we sometimes focus on the high intensity battle, but we also have to make sure that we win the long term war&#8221;—presumably referring to the &#8220;war&#8221; of maintaining the criminalization of marijuana, which has had horrendous consequences, filling prisons, forcibly removing children from families, empowering drug cartels, and imposing significant costs on taxpayers without any viable return.</p>
<p>The presentation notes that the Church &#8220;generally defines&#8221; the <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng">Word of Wisdom</a> &#8220;to include tea, coffee, alcohol, and illegal drugs.&#8221; This is consistent not only with the conventional interpretation of that revelation, but also the <a href="https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.3?lang=eng&amp;_r=1#21.3.11">Official Handbook</a> which states, under the section titled &#8220;Word of Wisdom&#8221; (my emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote>
<p id="p339" class="">The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (<a class="scriptureRef" href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89.9?lang=eng#8" target="_blank">D&amp;C 89:9</a>) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.</p>
<p id="p340" class=""><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs.</span></em> Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, nothing in Doctrine and Covenants 89 (the section from which we derive the Word of Wisdom) states anything about hinging God&#8217;s law of health upon the ever-changing majoritarian votes of legislative bodies or ballot initiatives. A product being classified as &#8220;legal&#8221; or &#8220;illegal&#8221; through democratic action does not change its material composition or the beneficial qualities it may provide to our bodies.</p>
<p>Indeed, Elder Gong himself noted that church members should be &#8220;clearly reminded that popular classification of a substance, as legal or illegal, is not what determines obedience to the Word of Wisdom.&#8221; Unfortunately, he was using the inverse of the argument—that the legalization of marijuana does not mean its use allows one to still be in compliance with the Word of Wisdom. The flip side, of course, is that one is not necessarily violating it merely because some politicians decades previous decided to prohibit the use of cannabis.</p>
<p>It bears repeating: the Word of Wisdom <em>contains no language</em> that suggests that God frowns upon a person for consuming a substance that has been banned by a government. The &#8220;illegal substances&#8221; benchmark is one of modern creation, and without any scriptural (or, I think, logical) support.</p>
<p>If anything, one can <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana">quite reasonably argue</a> that the use of cannabis is not only <em>not</em> banned by the Word of Wisdom, but that it is in fact <em>explicitly condoned</em>. Rather than handbook codification of conventional interpretation, here&#8217;s what the text <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89">actually states</a> (again with my emphasis):</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="">And again, verily I say unto you, <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em>all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man</em></span>—</p>
<p class="">Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those who have researched the components of the cannabis plant, and their supplement to the endocannabinoid system within our bodies, are, like me, in awe at the wonderful properties this wholesome herb can provide. I praise God that he has &#8220;ordained&#8221; it for the use of man, as I have seen it substantially benefit and improve the lives of many of my friends and family.</p>
<p>Parenthetically, one could argue that the &#8220;spirit&#8221; of the Word of Wisdom centers more around abstention from addictive substances, encouraging us to be masters of our bodies and not become subject to the &#8220;evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days&#8221; (D&amp;C 89:4). And yet, just this weekend in his conference address, President Dieter Uchtdorf <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663755/President-Dieter-F-Uchtdorf-O-How-Great-the-Plan-of-Our-God.html?pg=all">admitted</a> to heavy consumption of &#8220;many liters of a diet soda that shall remain nameless,&#8221; to much laughter from the worldwide audience. Obedient Latter-day Saints may abstain from alcohol, but many are heavily addicted to Diet Coke and other drinks, which govern their lives and alter their behavior and mood. Yet these remain in good standing with the Church and are of no apparent concern. These sweetened drinks are, after all, a legal substance.</p>
<p>And then there&#8217;s prescription drugs, including opioid painkillers that lead to the deaths of 24 Utahns on average each month. These are legal, and not a single bishop has initiated disciplinary proceedings for their use. Hundreds of thousands of Utahns are handed legal narcotics—packaged versions of street drugs—with the blessing of their doctor, and apparently church leadership. This heavy reliance upon actual drugs leads to stories <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/utah-mormons-prescription-painkiller-addiction">like this</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Maline Hairup was a devout Mormon. No alcohol, no coffee. She didn’t smoke. Until the day she died, she had never used illegal drugs. Yet she was an addict for most of her adult life.</p></blockquote>
<p>Methinks we&#8217;re missing the mark.</p>
<p>Elder Packer, in the discussion on marijuana, shared a story of a single-toothed individual using meth who has a &#8220;wasted life,&#8221; though it was unclear what it had to do with the subject at hand. Elder L. Tom Perry lamented the apparent inconsistency of emphasizing &#8220;getting rid of tobacco&#8221; while also &#8220;start[ing] a project to increase marijuana,&#8221; though it was unclear to what project he was referring.</p>
<p>Elder Russell M. Nelson noted that he had been at a conference in Colorado where the first question asked during a Q&amp;A session was about medical marijuana—perhaps unsurprising, given the legal activity in that state on the subject at the time. It was noted that the person was told that &#8220;the church has no position&#8221; on medical marijuana and that the Bishop &#8220;would counsel with the individual and teach him about the Word of Wisdom&#8221; using the scriptures and the handbook.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many cannabis-using members of the Church have reported differing approaches their bishops have taken—some instructing them that its use is inconsistent with church doctrine and that the person would therefore not be worthy of admittance to the church&#8217;s temples. It is unclear if bishops have been given any uniform instruction on the matter since 2010, given the drastically changing political landscape on the issue of medical marijuana. Otherwise, sincere Saints using cannabis are subject to so-called &#8220;leadership roulette&#8221; whereby some bishops say it&#8217;s okay, and others say it&#8217;s not, using differing interpretations of the same doctrine.</p>
<p>I find my church&#8217;s opposition to the beneficial and medical use of cannabis to be troubling. Given decades of prohibitionist propaganda, it is not surprising to see church leaders maintain that position and resist any change to it. And having worked on this policy for several years, I completely understand how some people come from this background and are slow to adapt to new research, new stories, and new attitudes.</p>
<p>But I find it worrisome that the well-intentioned policy positions of these leaders are inherently presumed to be sanctioned by and given of God, when I fail to find any evidence of such—and when they themselves do not make the claim. Unfortunately, as the &#8220;home teachers&#8221; have carried the message to Capitol Hill, they consistently conveyed that their opposition to Senator Madsen&#8217;s medical cannabis bill was upon instructions &#8220;from the very top,&#8221; insinuating that the prophet of God, and therefore God himself (in the minds of many faithful church members), had directed the bill be killed.</p>
<p>I believe the Word of Wisdom explicitly allows for the beneficial use of cannabis, and that criminalization of this product not only denies law-abiding citizens its wonderful properties, but necessarily brings along a whole host of collateral consequences readily evident to anybody who has surveyed the damage caused by the so-called &#8220;war on drugs.&#8221; I find nothing in our faith&#8217;s doctrine that suggests this plant be made illegal, and ample societal evidences to suggest that it should not be.</p>
<p>I come at this from a different perspective than some. I am not hostile to the LDS Church, nor am I an unbeliever. I am a committed Mormon and love our theology. It is rich, inspiring, and wonderful. I am a firm believer and committed (though quite imperfect) disciple of Christ.</p>
<p>But I also believe that leaders of the church, though definitely well intentioned, are <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-lords-leaders-are-fallible-and-thats-okay">not always conduits of revelation</a>; their decisions and beliefs are not, in every single case, a reflection of God&#8217;s will. So I am comfortable in my belief while still providing for the leaders of my church taking incorrect positions—even ones that harm many Utahns through maintaining criminalization of cannabis.</p>
<p>Hopefully the near future will be one in which church leaders will be open to considering new evidence, hearing from members directly and positively impacted by the use of cannabis. There are many. And they don&#8217;t deserve to be punished for using wholesome herbs ordained by God to help them.</p>
<p>With or without the Church&#8217;s support, Utah&#8217;s law will soon be altered to provide for the legal, medicinal use of cannabis. Of that I am certain. It&#8217;s the right thing to do.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1475445710;}i:1;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:41:"Sex and the State: An Analysis of Consent";s:4:"link";s:73:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/sex-and-the-state-an-analysis-of-consent";s:8:"comments";s:82:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/sex-and-the-state-an-analysis-of-consent#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Wed, 11 May 2016 14:40:14 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:12:"MiscPolitics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3447";s:11:"description";s:356:"One of the most fundamental aspects of a legitimate government is having the consent of the governed—a point made clear in the Declaration of Independence. But you and I have never had a meaningful opportunity to consent to being ruled by the state. Proponents of the elusive and undefined &#8220;social contract theory&#8221; concoct all sorts [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:5082:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/sexconsent2.jpg"/></p>
<p>One of the most fundamental aspects of a legitimate government is having the consent of the governed—a point made clear in the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/">Declaration of Independence</a>. But you and I have never had a meaningful opportunity to consent to being ruled by the state. </p>
<p>Proponents of the elusive and undefined &#8220;social contract theory&#8221; concoct all sorts of mind-bending ideas to justify the plainly obvious fact that not all of the state&#8217;s subjects have provided consent. While much has been written in response to these ideas, it may be useful to analyze their arguments by substituting political rule for a situation in which every sane person agrees that consent is required: sexual intercourse.</p>
<p>We are often told that explicit consent to be governed is not necessary or practical, and that <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#ConPolOblEndGov">tacit consent</a> is sufficient—as if our unwillingness to abandon our home and distance ourselves from a certain group of elected officials is a signal that we consent to their exercise of power over us. This is like saying rape is fine so long as the woman fails to flee her abuser—an obviously preposterous position to take. </p>
<p>It is also claimed that participation in the process of government constitutes consent—that voting, for example, is an indicator of consent. <a href="http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-323-does-the-constitution-bind-anyone/">Lysander Spooner famously demolished</a> this claim, noting that not everybody who is governed can vote, not everybody who can vote does, and that many of those who do vote are acting out of self-defense with no intention of giving consent to the entire affair. Those who advance this flawed argument might similarly claim that a woman who agrees to go out with a man consents to whatever he might choose to do to her as the night progresses. We shudder at the thought, and yet it&#8217;s that thought that serves as the foundation of statism.</p>
<p>Others have argued that unanimous consent is impractical or, <a href="http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-8.html">as John Locke said</a>, &#8220;next [to] impossible ever to be had.&#8221; Thus, rational creatures must be governed by a mere majority vote. Consent, then, is not of the governed, but of the majority of those who participate in the government&#8217;s process. This is an argument of convenience, not actual consent. It&#8217;s akin to arguing that a woman&#8217;s consent to sexual relations some of the time is approval for doing it at any time—or, worse, that the consent of some women is sufficient to assume that all women consent to intercourse with a man. Inconvenience for an individual or government does not justify circumventing actual consent.</p>
<p>Imagine, however, that consent to be governed was somehow at one point given. Can it be withdrawn? Or does the government set the terms and effectively <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/27/why-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters/">disregard any revocation of consent</a>? Would we expect that a woman who in the past consented to intercourse with a lover forever be forced into a sexual relationship with him in perpetuity?</p>
<p>Moving on from the nature of consent, we must address the question of what, exactly, we are consenting to. Are there terms and conditions anywhere written? In cases of an actual contract, the agreement is listed out in detail so that all parties are fully informed. No such list exists for the state; we supposedly consent to whatever is done by those in power, going so far as to bestow their majoritarian mandates with the sacrosanct label of &#8220;law.&#8221; This conjures up an image of Warren Jeffs making young women submit to his every whim, wrapping his sexual deviance in the color of religious authority. His harem didn&#8217;t know what they were in for—they simply knew that they must obey.</p>
<p>This takes us to the final point: why <em>should</em> we consent? Just as we might advise a battered wife to deny the sexual advances of her predatory partner, we should withhold consent from a group of men—call it a government—that imprison, steal from, and kill innocent people. We, the governed, have <em>not</em> consented; no such opportunity has been provided us. Our support for the state is a false presumption cloaking it in an aura of authority that does not actually exist. </p>
<p>&#8220;Yes means yes&#8221; has become the mantra of those fighting against sexual abuse by aggressors. The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8">inverse implication</a> is equally important: no means no. The state&#8217;s lack of consent from those who are governed by it means, quite simply, that the very institution operates outside the boundaries of law and morality. It is effectively a political rapist.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:78:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/sex-and-the-state-an-analysis-of-consent/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"19";}s:7:"summary";s:356:"One of the most fundamental aspects of a legitimate government is having the consent of the governed—a point made clear in the Declaration of Independence. But you and I have never had a meaningful opportunity to consent to being ruled by the state. Proponents of the elusive and undefined &#8220;social contract theory&#8221; concoct all sorts [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:5082:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/sexconsent2.jpg"/></p>
<p>One of the most fundamental aspects of a legitimate government is having the consent of the governed—a point made clear in the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/">Declaration of Independence</a>. But you and I have never had a meaningful opportunity to consent to being ruled by the state. </p>
<p>Proponents of the elusive and undefined &#8220;social contract theory&#8221; concoct all sorts of mind-bending ideas to justify the plainly obvious fact that not all of the state&#8217;s subjects have provided consent. While much has been written in response to these ideas, it may be useful to analyze their arguments by substituting political rule for a situation in which every sane person agrees that consent is required: sexual intercourse.</p>
<p>We are often told that explicit consent to be governed is not necessary or practical, and that <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#ConPolOblEndGov">tacit consent</a> is sufficient—as if our unwillingness to abandon our home and distance ourselves from a certain group of elected officials is a signal that we consent to their exercise of power over us. This is like saying rape is fine so long as the woman fails to flee her abuser—an obviously preposterous position to take. </p>
<p>It is also claimed that participation in the process of government constitutes consent—that voting, for example, is an indicator of consent. <a href="http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-323-does-the-constitution-bind-anyone/">Lysander Spooner famously demolished</a> this claim, noting that not everybody who is governed can vote, not everybody who can vote does, and that many of those who do vote are acting out of self-defense with no intention of giving consent to the entire affair. Those who advance this flawed argument might similarly claim that a woman who agrees to go out with a man consents to whatever he might choose to do to her as the night progresses. We shudder at the thought, and yet it&#8217;s that thought that serves as the foundation of statism.</p>
<p>Others have argued that unanimous consent is impractical or, <a href="http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-8.html">as John Locke said</a>, &#8220;next [to] impossible ever to be had.&#8221; Thus, rational creatures must be governed by a mere majority vote. Consent, then, is not of the governed, but of the majority of those who participate in the government&#8217;s process. This is an argument of convenience, not actual consent. It&#8217;s akin to arguing that a woman&#8217;s consent to sexual relations some of the time is approval for doing it at any time—or, worse, that the consent of some women is sufficient to assume that all women consent to intercourse with a man. Inconvenience for an individual or government does not justify circumventing actual consent.</p>
<p>Imagine, however, that consent to be governed was somehow at one point given. Can it be withdrawn? Or does the government set the terms and effectively <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/27/why-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters/">disregard any revocation of consent</a>? Would we expect that a woman who in the past consented to intercourse with a lover forever be forced into a sexual relationship with him in perpetuity?</p>
<p>Moving on from the nature of consent, we must address the question of what, exactly, we are consenting to. Are there terms and conditions anywhere written? In cases of an actual contract, the agreement is listed out in detail so that all parties are fully informed. No such list exists for the state; we supposedly consent to whatever is done by those in power, going so far as to bestow their majoritarian mandates with the sacrosanct label of &#8220;law.&#8221; This conjures up an image of Warren Jeffs making young women submit to his every whim, wrapping his sexual deviance in the color of religious authority. His harem didn&#8217;t know what they were in for—they simply knew that they must obey.</p>
<p>This takes us to the final point: why <em>should</em> we consent? Just as we might advise a battered wife to deny the sexual advances of her predatory partner, we should withhold consent from a group of men—call it a government—that imprison, steal from, and kill innocent people. We, the governed, have <em>not</em> consented; no such opportunity has been provided us. Our support for the state is a false presumption cloaking it in an aura of authority that does not actually exist. </p>
<p>&#8220;Yes means yes&#8221; has become the mantra of those fighting against sexual abuse by aggressors. The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8">inverse implication</a> is equally important: no means no. The state&#8217;s lack of consent from those who are governed by it means, quite simply, that the very institution operates outside the boundaries of law and morality. It is effectively a political rapist.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1462977614;}i:2;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:44:"The Great and Abominable Church… of Caesar";s:4:"link";s:74:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-great-and-abominable-church-of-caesar";s:8:"comments";s:83:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-great-and-abominable-church-of-caesar#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 11 Jan 2016 01:33:45 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3440";s:11:"description";s:355:"Two prophets, half a world and hundreds of centuries apart, were shown a detailed vision of the future. Nephi and John&#8217;s shared experience detailed many significant events, some of which yet remain in our future. And while Nephi was instructed not to document much of what he saw, the complete task fell to John—the (altered) result of [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:12592:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/fb/renderc.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Two prophets, half a world and hundreds of centuries apart, were shown a detailed vision of the future. Nephi and John&#8217;s shared experience detailed many significant events, some of which yet remain in our future. And while Nephi was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.24-28#23">instructed not to document</a> much of what he saw, the complete task fell to John—the (altered) result of which we have in the book titled <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/1?lang=eng">Revelation</a>.</p>
<p>John&#8217;s imagery paints for us a great battle between two churches—two groups of people: the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of the devil. This divine duel, which predates our mortal experience, unfolds with apocalyptic controversy in the pages of scripture. It is the only real conquest that has ever existed, though adapted and fictionalized by many great writers: good versus evil; light versus darkness; Jehovah and His followers versus Lucifer and his subjects.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, John&#8217;s writings are difficult to interpret, and thus a stumbling block in our effort to make sense of their modern application. Though &#8220;<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.23#22">plain and pure, and most preciously and easy to the understanding of all men</a>&#8221; when John had finished his task, a &#8220;great and abominable church&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.26-29#25">corrupted it</a>. So just who, or what, is this great and abominable church?</p>
<p><span id="more-3440"></span></p>
<p>The identity of this group has long been the subject of speculation and, while I don&#8217;t claim to speak with any authority, I do believe that previous guesses have missed the mark—and that my belief offers a perspective that seems to not have been considered by most Latter-day Saints. For some time, chiefly due to Elder Bruce R. McConkie&#8217;s opinion, many believed that this nefarious &#8220;church&#8221;—referred to as Babylon in John&#8217;s writings—was the Roman Catholic Church. (This opinion being published as part of the authoritatively titled <em>Mormon Doctrine</em> led to its widespread adoption as the correct interpretation of the identity of the enemy in Nephi and John&#8217;s visions.)</p>
<p>This position has now been discredited. And yet, others affirm that the great and abominable church includes actual churches, and potentially other organizations. &#8220;No single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng">writes</a> Stephen E. Robinson, a popular Mormon author in the LDS Church&#8217;s official magazine. He continues: &#8220;Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times.&#8221; This vague interpretation of nameless and ever-changing actors is unsatisfying, much like clergy attempting to <a href="http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/c02.htm">describe God</a> as &#8220;a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions.&#8221; We must first know our enemy in order to defeat it.</p>
<p>The enemy is, and ever has been, Caesar—an abstraction referring to mortal and secular government, or &#8220;the state.&#8221;</p>
<p>Membership in God&#8217;s kingdom is exclusive and requires renouncing membership in, and allegiance to, the enemy&#8217;s kingdom. <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.10#9">Thus we read</a> that &#8220;there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.&#8221;</p>
<p>This &#8220;whore of all the earth,&#8221; which John similarly stated (as if to refer to its global presence) &#8220;<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/17.1?lang=eng#primary">sitteth upon many waters</a>,&#8221; was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/10.16?lang=eng#15">identified</a> by Nephi&#8217;s brother Jacob as &#8220;he that fighteth against Zion,&#8221; since, as God said, &#8220;they who are not for me are against me.&#8221; But Babylon is not comprised, by default, of every person who isn&#8217;t a baptized, faithful Latter-day Saint. It&#8217;s they who &#8220;fight,&#8221; or perhaps compete, against God. Who contends for man&#8217;s allegiance, reverence, and glory? Who claims power to rule, and dominion over the earth? Who dethrones God to exalt himself as deity? Caesar.</p>
<p>If the great and abominable church&#8217;s membership is comprised of those who fight against God&#8217;s kingdom, consider the apostle Paul&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/6.12#11">description</a> of who he and the Saints were fighting against: &#8220;principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high <span class="clarityWord">places.&#8221; Put simply, the Saints were—and are—fighting against their respective Caesars who are institutionalizing the devil&#8217;s attempt to gain ground on the kingdom of God.</span></p>
<p>When Lucifer attempted to tempt Jesus, he approached him while he was high on a mountain, surveying the many kingdoms below. &#8220;All this power will I give thee,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/4.6#5">the devil said</a>, &#8220;and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.&#8221; Recall that the whore was not an amorphous label given sometimes to churches, and other times to &#8220;agencies&#8221; and &#8220;ideologies&#8221;—<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.11?lang=eng#10">it had</a> &#8220;dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.&#8221;</p>
<p>The leader of this great and abominable church was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/12.31#30">often</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/14.30#29">referred</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/16.11#10">to</a> by Christ as &#8220;the prince of this world&#8221;—perhaps an attestation to the influence he (temporarily) had. Lucifer gains power, oppresses others, corrupts the Saints, promotes the wicked, and institutionalizes evil through the use of government—through the forceful rule over men by other men. Satan&#8217;s control of earthly institutions of power—governments—was never disputed. It has, however, been <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-and-teachings-of-jesus-and-his-apostles/section-12-johns-witness-of-the-church-triumphant/chapter-55-the-kingdoms-of-this-world-are-become-the-kingdoms-of-our-lord?lang=eng">affirmed</a> by a modern prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith:</p>
<blockquote><p>Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the president of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan himself.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe that members or leaders of other churches, past or present, fit the characteristics of the great and abominable church—a group of oppressive, power-hungry people who fight (or act in opposition to, or compete against) God&#8217;s followers. When said churches have colluded with the government—when heads of state have become heads of religions—then we see these evils. And when church and state are separate, the latter still fits the bill, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/22.23#22">getting</a> &#8220;gain&#8221; and &#8220;power over the flesh,&#8221; seeking the &#8220;lusts of the flesh and the things of the world,&#8221; and doing &#8220;all manner of iniquity.&#8221;</p>
<p>One must also wonder if Nephi and John, looking forward to a future world with which they were completely unfamiliar, described governments as churches in part due to their shared appearances; Caesar&#8217;s counterfeits have produced statist <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Capitol_Building_Full_View.jpg">temples</a>, <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Supreme_Court_US_2010.jpg">robes</a>, <a href="http://www.trbimg.com/img-526a98c1/turbine/fl-new-election-precincts-20131026-001/2048/2048x1091">liturgy</a>, <a href="http://help.heinonline.org/wp-content/uploads/help/uscodesupp.jpeg">canonized texts</a>, and <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Obama_swearing_in.JPG">sacraments</a>. High priests and parishioners alike <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-now-remain-silent-during-the-pledge-of-allegiance">pledge their allegiance</a> and declare their submission to Caesar on an ongoing basis.</p>
<p>But no man can serve two masters, so it&#8217;s not surprising to see revered prophets taking sides in the eternal contest between Christ and Caesar, defying the mandates of men and the corruption of Lucifer. They declared themselves citizens in the kingdom of God, subject to Christ, and an enemy to Satan. Moses defied Pharaoh; Jeremiah rebuked Jehoiakim; Mary and Joseph fled from Herod&#8217;s murderous mandate, and Moses&#8217; mother likewise disobediently preserved her son&#8217;s life; Daniel rejected King Darius&#8217;s decree; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego chose God over Nebuchadnezzar; and many other examples affirm that worldly powers—wickedness encouraged and coordinated by the devil—fight against God. One scriptural story after another elevates a prophetic hero in the reader&#8217;s eyes specifically because he rebelled against the Caesar of his day.</p>
<p>Peter faced the same opposition. After Christ&#8217;s crucifixion—an action worthy of the great and abominable church—the Sadducees schemed as to how to quell the ecclesiastical opposition. “Let us straitly threaten them,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/4.17#16">they said</a>, &#8220;that they speak henceforth to no man in [Christ&#8217;s] name.” And that’s what they did.</p>
<div class="page" title="Page 98">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p>But Peter and his apostolic associates continued defying the &#8220;whore&#8221; that fought them; missionary work continued, as did the miracles. And in response, the high priest and his fellow Sadducees on the council (that held political authority) “were filled with indignation,” fueling their animosity enough to actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.17-18?lang=eng#16">seize and incarcerate</a> the religious renegades.</p>
<p>Later brought before the council, Peter was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.27-29?lang=eng#26">questioned</a> as to why he had defied their threats. “Did we not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in [Christ’s] name?” Peter’s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.29?lang=eng#28">response</a> provides the theological foundation upon which Christians have defied Caesar in succeeding centuries: “<em>We ought to obey God rather than men.</em>”</p>
<p>No man can serve two masters. Caesar and God both demand our allegiance. The great and abominable church, or Babylon, or the great whore—the organized oppression of men by one another through earthly rulers and political institutions—does not tolerate individuals who pledge allegiance to God and claim citizenship in His kingdom alone.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>This competition—this fight against Zion—will come to a head, as described throughout scripture, and in Nephi and John&#8217;s visions. Babylon the great <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/18?lang=eng">ultimately</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.18?lang=eng#17">falls</a>, for every knee must bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus is the Christ. Caesar&#8217;s worldly dominion melts away in an instant, as He who reigns replaces all the counterfeit competition.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:79:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-great-and-abominable-church-of-caesar/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"24";}s:7:"summary";s:355:"Two prophets, half a world and hundreds of centuries apart, were shown a detailed vision of the future. Nephi and John&#8217;s shared experience detailed many significant events, some of which yet remain in our future. And while Nephi was instructed not to document much of what he saw, the complete task fell to John—the (altered) result of [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:12592:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/fb/renderc.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Two prophets, half a world and hundreds of centuries apart, were shown a detailed vision of the future. Nephi and John&#8217;s shared experience detailed many significant events, some of which yet remain in our future. And while Nephi was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.24-28#23">instructed not to document</a> much of what he saw, the complete task fell to John—the (altered) result of which we have in the book titled <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/1?lang=eng">Revelation</a>.</p>
<p>John&#8217;s imagery paints for us a great battle between two churches—two groups of people: the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of the devil. This divine duel, which predates our mortal experience, unfolds with apocalyptic controversy in the pages of scripture. It is the only real conquest that has ever existed, though adapted and fictionalized by many great writers: good versus evil; light versus darkness; Jehovah and His followers versus Lucifer and his subjects.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, John&#8217;s writings are difficult to interpret, and thus a stumbling block in our effort to make sense of their modern application. Though &#8220;<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.23#22">plain and pure, and most preciously and easy to the understanding of all men</a>&#8221; when John had finished his task, a &#8220;great and abominable church&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.26-29#25">corrupted it</a>. So just who, or what, is this great and abominable church?</p>
<p><span id="more-3440"></span></p>
<p>The identity of this group has long been the subject of speculation and, while I don&#8217;t claim to speak with any authority, I do believe that previous guesses have missed the mark—and that my belief offers a perspective that seems to not have been considered by most Latter-day Saints. For some time, chiefly due to Elder Bruce R. McConkie&#8217;s opinion, many believed that this nefarious &#8220;church&#8221;—referred to as Babylon in John&#8217;s writings—was the Roman Catholic Church. (This opinion being published as part of the authoritatively titled <em>Mormon Doctrine</em> led to its widespread adoption as the correct interpretation of the identity of the enemy in Nephi and John&#8217;s visions.)</p>
<p>This position has now been discredited. And yet, others affirm that the great and abominable church includes actual churches, and potentially other organizations. &#8220;No single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng">writes</a> Stephen E. Robinson, a popular Mormon author in the LDS Church&#8217;s official magazine. He continues: &#8220;Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times.&#8221; This vague interpretation of nameless and ever-changing actors is unsatisfying, much like clergy attempting to <a href="http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/c02.htm">describe God</a> as &#8220;a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions.&#8221; We must first know our enemy in order to defeat it.</p>
<p>The enemy is, and ever has been, Caesar—an abstraction referring to mortal and secular government, or &#8220;the state.&#8221;</p>
<p>Membership in God&#8217;s kingdom is exclusive and requires renouncing membership in, and allegiance to, the enemy&#8217;s kingdom. <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.10#9">Thus we read</a> that &#8220;there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.&#8221;</p>
<p>This &#8220;whore of all the earth,&#8221; which John similarly stated (as if to refer to its global presence) &#8220;<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/17.1?lang=eng#primary">sitteth upon many waters</a>,&#8221; was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/10.16?lang=eng#15">identified</a> by Nephi&#8217;s brother Jacob as &#8220;he that fighteth against Zion,&#8221; since, as God said, &#8220;they who are not for me are against me.&#8221; But Babylon is not comprised, by default, of every person who isn&#8217;t a baptized, faithful Latter-day Saint. It&#8217;s they who &#8220;fight,&#8221; or perhaps compete, against God. Who contends for man&#8217;s allegiance, reverence, and glory? Who claims power to rule, and dominion over the earth? Who dethrones God to exalt himself as deity? Caesar.</p>
<p>If the great and abominable church&#8217;s membership is comprised of those who fight against God&#8217;s kingdom, consider the apostle Paul&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/6.12#11">description</a> of who he and the Saints were fighting against: &#8220;principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high <span class="clarityWord">places.&#8221; Put simply, the Saints were—and are—fighting against their respective Caesars who are institutionalizing the devil&#8217;s attempt to gain ground on the kingdom of God.</span></p>
<p>When Lucifer attempted to tempt Jesus, he approached him while he was high on a mountain, surveying the many kingdoms below. &#8220;All this power will I give thee,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/4.6#5">the devil said</a>, &#8220;and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.&#8221; Recall that the whore was not an amorphous label given sometimes to churches, and other times to &#8220;agencies&#8221; and &#8220;ideologies&#8221;—<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.11?lang=eng#10">it had</a> &#8220;dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.&#8221;</p>
<p>The leader of this great and abominable church was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/12.31#30">often</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/14.30#29">referred</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/16.11#10">to</a> by Christ as &#8220;the prince of this world&#8221;—perhaps an attestation to the influence he (temporarily) had. Lucifer gains power, oppresses others, corrupts the Saints, promotes the wicked, and institutionalizes evil through the use of government—through the forceful rule over men by other men. Satan&#8217;s control of earthly institutions of power—governments—was never disputed. It has, however, been <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-and-teachings-of-jesus-and-his-apostles/section-12-johns-witness-of-the-church-triumphant/chapter-55-the-kingdoms-of-this-world-are-become-the-kingdoms-of-our-lord?lang=eng">affirmed</a> by a modern prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith:</p>
<blockquote><p>Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the president of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan himself.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe that members or leaders of other churches, past or present, fit the characteristics of the great and abominable church—a group of oppressive, power-hungry people who fight (or act in opposition to, or compete against) God&#8217;s followers. When said churches have colluded with the government—when heads of state have become heads of religions—then we see these evils. And when church and state are separate, the latter still fits the bill, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/22.23#22">getting</a> &#8220;gain&#8221; and &#8220;power over the flesh,&#8221; seeking the &#8220;lusts of the flesh and the things of the world,&#8221; and doing &#8220;all manner of iniquity.&#8221;</p>
<p>One must also wonder if Nephi and John, looking forward to a future world with which they were completely unfamiliar, described governments as churches in part due to their shared appearances; Caesar&#8217;s counterfeits have produced statist <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Capitol_Building_Full_View.jpg">temples</a>, <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Supreme_Court_US_2010.jpg">robes</a>, <a href="http://www.trbimg.com/img-526a98c1/turbine/fl-new-election-precincts-20131026-001/2048/2048x1091">liturgy</a>, <a href="http://help.heinonline.org/wp-content/uploads/help/uscodesupp.jpeg">canonized texts</a>, and <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Obama_swearing_in.JPG">sacraments</a>. High priests and parishioners alike <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-now-remain-silent-during-the-pledge-of-allegiance">pledge their allegiance</a> and declare their submission to Caesar on an ongoing basis.</p>
<p>But no man can serve two masters, so it&#8217;s not surprising to see revered prophets taking sides in the eternal contest between Christ and Caesar, defying the mandates of men and the corruption of Lucifer. They declared themselves citizens in the kingdom of God, subject to Christ, and an enemy to Satan. Moses defied Pharaoh; Jeremiah rebuked Jehoiakim; Mary and Joseph fled from Herod&#8217;s murderous mandate, and Moses&#8217; mother likewise disobediently preserved her son&#8217;s life; Daniel rejected King Darius&#8217;s decree; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego chose God over Nebuchadnezzar; and many other examples affirm that worldly powers—wickedness encouraged and coordinated by the devil—fight against God. One scriptural story after another elevates a prophetic hero in the reader&#8217;s eyes specifically because he rebelled against the Caesar of his day.</p>
<p>Peter faced the same opposition. After Christ&#8217;s crucifixion—an action worthy of the great and abominable church—the Sadducees schemed as to how to quell the ecclesiastical opposition. “Let us straitly threaten them,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/4.17#16">they said</a>, &#8220;that they speak henceforth to no man in [Christ&#8217;s] name.” And that’s what they did.</p>
<div class="page" title="Page 98">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p>But Peter and his apostolic associates continued defying the &#8220;whore&#8221; that fought them; missionary work continued, as did the miracles. And in response, the high priest and his fellow Sadducees on the council (that held political authority) “were filled with indignation,” fueling their animosity enough to actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.17-18?lang=eng#16">seize and incarcerate</a> the religious renegades.</p>
<p>Later brought before the council, Peter was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.27-29?lang=eng#26">questioned</a> as to why he had defied their threats. “Did we not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in [Christ’s] name?” Peter’s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.29?lang=eng#28">response</a> provides the theological foundation upon which Christians have defied Caesar in succeeding centuries: “<em>We ought to obey God rather than men.</em>”</p>
<p>No man can serve two masters. Caesar and God both demand our allegiance. The great and abominable church, or Babylon, or the great whore—the organized oppression of men by one another through earthly rulers and political institutions—does not tolerate individuals who pledge allegiance to God and claim citizenship in His kingdom alone.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>This competition—this fight against Zion—will come to a head, as described throughout scripture, and in Nephi and John&#8217;s visions. Babylon the great <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/18?lang=eng">ultimately</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.18?lang=eng#17">falls</a>, for every knee must bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus is the Christ. Caesar&#8217;s worldly dominion melts away in an instant, as He who reigns replaces all the counterfeit competition.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1452476025;}i:3;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:61:"Religion and the State: Can Latter-day Man Serve Two Masters?";s:4:"link";s:92:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/religion-and-the-state-can-latter-day-man-serve-two-masters";s:8:"comments";s:101:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/religion-and-the-state-can-latter-day-man-serve-two-masters#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:39:41 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3419";s:11:"description";s:384:"Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus Christ. It was thought by many Sadducees—the aristocratic class controlling the Sanhedrin, Israel&#8217;s highest political body—that this act would squash the uprising and neutralize the threat to their power. They thought wrong. You see, Peter had found his voice; having denied the living Christ, he finally mustered the courage [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:8150:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/capitoltemple.jpg" alt=""/></p>
<p>Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus Christ. It was thought by many Sadducees—the aristocratic class controlling the Sanhedrin, Israel&#8217;s highest political body—that this act would squash the uprising and neutralize the threat to their power. They thought wrong.</p>
<p>You see, Peter had found his voice; having denied the living Christ, he finally mustered the courage to boldly proclaim Christ crucified. The message was carried on, much to the dismay of the ruling elite in Jerusalem.</p>
<p>&#8220;What shall we do to these men?&#8221; they <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/4.16#15">asked</a> themselves, scheming how to react anew to this persistent perturbance. &#8220;Let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.&#8221;&nbsp;And that&#8217;s what they did.</p>
<p>But Peter and his apostolic associates continued in their work, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ to carry his gospel to the four corners of the Earth. The teaching continued, as did the miracles. And in response, the high priest and his fellow Sadducees on the council &#8220;were filled with indignation,&#8221; fueling their animosity enough to actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.17-18?lang=eng#16">seize and incarcerate</a> the religious renegades.</p>
<p><span id="more-3419"></span></p>
<p>Later brought before the council, Peter was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.27-29?lang=eng#26">questioned</a> as to why he had defied their threats. &#8220;Did we&nbsp;not we straitly command&nbsp;you that ye should not teach in [Christ&#8217;s]&nbsp;name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s&nbsp;blood&nbsp;upon us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Peter&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.29?lang=eng#28">response</a> provides the theological foundation upon which Christians have defied unjust decrees in succeeding centuries: &#8220;<em>We ought to obey God rather than men.</em>&#8221;</p>
<p>Jesus Christ himself avoided the murderous mandate of a corrupt government when, following God&#8217;s counsel, his family&nbsp;fled to Egypt to escape the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM">democide</a> King Herod ordered upon male infants two years of age and younger. &nbsp;Later in life, he all but ignored the ruling regime as he went about his Father&#8217;s business.</p>
<p>It makes sense why; Christ himself explained in explicit detail that loyalties cannot be split. &#8220;No man can serve two masters,&#8221; he said in his Sermon on the Mount, &#8220;for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.&#8221; Especially when competing powers pit themselves against one another—God and the state—it becomes clear that, as Peter indicated, it is better to disregard the political pressures of one&#8217;s peers in favor of following the divine course.</p>
<p>&#8220;But shouldn&#8217;t we submit to the state?&#8221; Latter-day Saints ask along with their confused counterparts from two millennia ago.&nbsp;&#8220;Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/20.22?lang=eng#21">or no</a>?&#8221; Again, Christ&#8217;s counsel cut to the heart of the <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/">issue</a>: &#8220;Render therefore unto&nbsp;Caesar the&nbsp;things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.&#8221; This leaves to the reader the operative question of&nbsp;<em>what</em> belongs to the proverbial Caesars in our day—which of their claims and mandates deserve our loyalty, and when.</p>
<p>If everything belongs to God—a concept supported by <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ps/24.1?lang=eng#0">ancient</a> and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/4.22?lang=eng#21">modern</a> scripture—the question readily answers itself.</p>
<p>Governments throughout history have had an abysmal&nbsp;and&nbsp;tragic&nbsp;track record. The&nbsp;list is as depressing&nbsp;as it is endless—states of all sizes have imprisoned political dissenters, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide">exterminated</a> undesirables, suppressed conscience, confiscated property, devaluated currency, and otherwise been the instigators of injustice and immorality. Operating on&nbsp;the theoretical basis of protecting rights, governments have repeatedly proven themselves to be&nbsp;the chief <em>violators</em> of individual rights—the disease masquerading as the cure.</p>
<p>Even in the so-called &#8220;land of the free,&#8221; the government plunders property, police kill innocent people, bureaucrats force people out of business, legislators break apart families by incarcerating the breadwinners over non-violent offenses against the state&#8217;s&nbsp;vision of society, and faceless foreigners are&nbsp;consistently killed, written off as collateral damage in a siege of never-ending international conflict, now orchestrated by unseen demons from the sky. These brief examples don&#8217;t do justice to the magnitude of the problem, and the degree to which the U.S. Constitution has utterly failed to restrain government power.</p>
<p>And yet Latter-day Saints are sometimes encouraged to serve both God and state. Take, for example, a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/07/religion-and-government?lang=eng"><em>Ensign</em> article</a>&nbsp;titled &#8220;Religion and Government.&#8221; Readers are told that religion is &#8220;most successful and most effective&#8221; when it &#8220;protect[s] and encourage[s]&#8221; the government. &#8220;A complete divorce&#8221; of religion and government, on the other hand, &#8220;is healthy for neither.&#8221; Properly implemented, the article&#8217;s author asserts, religion &#8220;encourages good citizenship and adherence to the law of the land.&#8221;</p>
<p>What if the &#8220;law of the land&#8221; compels a Christian photographer or baker to participate in and support a homosexual marriage service?</p>
<p>What if the law requires a Christian to be conscripted into killing innocent people half a world away in an unjust military intervention?</p>
<p>What if the law requires a horribly sick, bed-ridden mother of young children to steer clear of a natural plant that can bring her relief where pharmaceuticals couldn&#8217;t, and restore quality of life to her entire family?</p>
<p>What if the law criminalizes speech or condones slavery?</p>
<p>What if the law legalizes the theft of property, outlaws prayer, sanctions the murder of unborn children, or censors evidence of government corruption?</p>
<p>What if the law has been substituted for the <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/modern-day-gadiantonism-government-by-the-laws-of-wickedness">laws of wickedness</a>, allowing Gadiantons to gain control?</p>
<p>Shall we submit in each case, and in so doing be considered a good religionist—a model Latter-day Saint?</p>
<p>There have been, and will continue to be, times in&nbsp;which men&#8217;s loyalty is split between&nbsp;masters: God and the state. Unqualified subservience to the latter—whether out of fear, duty, or ignorance—is to place the former in secondary status. It is tantamount to disagreeing with Peter, saying instead that &#8220;We ought to obey men&nbsp;rather than God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just as rendering unto Caesar requires understanding what he&#8217;s actually due, learning&nbsp;which laws actually deserve our loyalty requires an analysis deeper than the several seconds it would be afforded in Sunday School. Inquiring minds can <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">start here</a>.</p>
<p>Religion needs government like a battered wife needs her abusive husband. Maybe a divorce is not the &#8220;healthy&#8221; option, but it&#8217;s best to stay as far away as possible until there is any valid reason to associate with it.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:97:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/religion-and-the-state-can-latter-day-man-serve-two-masters/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"26";}s:7:"summary";s:384:"Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus Christ. It was thought by many Sadducees—the aristocratic class controlling the Sanhedrin, Israel&#8217;s highest political body—that this act would squash the uprising and neutralize the threat to their power. They thought wrong. You see, Peter had found his voice; having denied the living Christ, he finally mustered the courage [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:8150:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/capitoltemple.jpg" alt=""/></p>
<p>Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus Christ. It was thought by many Sadducees—the aristocratic class controlling the Sanhedrin, Israel&#8217;s highest political body—that this act would squash the uprising and neutralize the threat to their power. They thought wrong.</p>
<p>You see, Peter had found his voice; having denied the living Christ, he finally mustered the courage to boldly proclaim Christ crucified. The message was carried on, much to the dismay of the ruling elite in Jerusalem.</p>
<p>&#8220;What shall we do to these men?&#8221; they <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/4.16#15">asked</a> themselves, scheming how to react anew to this persistent perturbance. &#8220;Let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.&#8221;&nbsp;And that&#8217;s what they did.</p>
<p>But Peter and his apostolic associates continued in their work, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ to carry his gospel to the four corners of the Earth. The teaching continued, as did the miracles. And in response, the high priest and his fellow Sadducees on the council &#8220;were filled with indignation,&#8221; fueling their animosity enough to actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.17-18?lang=eng#16">seize and incarcerate</a> the religious renegades.</p>
<p><span id="more-3419"></span></p>
<p>Later brought before the council, Peter was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.27-29?lang=eng#26">questioned</a> as to why he had defied their threats. &#8220;Did we&nbsp;not we straitly command&nbsp;you that ye should not teach in [Christ&#8217;s]&nbsp;name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s&nbsp;blood&nbsp;upon us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Peter&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.29?lang=eng#28">response</a> provides the theological foundation upon which Christians have defied unjust decrees in succeeding centuries: &#8220;<em>We ought to obey God rather than men.</em>&#8221;</p>
<p>Jesus Christ himself avoided the murderous mandate of a corrupt government when, following God&#8217;s counsel, his family&nbsp;fled to Egypt to escape the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM">democide</a> King Herod ordered upon male infants two years of age and younger. &nbsp;Later in life, he all but ignored the ruling regime as he went about his Father&#8217;s business.</p>
<p>It makes sense why; Christ himself explained in explicit detail that loyalties cannot be split. &#8220;No man can serve two masters,&#8221; he said in his Sermon on the Mount, &#8220;for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.&#8221; Especially when competing powers pit themselves against one another—God and the state—it becomes clear that, as Peter indicated, it is better to disregard the political pressures of one&#8217;s peers in favor of following the divine course.</p>
<p>&#8220;But shouldn&#8217;t we submit to the state?&#8221; Latter-day Saints ask along with their confused counterparts from two millennia ago.&nbsp;&#8220;Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/20.22?lang=eng#21">or no</a>?&#8221; Again, Christ&#8217;s counsel cut to the heart of the <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/">issue</a>: &#8220;Render therefore unto&nbsp;Caesar the&nbsp;things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.&#8221; This leaves to the reader the operative question of&nbsp;<em>what</em> belongs to the proverbial Caesars in our day—which of their claims and mandates deserve our loyalty, and when.</p>
<p>If everything belongs to God—a concept supported by <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ps/24.1?lang=eng#0">ancient</a> and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/4.22?lang=eng#21">modern</a> scripture—the question readily answers itself.</p>
<p>Governments throughout history have had an abysmal&nbsp;and&nbsp;tragic&nbsp;track record. The&nbsp;list is as depressing&nbsp;as it is endless—states of all sizes have imprisoned political dissenters, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide">exterminated</a> undesirables, suppressed conscience, confiscated property, devaluated currency, and otherwise been the instigators of injustice and immorality. Operating on&nbsp;the theoretical basis of protecting rights, governments have repeatedly proven themselves to be&nbsp;the chief <em>violators</em> of individual rights—the disease masquerading as the cure.</p>
<p>Even in the so-called &#8220;land of the free,&#8221; the government plunders property, police kill innocent people, bureaucrats force people out of business, legislators break apart families by incarcerating the breadwinners over non-violent offenses against the state&#8217;s&nbsp;vision of society, and faceless foreigners are&nbsp;consistently killed, written off as collateral damage in a siege of never-ending international conflict, now orchestrated by unseen demons from the sky. These brief examples don&#8217;t do justice to the magnitude of the problem, and the degree to which the U.S. Constitution has utterly failed to restrain government power.</p>
<p>And yet Latter-day Saints are sometimes encouraged to serve both God and state. Take, for example, a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/07/religion-and-government?lang=eng"><em>Ensign</em> article</a>&nbsp;titled &#8220;Religion and Government.&#8221; Readers are told that religion is &#8220;most successful and most effective&#8221; when it &#8220;protect[s] and encourage[s]&#8221; the government. &#8220;A complete divorce&#8221; of religion and government, on the other hand, &#8220;is healthy for neither.&#8221; Properly implemented, the article&#8217;s author asserts, religion &#8220;encourages good citizenship and adherence to the law of the land.&#8221;</p>
<p>What if the &#8220;law of the land&#8221; compels a Christian photographer or baker to participate in and support a homosexual marriage service?</p>
<p>What if the law requires a Christian to be conscripted into killing innocent people half a world away in an unjust military intervention?</p>
<p>What if the law requires a horribly sick, bed-ridden mother of young children to steer clear of a natural plant that can bring her relief where pharmaceuticals couldn&#8217;t, and restore quality of life to her entire family?</p>
<p>What if the law criminalizes speech or condones slavery?</p>
<p>What if the law legalizes the theft of property, outlaws prayer, sanctions the murder of unborn children, or censors evidence of government corruption?</p>
<p>What if the law has been substituted for the <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/modern-day-gadiantonism-government-by-the-laws-of-wickedness">laws of wickedness</a>, allowing Gadiantons to gain control?</p>
<p>Shall we submit in each case, and in so doing be considered a good religionist—a model Latter-day Saint?</p>
<p>There have been, and will continue to be, times in&nbsp;which men&#8217;s loyalty is split between&nbsp;masters: God and the state. Unqualified subservience to the latter—whether out of fear, duty, or ignorance—is to place the former in secondary status. It is tantamount to disagreeing with Peter, saying instead that &#8220;We ought to obey men&nbsp;rather than God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just as rendering unto Caesar requires understanding what he&#8217;s actually due, learning&nbsp;which laws actually deserve our loyalty requires an analysis deeper than the several seconds it would be afforded in Sunday School. Inquiring minds can <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">start here</a>.</p>
<p>Religion needs government like a battered wife needs her abusive husband. Maybe a divorce is not the &#8220;healthy&#8221; option, but it&#8217;s best to stay as far away as possible until there is any valid reason to associate with it.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1434983981;}i:4;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:29:"Mormons and Medical Marijuana";s:4:"link";s:62:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana";s:8:"comments";s:71:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 10 May 2015 21:08:22 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3417";s:11:"description";s:360:"As Libertas Institute has become a leading force in the effort to legalize medical marijuana in Utah—the backyard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—I&#8217;ve been paying attention more closely to the experiences and thoughts of Mormons around the country who use, or desire to use, cannabis as a medical treatment option. Nearly [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:6506:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/ldscannabis.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 25px;"/>As <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a> has become a leading force in the effort to <a href="http://libertasutah.org/cannabis/">legalize medical marijuana in Utah</a>—the backyard of <a href="http://lds.org">The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</a>—I&#8217;ve been paying attention more closely to the experiences and thoughts of Mormons around the country who use, or desire to use, cannabis as a medical treatment option.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction">Nearly half</a> of the 50 states have now legalized cannabis for medicinal and/or recreational uses, thereby defying federal law criminalizing possession and use of the plant. This patchwork of policies has produced a similarly heterogenous set of experiences by church members.</p>
<p>The fundamental question to be addressed by followers of Christ who seek to keep His commandments is whether the use of this plant for medicinal purposes is an acceptable action. One litmus test used to help determine the answer to that question is the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng">Word of Wisdom</a>, commonly known as the health standard to which Mormons adhere.</p>
<p><span id="more-3417"></span></p>
<p>This health standard—first revealed merely as a &#8220;greeting; not by commandment or constraint&#8221; and later <a href="https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf">turned into a commandment</a>—makes no mention of cannabis. It <em>does</em> say that &#8220;all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man… to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.&#8221;</p>
<p>The concern over cannabis is often irrational; many Mormons have no problem with doctors prescribing, and patients using, highly toxic opioids that lead to high rates of chemical dependency. Utah is <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/living/lisa-ling-mormon-drug-abuse-essay/">well known</a> for the large percentage of people dying from overdosing on prescription drugs. These aren&#8217;t drug addicts in the familiar sense—they are in too many cases upstanding individuals who find themselves needing pain relief and being sent down a spiral of dependency and self-destruction because opium is societally (and legally) accepted, whereas cannabis is not. An <a href="http://www.health.utah.gov/vipp/topics/prescription-drug-overdoses/">average of 21</a> Utahns die every month from overdosing on opioids.</p>
<p>The fact that a few politicians have decreed cannabis to be legally verboten has led many in the church&#8217;s lay clergy to ecclesiastically punish their congregants who have used it, even if under a doctor&#8217;s recommendation. I am aware of cases, for example, in which Church members who use cannabis for strictly medical purposes have had to surrender their temple recommend upon their bishop&#8217;s demand.</p>
<p>The gatekeeping questions that must be answered in the affirmative in order to enter the temple include two that may relate to the use of cannabis: &#8220;Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?&#8221; and &#8220;Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?&#8221; The Church&#8217;s official handbook, which bishops use to determine the worthiness of each member, encumbers the scriptural language of the Word of Wisdom with additional instructions that state, &#8220;Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.&#8221; Contextualized this way, the health code becomes tainted with legal implications; one is no longer allowed to use wholesome herbs that &#8220;God hath ordained&#8221; unless certain legislative and bureaucratic bodies have given their blessing. Doctors have additionally become placed by church leaders as mandatory intermediaries between a person and his or her own health treatment.</p>
<p>Taking medical cannabis thus introduces some uncertainty in determining how to appropriately answer the question regarding the Word of Wisdom. As for the other question, the interviewee can theoretically answer in the affirmative to the extent that the person is not lying about their use of cannabis—even if it is &#8220;against the law.&#8221;</p>
<p>In at least one area, would-be disciples of Christ who are using cannabis as a medical treatment are being denied the opportunity to be baptized at all. A mission president in Portland Oregon <a href="http://mormonism-unveiled.blogspot.com/2012/02/oregon-mission-president-instructs.html">instructed</a> the missionaries he&#8217;s in charge of that &#8220;no individual who smokes marijuana for &#8216;medicinal purposes&#8217; can be baptized a member of the Church in this mission.&#8221; His reasoning relies upon a faulty—<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness">though prevalent</a>—interpretation of the 12th Article of Faith, as well as a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/05/state-supremacy-vs-the-supremacy-clause/">misinterpretation</a> of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It is quite sad to see priesthood holders subjecting a person&#8217;s spiritual progress to the political decrees of (often corrupt) agents of the government. (This becomes especially worrisome when considering the selective approach used; people violating immigration laws, for example, are baptized and welcomed into the faith.)</p>
<p>Having become so deeply involved in the effort to legalize medical cannabis in Utah, I have heard far too many stories about dependence and death, or suffering and side effects from law-abiding citizens who have relegated themselves to using dangerous or ineffective remedies to help treat or alleviate their conditions. Some of these people have confided in me their secret use of cannabis to provide relief when nothing else has worked—and some have been openly admitting their use of this plant. That such people are being pitted between much needed physical relief and good standing within their church is a tragic frustration that will hopefully soon be resolved through educating ecclesiastical leadership about its benefits, and taking politics out of what should only be a medical consideration.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:67:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"38";}s:7:"summary";s:360:"As Libertas Institute has become a leading force in the effort to legalize medical marijuana in Utah—the backyard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—I&#8217;ve been paying attention more closely to the experiences and thoughts of Mormons around the country who use, or desire to use, cannabis as a medical treatment option. Nearly [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:6506:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/ldscannabis.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 25px;"/>As <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a> has become a leading force in the effort to <a href="http://libertasutah.org/cannabis/">legalize medical marijuana in Utah</a>—the backyard of <a href="http://lds.org">The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</a>—I&#8217;ve been paying attention more closely to the experiences and thoughts of Mormons around the country who use, or desire to use, cannabis as a medical treatment option.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction">Nearly half</a> of the 50 states have now legalized cannabis for medicinal and/or recreational uses, thereby defying federal law criminalizing possession and use of the plant. This patchwork of policies has produced a similarly heterogenous set of experiences by church members.</p>
<p>The fundamental question to be addressed by followers of Christ who seek to keep His commandments is whether the use of this plant for medicinal purposes is an acceptable action. One litmus test used to help determine the answer to that question is the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng">Word of Wisdom</a>, commonly known as the health standard to which Mormons adhere.</p>
<p><span id="more-3417"></span></p>
<p>This health standard—first revealed merely as a &#8220;greeting; not by commandment or constraint&#8221; and later <a href="https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf">turned into a commandment</a>—makes no mention of cannabis. It <em>does</em> say that &#8220;all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man… to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.&#8221;</p>
<p>The concern over cannabis is often irrational; many Mormons have no problem with doctors prescribing, and patients using, highly toxic opioids that lead to high rates of chemical dependency. Utah is <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/living/lisa-ling-mormon-drug-abuse-essay/">well known</a> for the large percentage of people dying from overdosing on prescription drugs. These aren&#8217;t drug addicts in the familiar sense—they are in too many cases upstanding individuals who find themselves needing pain relief and being sent down a spiral of dependency and self-destruction because opium is societally (and legally) accepted, whereas cannabis is not. An <a href="http://www.health.utah.gov/vipp/topics/prescription-drug-overdoses/">average of 21</a> Utahns die every month from overdosing on opioids.</p>
<p>The fact that a few politicians have decreed cannabis to be legally verboten has led many in the church&#8217;s lay clergy to ecclesiastically punish their congregants who have used it, even if under a doctor&#8217;s recommendation. I am aware of cases, for example, in which Church members who use cannabis for strictly medical purposes have had to surrender their temple recommend upon their bishop&#8217;s demand.</p>
<p>The gatekeeping questions that must be answered in the affirmative in order to enter the temple include two that may relate to the use of cannabis: &#8220;Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?&#8221; and &#8220;Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?&#8221; The Church&#8217;s official handbook, which bishops use to determine the worthiness of each member, encumbers the scriptural language of the Word of Wisdom with additional instructions that state, &#8220;Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.&#8221; Contextualized this way, the health code becomes tainted with legal implications; one is no longer allowed to use wholesome herbs that &#8220;God hath ordained&#8221; unless certain legislative and bureaucratic bodies have given their blessing. Doctors have additionally become placed by church leaders as mandatory intermediaries between a person and his or her own health treatment.</p>
<p>Taking medical cannabis thus introduces some uncertainty in determining how to appropriately answer the question regarding the Word of Wisdom. As for the other question, the interviewee can theoretically answer in the affirmative to the extent that the person is not lying about their use of cannabis—even if it is &#8220;against the law.&#8221;</p>
<p>In at least one area, would-be disciples of Christ who are using cannabis as a medical treatment are being denied the opportunity to be baptized at all. A mission president in Portland Oregon <a href="http://mormonism-unveiled.blogspot.com/2012/02/oregon-mission-president-instructs.html">instructed</a> the missionaries he&#8217;s in charge of that &#8220;no individual who smokes marijuana for &#8216;medicinal purposes&#8217; can be baptized a member of the Church in this mission.&#8221; His reasoning relies upon a faulty—<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness">though prevalent</a>—interpretation of the 12th Article of Faith, as well as a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/05/state-supremacy-vs-the-supremacy-clause/">misinterpretation</a> of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It is quite sad to see priesthood holders subjecting a person&#8217;s spiritual progress to the political decrees of (often corrupt) agents of the government. (This becomes especially worrisome when considering the selective approach used; people violating immigration laws, for example, are baptized and welcomed into the faith.)</p>
<p>Having become so deeply involved in the effort to legalize medical cannabis in Utah, I have heard far too many stories about dependence and death, or suffering and side effects from law-abiding citizens who have relegated themselves to using dangerous or ineffective remedies to help treat or alleviate their conditions. Some of these people have confided in me their secret use of cannabis to provide relief when nothing else has worked—and some have been openly admitting their use of this plant. That such people are being pitted between much needed physical relief and good standing within their church is a tragic frustration that will hopefully soon be resolved through educating ecclesiastical leadership about its benefits, and taking politics out of what should only be a medical consideration.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1431292102;}i:5;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:62:"Mormons Making Friends with the Nazi Mammon of Unrighteousness";s:4:"link";s:95:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness";s:8:"comments";s:104:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:23:55 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3411";s:11:"description";s:369:"In June 1933, just a few months after Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, a convention of some seven thousand Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses convened in Berlin. They unanimously adopted &#8220;A Declaration of Facts,&#8221; a document in which they established their opposition to the rising Nazi regime. Copies were sent to every government official they could [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:16537:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/monazi.jpg"/></p>
<p>In June 1933, just a few months after Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, a convention of some seven thousand Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses convened in Berlin. They unanimously adopted &#8220;A Declaration of Facts,&#8221; a document in which they established their opposition to the rising Nazi regime. Copies were sent to every government official they could identify; more than 2.5 million copies were disseminated. </p>
<p>The response was predictable—the German government criminalized their religious services and missionary work. Roughly half of their twenty thousand German members served terms in prison or a concentration camp. Several thousand died during incarceration due to hunger, exposure, or abuse. Over two hundred were tried in a Nazi court and executed. </p>
<p>As documented in <em><a href="www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806146680/ref=as_li_tl?tag=connsconu-20">Moroni and the Swastika</a></em>, written by David Conley Nelson, this scenario stands at odds with how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acted towards and were treated by the same government. The book exhaustively documents the alarming degree to which church officials bent over backwards to appease, accommodate, and even proactively ingratiate themselves with Nazi leadership. </p>
<p>What becomes clear from the revealed history of interactions between Church officials and Nazi party leaders is the earnestness of the desire on the part of Mormon leaders to make friends with German rulers to ensure the safety of Church members and the ability of the Church&#8217;s missionary work to continue. The price was deemed worth it by leaders who—some reluctantly, and many cheerfully—modified church curriculum to remove any reference to Jews or Israel, including Sunday School lessons, hymns, and other material; included Nazi insignia, such as flags, and Hitler&#8217;s portrait, in Church meetings; played Hitler&#8217;s speeches during or after Church meetings, compelling congregants to listen; enthusiastically and reflexively repeating the &#8220;Heil Hitler&#8221; salute; expelling Jews from church services; excommunicating a rebel, Helmuth Hübener; denying legal assistance to Mormon Jews wishing to emigrate to America to escape the Hitler regime prior to the war; publishing op-eds and other material affirming that Nazis and Mormons shared several overlapping interests, and emphasizing that one could be a good Mormon and a good citizen of the Nazi state; and on and on.</p>
<p><span id="more-3411"></span></p>
<p>Of course, this is alarming—but what I considered especially revealing, if unsurprising, was the revelation regarding how ingrained a misunderstanding of Church doctrine had become, leading to widespread submission to, if not active support of, the Nazi government. I refer specifically to the Twelfth Article of Faith, and section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants—two reference points that receive frequent mention in the book, as they were repeatedly cited by lay German Mormons and high-ranking American church leaders as the basis for appeasing the Nazis and standing idly by while tyranny increasingly entrenched itself.</p>
<p>In the mid 1920s, for example, mission president Hugh J. Cannon told Berlin police of &#8220;the church&#8217;s belief in subjugation to local police and noted that the well-being of the Imperial Government was the object of their daily prayers.&#8221; One of his successors, Oliver Budge, informed the Gestapo in a 1933 letter that church members &#8220;are taught, especially, to be able to class themselves with the best citizens of the country, and to support, in the full sense of the word, the ordinances and laws of the town, the state, and the country in which they live… [W]e teach that the present party in power, and the laws governing the country, be supported by the members of the church.&#8221;</p>
<p>Lay members understood and internalized the message; one Mormon soldier who fought for the Nazi regime, when interviewed by the book&#8217;s author, simply stated that &#8220;Latter-day Saints should support the government!&#8221; Included with his reply was a copy of a 2004 Sunday School lesson manual featuring a quote from Church president Heber J. Grant stressing compliance with the Twelfth Article of Faith and Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-heber-j-grant/chapter-17?lang=eng">that lesson</a>, President Grant is quoted as saying, &#8220;It is one of the Articles of our Faith to obey and uphold the laws of the land.&#8221; Following references to D&#038;C 134, he also stated, &#8220;The Saints on either side [of war] have no course open to them but to support that government to which they owe allegiance.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I believe that these references—including the many that permeate the book—are incorrect. They rely upon an interpretation of these two scriptural provisions that is certainly commonplace, but is one that requires overlooking the actual textual construction.</p>
<p>First, the context of these references should be offered, even if it is ultimately dismissed by some who resolutely consider them divinely sanctioned scripture. The <a href="http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith">Articles of Faith</a> were written by Joseph Smith, founding prophet of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as part of an <a href="http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Articles_of_Faith">1842 letter</a> to the editor of the <em>Chicago Democrat</em> in response to questions regarding the founding and nature of this new religion. Claiming such a media response as tantamount to scripture is somewhat akin to attempting to canonize the transcript of President Gordon B. Hinckley&#8217;s <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an-interview-with-gordon-hinckley/">interview</a> on 60 minutes with Mike Wallace. Neither, of course, were claimed to be revelation. And as the Church&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-134-earthly-governments-and-laws?lang=eng">own curriculum</a> states, section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants is not revelation: &#8220;It should be noted that in the minutes, and also in the introduction to this article on government, the brethren were careful to state that this declaration was accepted as the belief, or ‘opinion’ of the officers of the Church, and not as a revelation, and therefore does not hold the same place in the doctrines of the Church as do the revelations.&#8221;</p>
<p>As such, it might be easy to dismiss adherence to these provisions since they may lack the divine weight that some seek to impregnate into the pages from which we read them. But let&#8217;s accept, for conversation sake, the position that the average Mormon takes—that they are in fact binding upon church members. </p>
<p>How, then, are we bound?</p>
<p>The Twelfth Article of Faith reads as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.</p></blockquote>
<p>Most members of the Church focus only on the first part of this provision, asserting that we should subject ourselves to government, period, end of story. That position necessarily ignores the <a href="http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-twelfth-article-of-faith-and-obedience-to-the-law/">conjoining qualification</a> wherein compliance is conditioned on the actions of those running the government. The correct reading of this Article stipulates that submission is predicated on these rulers <em>obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.</em> It therefore follows that when those in government are breaking the law, then our submission is not required. (Of course, this also requires understanding <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">what law actually is</a>, as it is not simply whatever mandates a group of government officials thinks up, however benevolent or barbaric.)</p>
<p>It becomes obvious, then, that pointing to this Article as the basis for unqualified allegiance to whatever government is in power is false. Exterminating Jews, for example, is not lawful, even if it is technically legal; God does not expect feckless submission to those who carry out such horrific acts. </p>
<p>But what of D&#038;C 134, similarly referenced as a reason to play nice with those in power? The relevant passage of this &#8220;declaration of belief regarding governments and laws&#8221; reads:</p>
<blockquote><p>We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.</p></blockquote>
<p>As with the Twelfth Article of Faith, many Church members simply internalize only the first few words of this verse, leading them to incorrectly believe that God binds them to &#8220;sustain and uphold the [government] in which they reside,&#8221; period, end of story. But again, the qualifying conditions that follow make clear that such allegiance is predicated on lawful activity. Such support is required, we further read, while we are &#8220;protected in [our] inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.&#8221; Sedition and rebellion &#8220;are unbecoming every citizen <em>thus protected</em>.&#8221;</p>
<p>A fair and plain reading of this scripture results in the same conclusion: a government that violates a person&#8217;s rights is not deserving of support—and at a minimum, there is no divine obligation to simply submit to the mandates of those in power. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the incorrect interpretation of these passages is offered to readers of <em>Moroni and the Swastika</em>—an otherwise outstanding book I heartily recommend reading—whose author at the very introduction tells us that the Twelfth Article of Faith and D&#038;C 134 together comprise an &#8220;important religious tenet&#8221; and constitute &#8220;a charge to cooperate with civil government however onerous it may be.&#8221; </p>
<p>Clearly, having the Church sanction rebellion against an oppressive military machine would be unwise; organizational opposition to a ruthless political regime would bring swift and fatal retaliation. However, while <em>institutional</em> defiance is strategically foolhardy, the question of <em>individual</em> resistance should be treated separately—and in that realm we must address whether God actually intends for each of his followers to follow orders from repressive regimes and respectable Republics alike. </p>
<p>Helmuth Hübener&#8217;s story provides a case study against which we can analyze this question. While the Church had been strenuously attempting to be considered friendly—or at least non-threatening—toward the Nazi regime, one of its members, a young teenage boy, was authoring scathing rebukes excoriating Adolf Hitler and his minions. These documents were disseminated furtively throughout Hübener&#8217;s town of Hamburg, and when caught, his friends were imprisoned for several years, while the 17-year-old ringleader—and faithful Mormon—was beheaded by guillotine. He was subsequently excommunicated by his rabidly pro-Nazi ecclesiastical leader, and his story was suppressed by BYU officials and Church leaders for years, citing sensitivities of upsetting communist leadership in East Germany with whom the Church was trying to build a relationship in order to facilitate church business and missionary work.</p>
<p>Few will dispute the wisdom of strategy, and the importance of picking one&#8217;s battles. It does little good to one&#8217;s self, family, congregation, or others to put up a quick fight and be executed. It is perhaps for this reason that—unlike the non-revelatory scriptures referenced earlier—God actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82.22?lang=eng#21"><em>has</em> stated</a>, &#8220;this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.&#8221; It follows the old adage of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer; there is logistical benefit in not incurring the wrath of a powerful foe.</p>
<p>But while strategy should be considered, that does not constitute a valid claim to argue that God absolutely forbids anything but servility to the state. To the extent that Helmuth&#8217;s story is known, he is praised as a freedom fighter—a brave and principled young man who stood up for his convictions, and who sought to popularize the truth. His excommunication—considered by many to never have been valid in the first place—was later rescinded. Books, plays, movies, and other media extol his heroism. It&#8217;s easy to recognize the virtue of his activism. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also easy to cast aspersions on his contemporaries who courted favor with the very enemy Helmuth was fighting. How easy must it have been to follow the masses—to silently and idly accept the increasing levels of restrictions, first because they didn&#8217;t affect you, and later because circumstances were too severe to speak out? </p>
<p>The mind, in such circumstances, is desperate for self-soothing arguments that ameloriate one&#8217;s conscience. Thus did German Mormons embrace a number of myths regarding the Third Reich&#8217;s friendliness towards the faith: that Hitler had read the Book of Mormon; that he based his supposed health code on the Word of Wisdom; that his Winter Relief program—where Germans were told to eat a simple meal on the Second Sunday at donate saved funds to the war effort—was based on the church&#8217;s Fast Sunday program; that close parallels existed between the Nazi drive for racial purity and genealogical research, and the Church&#8217;s own quest for family history; and at worst, that Hitler himself was on a mission from God. Thus did Hübener&#8217;s pro-Nazi branch president tell his flock &#8220;about the importance of keeping the laws of the land and supporting and sustaining the Führer who was ordained of God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sadly, sensitivities often trumped conscience, whether individually or institutionally. The Church&#8217;s effort to suppress Hübener&#8217;s story, detailed in length in this book, was spearheaded by Thomas S. Monson, who had been tasked with overseeing the Church&#8217;s efforts regarding East Germany. When approached by an Associated Press reporter inquiring as to why he had stopped BYU from continuing a very popular production of a play on Hübener&#8217;s life, and why research and publication of the story had been quashed, then-Elder Monson replied:</p>
<blockquote><p>Who knows what was right or wrong then? I don&#8217;t know what we accomplish by dredging these things up and trying to sort them out.</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#8217;s admittedly easy to play armchair quarterback and see the apparent misguidedness of censoring so important a story out of concerns that may have been unfounded. The motives of Elder Monson were, we must presume, sincere—he, like Church leaders for decades, had a fixed goal as the primary priority: keep missionary work going. These ends justified controversial means, whether ingratiating the Church with the Nazi regime from the highest levels, or controlling the flow of information in the decades that followed the war. </p>
<p>Helmuth&#8217;s story speaks to me. I believe he did what was right. And as the familiar primary tune counsels us, we are to &#8220;do what is right, let the consequence follow.&#8221; Put differently, ends don&#8217;t justify the means; does a crucial &#8220;end&#8221; such as perpetuating Church programs and allowing missionary work to continue allow us to support the problematic means listed above? It&#8217;s a pertinent question for the future, and one which deserves serious reflection—not to recommend institutional changes and counsel those in command of the Lord&#8217;s Church, but to ponder individual action and the degree to which one is willing or obligated to support an unsupportable government.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:100:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"22";}s:7:"summary";s:369:"In June 1933, just a few months after Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, a convention of some seven thousand Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses convened in Berlin. They unanimously adopted &#8220;A Declaration of Facts,&#8221; a document in which they established their opposition to the rising Nazi regime. Copies were sent to every government official they could [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:16537:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/monazi.jpg"/></p>
<p>In June 1933, just a few months after Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, a convention of some seven thousand Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses convened in Berlin. They unanimously adopted &#8220;A Declaration of Facts,&#8221; a document in which they established their opposition to the rising Nazi regime. Copies were sent to every government official they could identify; more than 2.5 million copies were disseminated. </p>
<p>The response was predictable—the German government criminalized their religious services and missionary work. Roughly half of their twenty thousand German members served terms in prison or a concentration camp. Several thousand died during incarceration due to hunger, exposure, or abuse. Over two hundred were tried in a Nazi court and executed. </p>
<p>As documented in <em><a href="www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806146680/ref=as_li_tl?tag=connsconu-20">Moroni and the Swastika</a></em>, written by David Conley Nelson, this scenario stands at odds with how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acted towards and were treated by the same government. The book exhaustively documents the alarming degree to which church officials bent over backwards to appease, accommodate, and even proactively ingratiate themselves with Nazi leadership. </p>
<p>What becomes clear from the revealed history of interactions between Church officials and Nazi party leaders is the earnestness of the desire on the part of Mormon leaders to make friends with German rulers to ensure the safety of Church members and the ability of the Church&#8217;s missionary work to continue. The price was deemed worth it by leaders who—some reluctantly, and many cheerfully—modified church curriculum to remove any reference to Jews or Israel, including Sunday School lessons, hymns, and other material; included Nazi insignia, such as flags, and Hitler&#8217;s portrait, in Church meetings; played Hitler&#8217;s speeches during or after Church meetings, compelling congregants to listen; enthusiastically and reflexively repeating the &#8220;Heil Hitler&#8221; salute; expelling Jews from church services; excommunicating a rebel, Helmuth Hübener; denying legal assistance to Mormon Jews wishing to emigrate to America to escape the Hitler regime prior to the war; publishing op-eds and other material affirming that Nazis and Mormons shared several overlapping interests, and emphasizing that one could be a good Mormon and a good citizen of the Nazi state; and on and on.</p>
<p><span id="more-3411"></span></p>
<p>Of course, this is alarming—but what I considered especially revealing, if unsurprising, was the revelation regarding how ingrained a misunderstanding of Church doctrine had become, leading to widespread submission to, if not active support of, the Nazi government. I refer specifically to the Twelfth Article of Faith, and section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants—two reference points that receive frequent mention in the book, as they were repeatedly cited by lay German Mormons and high-ranking American church leaders as the basis for appeasing the Nazis and standing idly by while tyranny increasingly entrenched itself.</p>
<p>In the mid 1920s, for example, mission president Hugh J. Cannon told Berlin police of &#8220;the church&#8217;s belief in subjugation to local police and noted that the well-being of the Imperial Government was the object of their daily prayers.&#8221; One of his successors, Oliver Budge, informed the Gestapo in a 1933 letter that church members &#8220;are taught, especially, to be able to class themselves with the best citizens of the country, and to support, in the full sense of the word, the ordinances and laws of the town, the state, and the country in which they live… [W]e teach that the present party in power, and the laws governing the country, be supported by the members of the church.&#8221;</p>
<p>Lay members understood and internalized the message; one Mormon soldier who fought for the Nazi regime, when interviewed by the book&#8217;s author, simply stated that &#8220;Latter-day Saints should support the government!&#8221; Included with his reply was a copy of a 2004 Sunday School lesson manual featuring a quote from Church president Heber J. Grant stressing compliance with the Twelfth Article of Faith and Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-heber-j-grant/chapter-17?lang=eng">that lesson</a>, President Grant is quoted as saying, &#8220;It is one of the Articles of our Faith to obey and uphold the laws of the land.&#8221; Following references to D&#038;C 134, he also stated, &#8220;The Saints on either side [of war] have no course open to them but to support that government to which they owe allegiance.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I believe that these references—including the many that permeate the book—are incorrect. They rely upon an interpretation of these two scriptural provisions that is certainly commonplace, but is one that requires overlooking the actual textual construction.</p>
<p>First, the context of these references should be offered, even if it is ultimately dismissed by some who resolutely consider them divinely sanctioned scripture. The <a href="http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith">Articles of Faith</a> were written by Joseph Smith, founding prophet of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as part of an <a href="http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Articles_of_Faith">1842 letter</a> to the editor of the <em>Chicago Democrat</em> in response to questions regarding the founding and nature of this new religion. Claiming such a media response as tantamount to scripture is somewhat akin to attempting to canonize the transcript of President Gordon B. Hinckley&#8217;s <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an-interview-with-gordon-hinckley/">interview</a> on 60 minutes with Mike Wallace. Neither, of course, were claimed to be revelation. And as the Church&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-134-earthly-governments-and-laws?lang=eng">own curriculum</a> states, section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants is not revelation: &#8220;It should be noted that in the minutes, and also in the introduction to this article on government, the brethren were careful to state that this declaration was accepted as the belief, or ‘opinion’ of the officers of the Church, and not as a revelation, and therefore does not hold the same place in the doctrines of the Church as do the revelations.&#8221;</p>
<p>As such, it might be easy to dismiss adherence to these provisions since they may lack the divine weight that some seek to impregnate into the pages from which we read them. But let&#8217;s accept, for conversation sake, the position that the average Mormon takes—that they are in fact binding upon church members. </p>
<p>How, then, are we bound?</p>
<p>The Twelfth Article of Faith reads as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.</p></blockquote>
<p>Most members of the Church focus only on the first part of this provision, asserting that we should subject ourselves to government, period, end of story. That position necessarily ignores the <a href="http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-twelfth-article-of-faith-and-obedience-to-the-law/">conjoining qualification</a> wherein compliance is conditioned on the actions of those running the government. The correct reading of this Article stipulates that submission is predicated on these rulers <em>obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.</em> It therefore follows that when those in government are breaking the law, then our submission is not required. (Of course, this also requires understanding <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">what law actually is</a>, as it is not simply whatever mandates a group of government officials thinks up, however benevolent or barbaric.)</p>
<p>It becomes obvious, then, that pointing to this Article as the basis for unqualified allegiance to whatever government is in power is false. Exterminating Jews, for example, is not lawful, even if it is technically legal; God does not expect feckless submission to those who carry out such horrific acts. </p>
<p>But what of D&#038;C 134, similarly referenced as a reason to play nice with those in power? The relevant passage of this &#8220;declaration of belief regarding governments and laws&#8221; reads:</p>
<blockquote><p>We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.</p></blockquote>
<p>As with the Twelfth Article of Faith, many Church members simply internalize only the first few words of this verse, leading them to incorrectly believe that God binds them to &#8220;sustain and uphold the [government] in which they reside,&#8221; period, end of story. But again, the qualifying conditions that follow make clear that such allegiance is predicated on lawful activity. Such support is required, we further read, while we are &#8220;protected in [our] inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.&#8221; Sedition and rebellion &#8220;are unbecoming every citizen <em>thus protected</em>.&#8221;</p>
<p>A fair and plain reading of this scripture results in the same conclusion: a government that violates a person&#8217;s rights is not deserving of support—and at a minimum, there is no divine obligation to simply submit to the mandates of those in power. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the incorrect interpretation of these passages is offered to readers of <em>Moroni and the Swastika</em>—an otherwise outstanding book I heartily recommend reading—whose author at the very introduction tells us that the Twelfth Article of Faith and D&#038;C 134 together comprise an &#8220;important religious tenet&#8221; and constitute &#8220;a charge to cooperate with civil government however onerous it may be.&#8221; </p>
<p>Clearly, having the Church sanction rebellion against an oppressive military machine would be unwise; organizational opposition to a ruthless political regime would bring swift and fatal retaliation. However, while <em>institutional</em> defiance is strategically foolhardy, the question of <em>individual</em> resistance should be treated separately—and in that realm we must address whether God actually intends for each of his followers to follow orders from repressive regimes and respectable Republics alike. </p>
<p>Helmuth Hübener&#8217;s story provides a case study against which we can analyze this question. While the Church had been strenuously attempting to be considered friendly—or at least non-threatening—toward the Nazi regime, one of its members, a young teenage boy, was authoring scathing rebukes excoriating Adolf Hitler and his minions. These documents were disseminated furtively throughout Hübener&#8217;s town of Hamburg, and when caught, his friends were imprisoned for several years, while the 17-year-old ringleader—and faithful Mormon—was beheaded by guillotine. He was subsequently excommunicated by his rabidly pro-Nazi ecclesiastical leader, and his story was suppressed by BYU officials and Church leaders for years, citing sensitivities of upsetting communist leadership in East Germany with whom the Church was trying to build a relationship in order to facilitate church business and missionary work.</p>
<p>Few will dispute the wisdom of strategy, and the importance of picking one&#8217;s battles. It does little good to one&#8217;s self, family, congregation, or others to put up a quick fight and be executed. It is perhaps for this reason that—unlike the non-revelatory scriptures referenced earlier—God actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82.22?lang=eng#21"><em>has</em> stated</a>, &#8220;this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.&#8221; It follows the old adage of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer; there is logistical benefit in not incurring the wrath of a powerful foe.</p>
<p>But while strategy should be considered, that does not constitute a valid claim to argue that God absolutely forbids anything but servility to the state. To the extent that Helmuth&#8217;s story is known, he is praised as a freedom fighter—a brave and principled young man who stood up for his convictions, and who sought to popularize the truth. His excommunication—considered by many to never have been valid in the first place—was later rescinded. Books, plays, movies, and other media extol his heroism. It&#8217;s easy to recognize the virtue of his activism. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also easy to cast aspersions on his contemporaries who courted favor with the very enemy Helmuth was fighting. How easy must it have been to follow the masses—to silently and idly accept the increasing levels of restrictions, first because they didn&#8217;t affect you, and later because circumstances were too severe to speak out? </p>
<p>The mind, in such circumstances, is desperate for self-soothing arguments that ameloriate one&#8217;s conscience. Thus did German Mormons embrace a number of myths regarding the Third Reich&#8217;s friendliness towards the faith: that Hitler had read the Book of Mormon; that he based his supposed health code on the Word of Wisdom; that his Winter Relief program—where Germans were told to eat a simple meal on the Second Sunday at donate saved funds to the war effort—was based on the church&#8217;s Fast Sunday program; that close parallels existed between the Nazi drive for racial purity and genealogical research, and the Church&#8217;s own quest for family history; and at worst, that Hitler himself was on a mission from God. Thus did Hübener&#8217;s pro-Nazi branch president tell his flock &#8220;about the importance of keeping the laws of the land and supporting and sustaining the Führer who was ordained of God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sadly, sensitivities often trumped conscience, whether individually or institutionally. The Church&#8217;s effort to suppress Hübener&#8217;s story, detailed in length in this book, was spearheaded by Thomas S. Monson, who had been tasked with overseeing the Church&#8217;s efforts regarding East Germany. When approached by an Associated Press reporter inquiring as to why he had stopped BYU from continuing a very popular production of a play on Hübener&#8217;s life, and why research and publication of the story had been quashed, then-Elder Monson replied:</p>
<blockquote><p>Who knows what was right or wrong then? I don&#8217;t know what we accomplish by dredging these things up and trying to sort them out.</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#8217;s admittedly easy to play armchair quarterback and see the apparent misguidedness of censoring so important a story out of concerns that may have been unfounded. The motives of Elder Monson were, we must presume, sincere—he, like Church leaders for decades, had a fixed goal as the primary priority: keep missionary work going. These ends justified controversial means, whether ingratiating the Church with the Nazi regime from the highest levels, or controlling the flow of information in the decades that followed the war. </p>
<p>Helmuth&#8217;s story speaks to me. I believe he did what was right. And as the familiar primary tune counsels us, we are to &#8220;do what is right, let the consequence follow.&#8221; Put differently, ends don&#8217;t justify the means; does a crucial &#8220;end&#8221; such as perpetuating Church programs and allowing missionary work to continue allow us to support the problematic means listed above? It&#8217;s a pertinent question for the future, and one which deserves serious reflection—not to recommend institutional changes and counsel those in command of the Lord&#8217;s Church, but to ponder individual action and the degree to which one is willing or obligated to support an unsupportable government.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1427127835;}i:6;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:46:"Torture is okay, because hey, we’re awesome!";s:4:"link";s:73:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/torture-is-okay-because-hey-were-awesome";s:8:"comments";s:82:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/torture-is-okay-because-hey-were-awesome#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:31:09 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3404";s:11:"description";s:380:"After four years and forty million dollars, a Senate committee released a report last week summarizing its findings and views of the Central Intelligence Agency&#8217;s use of torture against alleged terrorists held captive by the agency in hopes of extracting useful information. The report contains a number of startling (but perhaps unsurprising) revelations, such as [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:9893:"<p>After four years and forty million dollars, a Senate committee released a report last week summarizing its findings and views of the Central Intelligence Agency&#8217;s use of torture against alleged terrorists held captive by the agency in hopes of extracting useful information.</p>
<p><a href="http://loadedtrolley.com.au/study2014-sscistudy1/">The report</a> contains a number of startling (but perhaps unsurprising) revelations, <a href="http://rt.com/usa/213603-torture-panel-shocking-findings/">such as</a> sleep deprivation, forced rectal hydration, threats made against detainees&#8217; family members, extensive waterboarding, knowingly innocent people still being held and tortured, and a concerted effort by the CIA to evade transparency and accountability.</p>
<p>The reactions to this report have been voluminous and varied in their degree of dismissal or objection. One commentary on the issue, however, encapsulates a response that I believe to be held widely by Americans. It was passionately offered up by Andrea Tantaros of Fox News who justified torture because it was &#8220;what the American public wanted&#8221; the Bush administration to do in order &#8220;to keep us safe.&#8221; Dismissing the report as being solely &#8220;about politics,&#8221; she <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-host-cia-torture-america-awesome">launched into</a> a jingoistic spectacle of American cheerleading.</p>
<p>&#8220;The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome,&#8221; she said, then arguing that &#8220;the reason [Democrats] want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are.&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3404"></span></p>
<p>I cannot help but draw scriptural correlation to current events, so, let&#8217;s have at it.</p>
<p>The prophet Nephi, speaking in his <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/25.4?lang=eng#3">trademark plainness</a>, wrote of a future time <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.19#18">in which</a> &#8220;the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance.&#8221; In that day—our day—some would be <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.20#19">stirred up to anger</a>, full of rage. Others, Nephi says, would be pacified, lulled away into carnal security—in Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s words, embracing the &#8220;calm of despotism.&#8221; The mentality of these individuals is reflected in a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.21?lang=eng#20">simple statement</a>, indicative of an entire mindset: &#8220;All is well in Zion.&#8221;</p>
<p>Of course, this position of pride (with its corresponding arrogance and abdication of personal responsibility) is not merely a byproduct of the modern age. We observe its patterns and effects in the lives and times of Nephi&#8217;s posterity. It is, as President Uchtdorf <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/pride-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng">notes</a>, &#8220;the original sin, for before the foundations of this earth, pride felled Lucifer, a son of the morning &#8216;who was in authority in the presence of God.'&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;If pride can corrupt one as capable and promising as this,&#8221; Uchtdorf says, &#8220;should we not examine our own souls as well?&#8221;</p>
<p>The Andrea Tantaroses of the world would have us overlook our mistakes and justify our misdeeds by comparing ourselves to others and esteeming them as less &#8220;awesome&#8221; than us. While this woman spoke in absolutes—&#8221;we are awesome&#8221;—she likely meant, as so many others do, that we are simply <em>more</em> awesome than others. Government violating your rights? Put up with it, citizen—because where else would you go? Freedoms vanishing? At least they&#8217;re not vanishing as fast as they are elsewhere! Be grateful that the tyranny you are seeing spring up around you is not a deluge. Bask gleefully in the softness of your enslavement.</p>
<p>This pride by comparison was most notably exhibited by the Zoramites. While today propagandists claim we are &#8220;awesome&#8221; from digital media platforms, they <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.13?lang=eng#12">built a physical platform</a> to proclaim a similar message.</p>
<p>&#8220;We believe that [God] has elected us,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.16-18?lang=eng#15">they said</a>, &#8220;that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by [God&#8217;s] wrath down to hell.&#8221; For this perceived comparative advantage they repeatedly thanked God &#8220;that we are a chosen and a holy people.&#8221;</p>
<p>Alma and his brethren, serving as missionaries among this group, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.19?lang=eng#18">were</a> &#8220;astonished beyond all measure&#8221; at this self-aggrandizing pride-fest. President Uchtdorf suggested that we should examine if we are guilty of similar behavior. As one data point, consider <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/15/that-big-cia-torture-report-americans-just-shrugged/">recent polling</a> after the release of the CIA torture report and the corresponding media firestorm. The general response by Americans to the reports of brutality and inhumanity was a collective &#8220;meh.&#8221;</p>
<p>The prophet Mormon knew that things in his day were anything <em>but</em> awesome. He extensively <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wickedness-abominations-and-wikileaks">documented a long list</a> of atrocities implemented by prideful people excusing away their wickedness. It was done to show what people who are &#8220;not awesome&#8221; do. It was done to help us learn from their mistakes so as not to repeat them.</p>
<p>Have we learned from—and avoided repeating—those mistakes?</p>
<p>The self-aggrandizing status quo is clearly comfortable for people who otherwise would have to admit their incorrect beliefs—or worse, their complicity. Thus we see widespread whitewashing of wickedness using deceitful, dismissive claims that the criticisms are irrelevant; one sees no need to change when he feels that he already is &#8220;awesome.&#8221;</p>
<p>We Latter-day Saints are held to a higher standard in this regard, being called as a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/peculiar-people">peculiar people</a> who have <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/07/understanding-our-covenants-with-god?lang=eng">made covenants</a> to live more closely in accordance with God&#8217;s laws. And yet we remain, like the Israelites who we love to criticize for their misguided waywardness, an <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/the-false-gods-we-worship?lang=eng">idolatrous people</a> who are <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.54-57?lang=eng#53">under condemnation</a>. We, of all people, must recognize and reject even the semblance of self-deception. We are not awesome because we are not acting like it.</p>
<p>Andrea Tantaros was evidently not upset that the torture happened—that the rights of innocent people were violated or that the government approved and implemented inhumane treatment against suspects. What she <em>was</em> upset about was that the conversation about the CIA torture was being driven by individuals of a differing political ideology, and more generally, that the conversation was happening at all. &#8220;This makes us look bad,&#8221; she argued. &#8220;And all this does is have our enemies laughing at us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Laughing? If I&#8217;m an Afghani father whose teenage son was randomly rounded up by a bounty hunter in the chaotic aftermath of the American occupation, detained for over a decade without being able to contact me, and now I have further evidence—admissions from the U.S. government, no less—that my son was tortured at the hands of this foreign government, <em>my emotional response would not be laughter</em>. I would be uncontrollably <em>outraged</em>.</p>
<p>But we should not concern ourselves primarily with what our &#8220;enemies&#8221; think about our actions. We <em>should</em> be concerned with whether God approves of our behavior. &#8220;What Would Jesus Do?&#8221; is a common question sporadically pondered by Christians, but very infrequently applied in the context of public policy. Would Jesus condone the actions of the CIA? I doubt it. (That tells you, tangentially, whose side Dick Cheney is on…)</p>
<p>The scriptures speak of &#8220;perilous times&#8221; in these latter days <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/3.2?lang=eng#1">when</a> &#8220;men shall be lovers of their own [awesome?] selves,&#8221; and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/12.43?lang=eng#42">point out</a> the Pharisaical trend of &#8220;lov[ing] the praise of men more than the praise of God.&#8221; Paul likewise <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/4.1-4?lang=eng#0">noted</a> that many would &#8220;after their own lusts… heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears&#8221; and &#8220;turn away their ears from the truth, and… be turned unto fables.&#8221;</p>
<p>The allegation of our collective awesomeness is unfounded. It is, rather, a fable—a concocted myth designed to ameliorate our conscience and circumvent conversation about apologies and reform. Latter-day Saints should instead wholeheartedly and vocally reject modern-day Rameumptoms.</p>
<p>When Moses was given a grandiose vision by God, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.10?lang=eng#9">what was his takeaway</a>? &#8220;Now… I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.&#8221; The Andrea Tantaroses of the world could stand to replicate this humility and recognize our faults and weaknesses. Chances are, you and I need to as well.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:78:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/torture-is-okay-because-hey-were-awesome/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"35";}s:7:"summary";s:380:"After four years and forty million dollars, a Senate committee released a report last week summarizing its findings and views of the Central Intelligence Agency&#8217;s use of torture against alleged terrorists held captive by the agency in hopes of extracting useful information. The report contains a number of startling (but perhaps unsurprising) revelations, such as [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:9893:"<p>After four years and forty million dollars, a Senate committee released a report last week summarizing its findings and views of the Central Intelligence Agency&#8217;s use of torture against alleged terrorists held captive by the agency in hopes of extracting useful information.</p>
<p><a href="http://loadedtrolley.com.au/study2014-sscistudy1/">The report</a> contains a number of startling (but perhaps unsurprising) revelations, <a href="http://rt.com/usa/213603-torture-panel-shocking-findings/">such as</a> sleep deprivation, forced rectal hydration, threats made against detainees&#8217; family members, extensive waterboarding, knowingly innocent people still being held and tortured, and a concerted effort by the CIA to evade transparency and accountability.</p>
<p>The reactions to this report have been voluminous and varied in their degree of dismissal or objection. One commentary on the issue, however, encapsulates a response that I believe to be held widely by Americans. It was passionately offered up by Andrea Tantaros of Fox News who justified torture because it was &#8220;what the American public wanted&#8221; the Bush administration to do in order &#8220;to keep us safe.&#8221; Dismissing the report as being solely &#8220;about politics,&#8221; she <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-host-cia-torture-america-awesome">launched into</a> a jingoistic spectacle of American cheerleading.</p>
<p>&#8220;The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome,&#8221; she said, then arguing that &#8220;the reason [Democrats] want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are.&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3404"></span></p>
<p>I cannot help but draw scriptural correlation to current events, so, let&#8217;s have at it.</p>
<p>The prophet Nephi, speaking in his <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/25.4?lang=eng#3">trademark plainness</a>, wrote of a future time <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.19#18">in which</a> &#8220;the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance.&#8221; In that day—our day—some would be <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.20#19">stirred up to anger</a>, full of rage. Others, Nephi says, would be pacified, lulled away into carnal security—in Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s words, embracing the &#8220;calm of despotism.&#8221; The mentality of these individuals is reflected in a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.21?lang=eng#20">simple statement</a>, indicative of an entire mindset: &#8220;All is well in Zion.&#8221;</p>
<p>Of course, this position of pride (with its corresponding arrogance and abdication of personal responsibility) is not merely a byproduct of the modern age. We observe its patterns and effects in the lives and times of Nephi&#8217;s posterity. It is, as President Uchtdorf <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/pride-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng">notes</a>, &#8220;the original sin, for before the foundations of this earth, pride felled Lucifer, a son of the morning &#8216;who was in authority in the presence of God.'&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;If pride can corrupt one as capable and promising as this,&#8221; Uchtdorf says, &#8220;should we not examine our own souls as well?&#8221;</p>
<p>The Andrea Tantaroses of the world would have us overlook our mistakes and justify our misdeeds by comparing ourselves to others and esteeming them as less &#8220;awesome&#8221; than us. While this woman spoke in absolutes—&#8221;we are awesome&#8221;—she likely meant, as so many others do, that we are simply <em>more</em> awesome than others. Government violating your rights? Put up with it, citizen—because where else would you go? Freedoms vanishing? At least they&#8217;re not vanishing as fast as they are elsewhere! Be grateful that the tyranny you are seeing spring up around you is not a deluge. Bask gleefully in the softness of your enslavement.</p>
<p>This pride by comparison was most notably exhibited by the Zoramites. While today propagandists claim we are &#8220;awesome&#8221; from digital media platforms, they <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.13?lang=eng#12">built a physical platform</a> to proclaim a similar message.</p>
<p>&#8220;We believe that [God] has elected us,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.16-18?lang=eng#15">they said</a>, &#8220;that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by [God&#8217;s] wrath down to hell.&#8221; For this perceived comparative advantage they repeatedly thanked God &#8220;that we are a chosen and a holy people.&#8221;</p>
<p>Alma and his brethren, serving as missionaries among this group, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.19?lang=eng#18">were</a> &#8220;astonished beyond all measure&#8221; at this self-aggrandizing pride-fest. President Uchtdorf suggested that we should examine if we are guilty of similar behavior. As one data point, consider <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/15/that-big-cia-torture-report-americans-just-shrugged/">recent polling</a> after the release of the CIA torture report and the corresponding media firestorm. The general response by Americans to the reports of brutality and inhumanity was a collective &#8220;meh.&#8221;</p>
<p>The prophet Mormon knew that things in his day were anything <em>but</em> awesome. He extensively <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wickedness-abominations-and-wikileaks">documented a long list</a> of atrocities implemented by prideful people excusing away their wickedness. It was done to show what people who are &#8220;not awesome&#8221; do. It was done to help us learn from their mistakes so as not to repeat them.</p>
<p>Have we learned from—and avoided repeating—those mistakes?</p>
<p>The self-aggrandizing status quo is clearly comfortable for people who otherwise would have to admit their incorrect beliefs—or worse, their complicity. Thus we see widespread whitewashing of wickedness using deceitful, dismissive claims that the criticisms are irrelevant; one sees no need to change when he feels that he already is &#8220;awesome.&#8221;</p>
<p>We Latter-day Saints are held to a higher standard in this regard, being called as a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/peculiar-people">peculiar people</a> who have <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/07/understanding-our-covenants-with-god?lang=eng">made covenants</a> to live more closely in accordance with God&#8217;s laws. And yet we remain, like the Israelites who we love to criticize for their misguided waywardness, an <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/the-false-gods-we-worship?lang=eng">idolatrous people</a> who are <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.54-57?lang=eng#53">under condemnation</a>. We, of all people, must recognize and reject even the semblance of self-deception. We are not awesome because we are not acting like it.</p>
<p>Andrea Tantaros was evidently not upset that the torture happened—that the rights of innocent people were violated or that the government approved and implemented inhumane treatment against suspects. What she <em>was</em> upset about was that the conversation about the CIA torture was being driven by individuals of a differing political ideology, and more generally, that the conversation was happening at all. &#8220;This makes us look bad,&#8221; she argued. &#8220;And all this does is have our enemies laughing at us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Laughing? If I&#8217;m an Afghani father whose teenage son was randomly rounded up by a bounty hunter in the chaotic aftermath of the American occupation, detained for over a decade without being able to contact me, and now I have further evidence—admissions from the U.S. government, no less—that my son was tortured at the hands of this foreign government, <em>my emotional response would not be laughter</em>. I would be uncontrollably <em>outraged</em>.</p>
<p>But we should not concern ourselves primarily with what our &#8220;enemies&#8221; think about our actions. We <em>should</em> be concerned with whether God approves of our behavior. &#8220;What Would Jesus Do?&#8221; is a common question sporadically pondered by Christians, but very infrequently applied in the context of public policy. Would Jesus condone the actions of the CIA? I doubt it. (That tells you, tangentially, whose side Dick Cheney is on…)</p>
<p>The scriptures speak of &#8220;perilous times&#8221; in these latter days <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/3.2?lang=eng#1">when</a> &#8220;men shall be lovers of their own [awesome?] selves,&#8221; and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/12.43?lang=eng#42">point out</a> the Pharisaical trend of &#8220;lov[ing] the praise of men more than the praise of God.&#8221; Paul likewise <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/4.1-4?lang=eng#0">noted</a> that many would &#8220;after their own lusts… heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears&#8221; and &#8220;turn away their ears from the truth, and… be turned unto fables.&#8221;</p>
<p>The allegation of our collective awesomeness is unfounded. It is, rather, a fable—a concocted myth designed to ameliorate our conscience and circumvent conversation about apologies and reform. Latter-day Saints should instead wholeheartedly and vocally reject modern-day Rameumptoms.</p>
<p>When Moses was given a grandiose vision by God, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.10?lang=eng#9">what was his takeaway</a>? &#8220;Now… I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.&#8221; The Andrea Tantaroses of the world could stand to replicate this humility and recognize our faults and weaknesses. Chances are, you and I need to as well.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1418783469;}i:7;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:29:"An Open Apology to Glenn Beck";s:4:"link";s:62:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-apology-to-glenn-beck";s:8:"comments";s:71:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-apology-to-glenn-beck#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 07 Dec 2014 15:02:33 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3401";s:11:"description";s:341:"The invite was received. The plane tickets were purchased. The questions were prepared, and I was set to go. Tomorrow, I was going to fly to Texas to appear on Glenn Beck&#8217;s TV program. Those plans, shall we say, &#8220;fell through.&#8221; You see, while over the past few weeks I pitched Glenn&#8217;s team on having me on [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:4905:"<p>The invite was received. The plane tickets were purchased. The questions were prepared, and I was set to go. Tomorrow, I was going to fly to Texas to appear on Glenn Beck&#8217;s TV program.</p>
<p>Those plans, shall we say, &#8220;fell through.&#8221;</p>
<p>You see, while over the past few weeks I pitched Glenn&#8217;s team on having me on to discuss <a href="http://feardombook.com"><em>Feardom</em></a>, I didn&#8217;t have in mind what his researchers later found: a blog post from early 2012 in which I said some not so nice things to and about their boss.</p>
<p>Titled &#8220;<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-letter-to-glenn-beck">An Open Letter to Glenn Beck</a>,&#8221; the post was a reactionary takedown of Glenn&#8217;s treatment of Ron Paul. After I was informed that Glenn&#8217;s staff had come across it, I went back and read it myself to see what I had said nearly three years ago. I was with my family, and in sheer surprise at the… ahem… strength of some of the words, I read some excerpts to my wife who, along with myself, was surprised by my tone.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the harshest part, though a similar tone pervades the entire article:</p>
<p><span id="more-3401"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>But good heavens, Glenn. You’re so inconsistent! For example, you’ve recognized that Ron Paul is the closest thing we’ve got to the founding fathers, and then you encourage people not to support him. Then you about-face and suggest he’s what we need, only to then attack him a few days later.</p>
<p>Flip-flopping Mitt Romney? He’s got nothing on you.</p>
<p>But hey, I get that you have a hard time with consistently applying a principle. Many people do. No sweat. All is forgiven. I don’t listen to you, and I encourage others to steer clear, but you’re welcome to continue your self-contradicting tirades all you like, so long as you have the breath to do so. I prefer to keep my distance from you, as I don’t consider you a reliable source of analysis and truth. In short, I ignore you.</p></blockquote>
<p>After I read the article I fully expected my invitation to be withdrawn—and it was. Rightly so, of course; I wouldn&#8217;t really want to share my platform with a person who had treated me like that.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about reading this missive I wrote is that I agree with the substance—Glenn Beck was wrong to treat Ron Paul as he did, and wrong to malign his supporters—but I completely disagree with the tone. I can clearly tell that I wrote it from a defensive, reactionary position, but if the same events occurred today, the article would be quite different.</p>
<p>I can also tell that I was enjoying myself a little while writing it; I used to find pleasure in flame wars, tearing to pieces the opposing side. Years ago, I found value in being correct, but undervalued the importance of delivery and diplomacy. That has since changed.</p>
<p>What did it for me is <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a>—a serious effort to change public conversation and policy. Here I found myself strategically planning how to find long term success for liberty in my home state. Could a bombastic approach produce desired results? Clearly not—a few friends might cheer, but it would do little to attract, let alone persuade, those outside my camp.</p>
<p>And so, my new organization forced me to transform both my personal attitude and my public persona. I now recognize, and practice, what I disregarded years ago: that the message I hold so dear will find its way into the hearts and minds of those within my sphere of influence more through friendliness than flames. Respecting others, and wearing a smile on your face, opens doors that angry Facebook rants never did. Liberty will win when more of its messengers behave in a way that others would want to emulate.</p>
<p>Whether or not future opportunities of collaboration exist with Glenn Beck, I apologize to him for the way I communicated my thoughts to him. We disagree on many issues, but agree on many more—and in the past few years I have had great success in working together with people on areas of agreement, despite other disagreements. I no longer see a need to berate a person for the policies they support that I find problematic.</p>
<p>Of course, I still criticize flawed positions, whether held by friend or foe. But that&#8217;s where I prefer to focus my ire—on policy, not people. I missed the mark when going after Glenn to the degree I did, and I likewise missed that mark in earlier years on a routine basis. I now see almost everybody as a friend—one who simply needs a little convincing to &#8220;see the light&#8221; and embrace a position of liberty. Whether they ultimately agree or not, it&#8217;s a healthier and happier approach to life, and one I hope others in the liberty movement will adopt.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:67:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-apology-to-glenn-beck/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"30";}s:7:"summary";s:341:"The invite was received. The plane tickets were purchased. The questions were prepared, and I was set to go. Tomorrow, I was going to fly to Texas to appear on Glenn Beck&#8217;s TV program. Those plans, shall we say, &#8220;fell through.&#8221; You see, while over the past few weeks I pitched Glenn&#8217;s team on having me on [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:4905:"<p>The invite was received. The plane tickets were purchased. The questions were prepared, and I was set to go. Tomorrow, I was going to fly to Texas to appear on Glenn Beck&#8217;s TV program.</p>
<p>Those plans, shall we say, &#8220;fell through.&#8221;</p>
<p>You see, while over the past few weeks I pitched Glenn&#8217;s team on having me on to discuss <a href="http://feardombook.com"><em>Feardom</em></a>, I didn&#8217;t have in mind what his researchers later found: a blog post from early 2012 in which I said some not so nice things to and about their boss.</p>
<p>Titled &#8220;<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-letter-to-glenn-beck">An Open Letter to Glenn Beck</a>,&#8221; the post was a reactionary takedown of Glenn&#8217;s treatment of Ron Paul. After I was informed that Glenn&#8217;s staff had come across it, I went back and read it myself to see what I had said nearly three years ago. I was with my family, and in sheer surprise at the… ahem… strength of some of the words, I read some excerpts to my wife who, along with myself, was surprised by my tone.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the harshest part, though a similar tone pervades the entire article:</p>
<p><span id="more-3401"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>But good heavens, Glenn. You’re so inconsistent! For example, you’ve recognized that Ron Paul is the closest thing we’ve got to the founding fathers, and then you encourage people not to support him. Then you about-face and suggest he’s what we need, only to then attack him a few days later.</p>
<p>Flip-flopping Mitt Romney? He’s got nothing on you.</p>
<p>But hey, I get that you have a hard time with consistently applying a principle. Many people do. No sweat. All is forgiven. I don’t listen to you, and I encourage others to steer clear, but you’re welcome to continue your self-contradicting tirades all you like, so long as you have the breath to do so. I prefer to keep my distance from you, as I don’t consider you a reliable source of analysis and truth. In short, I ignore you.</p></blockquote>
<p>After I read the article I fully expected my invitation to be withdrawn—and it was. Rightly so, of course; I wouldn&#8217;t really want to share my platform with a person who had treated me like that.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about reading this missive I wrote is that I agree with the substance—Glenn Beck was wrong to treat Ron Paul as he did, and wrong to malign his supporters—but I completely disagree with the tone. I can clearly tell that I wrote it from a defensive, reactionary position, but if the same events occurred today, the article would be quite different.</p>
<p>I can also tell that I was enjoying myself a little while writing it; I used to find pleasure in flame wars, tearing to pieces the opposing side. Years ago, I found value in being correct, but undervalued the importance of delivery and diplomacy. That has since changed.</p>
<p>What did it for me is <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a>—a serious effort to change public conversation and policy. Here I found myself strategically planning how to find long term success for liberty in my home state. Could a bombastic approach produce desired results? Clearly not—a few friends might cheer, but it would do little to attract, let alone persuade, those outside my camp.</p>
<p>And so, my new organization forced me to transform both my personal attitude and my public persona. I now recognize, and practice, what I disregarded years ago: that the message I hold so dear will find its way into the hearts and minds of those within my sphere of influence more through friendliness than flames. Respecting others, and wearing a smile on your face, opens doors that angry Facebook rants never did. Liberty will win when more of its messengers behave in a way that others would want to emulate.</p>
<p>Whether or not future opportunities of collaboration exist with Glenn Beck, I apologize to him for the way I communicated my thoughts to him. We disagree on many issues, but agree on many more—and in the past few years I have had great success in working together with people on areas of agreement, despite other disagreements. I no longer see a need to berate a person for the policies they support that I find problematic.</p>
<p>Of course, I still criticize flawed positions, whether held by friend or foe. But that&#8217;s where I prefer to focus my ire—on policy, not people. I missed the mark when going after Glenn to the degree I did, and I likewise missed that mark in earlier years on a routine basis. I now see almost everybody as a friend—one who simply needs a little convincing to &#8220;see the light&#8221; and embrace a position of liberty. Whether they ultimately agree or not, it&#8217;s a healthier and happier approach to life, and one I hope others in the liberty movement will adopt.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1417964553;}i:8;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:32:"Changing Deckhands or Direction?";s:4:"link";s:64:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/changing-deckhands-or-direction";s:8:"comments";s:73:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/changing-deckhands-or-direction#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:36:43 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3397";s:11:"description";s:361:"The following op-ed was published this past weekend by the Daily Herald. The ballot box provides American citizens an opportunity to indicate their support for or opposition to a variety of political candidates and proposed policy changes — an opportunity that a majority ignore; in Utah County, more than 67 percent of voters abstained from voting [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:6383:"<p><em>The following op-ed was <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/opinion-shapers/opinion-shaper-election-day-has-little-effect-on-big-picture/article_b262aea2-2cea-5b44-aca9-67d1a3269fc2.html">published</a> this past weekend by the </em><em>Daily Herald</em>. </p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>The ballot box provides American citizens an opportunity to indicate their support for or opposition to a variety of political candidates and proposed policy changes — an opportunity that a majority ignore; in Utah County, more than 67 percent of voters abstained from voting in the general election earlier this month.</p>
<p>For the few who do vote, this process becomes a majoritarian popularity contest in which warring factions attempt to wrest power from their competitors in hopes of imposing their views on everybody else. As Lord Acton wrote, “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” No student of history should regard American elections as a particularly praiseworthy process.</p>
<p>Of course, most see the current system as the least problematic approach to public policy, and therefore a valid system by which the government can be changed. But will this election actually change the direction America is heading, or is it, in the end, a theatrical rearrangement of deckhands on a ship whose course is fairly fixed?</p>
<p><span id="more-3397"></span></p>
<p>Republicans regained control of the U.S. Senate, thus putting the GOP into majorities in both chambers of Congress. Many people who object to the clearly anti-liberty Democrat agenda are excited by the opportunity this presents, and hopeful that change is afoot. But the future should be informed by the past; context and data are better indicators of a trend than hope and prayer.</p>
<p>When the Republicans were last in control of Congress, a variety of flawed, big-government policies were foisted onto the public. In the cloud of fear following the 9/11 attacks, Republicans rammed the USA PATRIOT Act through both chambers without reading it, strengthening the foundation of today’s surveillance and police state in which liberty, privacy, and security have been substantially eroded in the name of “fighting terror.”</p>
<p>Republicans also gave us No Child Left Behind, a heavy-handed federal intervention into local education, and a precursor to Common Core. The same party cheerfully enacted Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of the welfare state since Medicare’s creation in 1965, and an unfunded mandate costing over half a trillion dollars in the first decade alone.</p>
<p>While new elected officials might bring redemption to the supposed party of limited government and low taxes, a decades-long trend of increasing interventions and violations of liberty provides skeptics with sufficient reason to doubt this outcome, welcome though it would be.</p>
<p>Costs for post-9/11 wars currently stand at $4.4 trillion, 6,800 dead American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Middle-Easterners, rampant sexual abuse and suicide within military ranks, and untold amounts of collateral damage. The federal government routinely spies on our digital communication and personal information, unfazed by Edward Snowden’s revelations of the NSA’s activities. The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and Americans have to collectively work for nearly four months of each year merely to finance the government’s tax bill.</p>
<p>These and a lengthy list of other policy problems present a foreboding question to the politically inclined individual: is any of it going to change, to any substantive degree, any time soon? Did the election of Mike Lee in 2010, or Orrin Hatch in 2012 change this direction — or will Mia Love’s election do it? The question answers itself.</p>
<p>While the charted course of the federal government has long been in the direction of a perilous cliff, concerned citizens should consider fixing their gaze at more local levels where government can be — and often is — far more active than Congress. Consider this data point: in 2013, Congress passed 57 new bills. In the same year, the several states together passed some 40,000 new bills into law. This torrent of new laws makes a truism out of Gideon J. Tucker’s quote from 1866: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.&#8221;</p>
<p>And it’s not just state legislatures — in many cases, voters become directly complicit in furthering the growth of big government, less liberty, and more taxes and debt by supporting these measures at the ballot box. Republican majorities permeate Utah County, and yet a new tax increase was just approved in American Fork, and Provo taxpayers were committed to $108 million in new debt because of the votes of roughly 10 percent of voting-age residents.</p>
<p>Electing new people into office may slightly and temporarily alter the trajectory of government, but without active watchdogs and a freedom-minded people jealously guarding their liberty from encroachment, the direction will remain the same. After all, as Thomas Jefferson said, &#8220;The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”</p>
<p>Here’s the key takeaway: showing up on Election Day to express your position on a few things — even if you’re one of the few who took the time to research what you’re voting on — doesn’t cut it. Elected officials, no matter how saintly they may seem in their private lives, generally cannot be trusted to protect your rights. They work with, and are lobbied by, people who desire more power and money — at our expense. No matter what level of government, it is highly tempting to disregard liberty and constitutional fidelity in exchange for praise, political favors, and power.</p>
<p>Casting a few votes won’t change this trend. Abandoning the political process is unlikely to affect it. Campaigning for your neighbor or friend won’t do it. Big problems require bold solutions — and while there are a variety of options and strategies to consider, a fundamental question first needs to be addressed: do we even care?</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:69:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/changing-deckhands-or-direction/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:1:"4";}s:7:"summary";s:361:"The following op-ed was published this past weekend by the Daily Herald. The ballot box provides American citizens an opportunity to indicate their support for or opposition to a variety of political candidates and proposed policy changes — an opportunity that a majority ignore; in Utah County, more than 67 percent of voters abstained from voting [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:6383:"<p><em>The following op-ed was <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/opinion-shapers/opinion-shaper-election-day-has-little-effect-on-big-picture/article_b262aea2-2cea-5b44-aca9-67d1a3269fc2.html">published</a> this past weekend by the </em><em>Daily Herald</em>. </p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>The ballot box provides American citizens an opportunity to indicate their support for or opposition to a variety of political candidates and proposed policy changes — an opportunity that a majority ignore; in Utah County, more than 67 percent of voters abstained from voting in the general election earlier this month.</p>
<p>For the few who do vote, this process becomes a majoritarian popularity contest in which warring factions attempt to wrest power from their competitors in hopes of imposing their views on everybody else. As Lord Acton wrote, “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” No student of history should regard American elections as a particularly praiseworthy process.</p>
<p>Of course, most see the current system as the least problematic approach to public policy, and therefore a valid system by which the government can be changed. But will this election actually change the direction America is heading, or is it, in the end, a theatrical rearrangement of deckhands on a ship whose course is fairly fixed?</p>
<p><span id="more-3397"></span></p>
<p>Republicans regained control of the U.S. Senate, thus putting the GOP into majorities in both chambers of Congress. Many people who object to the clearly anti-liberty Democrat agenda are excited by the opportunity this presents, and hopeful that change is afoot. But the future should be informed by the past; context and data are better indicators of a trend than hope and prayer.</p>
<p>When the Republicans were last in control of Congress, a variety of flawed, big-government policies were foisted onto the public. In the cloud of fear following the 9/11 attacks, Republicans rammed the USA PATRIOT Act through both chambers without reading it, strengthening the foundation of today’s surveillance and police state in which liberty, privacy, and security have been substantially eroded in the name of “fighting terror.”</p>
<p>Republicans also gave us No Child Left Behind, a heavy-handed federal intervention into local education, and a precursor to Common Core. The same party cheerfully enacted Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of the welfare state since Medicare’s creation in 1965, and an unfunded mandate costing over half a trillion dollars in the first decade alone.</p>
<p>While new elected officials might bring redemption to the supposed party of limited government and low taxes, a decades-long trend of increasing interventions and violations of liberty provides skeptics with sufficient reason to doubt this outcome, welcome though it would be.</p>
<p>Costs for post-9/11 wars currently stand at $4.4 trillion, 6,800 dead American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Middle-Easterners, rampant sexual abuse and suicide within military ranks, and untold amounts of collateral damage. The federal government routinely spies on our digital communication and personal information, unfazed by Edward Snowden’s revelations of the NSA’s activities. The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and Americans have to collectively work for nearly four months of each year merely to finance the government’s tax bill.</p>
<p>These and a lengthy list of other policy problems present a foreboding question to the politically inclined individual: is any of it going to change, to any substantive degree, any time soon? Did the election of Mike Lee in 2010, or Orrin Hatch in 2012 change this direction — or will Mia Love’s election do it? The question answers itself.</p>
<p>While the charted course of the federal government has long been in the direction of a perilous cliff, concerned citizens should consider fixing their gaze at more local levels where government can be — and often is — far more active than Congress. Consider this data point: in 2013, Congress passed 57 new bills. In the same year, the several states together passed some 40,000 new bills into law. This torrent of new laws makes a truism out of Gideon J. Tucker’s quote from 1866: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.&#8221;</p>
<p>And it’s not just state legislatures — in many cases, voters become directly complicit in furthering the growth of big government, less liberty, and more taxes and debt by supporting these measures at the ballot box. Republican majorities permeate Utah County, and yet a new tax increase was just approved in American Fork, and Provo taxpayers were committed to $108 million in new debt because of the votes of roughly 10 percent of voting-age residents.</p>
<p>Electing new people into office may slightly and temporarily alter the trajectory of government, but without active watchdogs and a freedom-minded people jealously guarding their liberty from encroachment, the direction will remain the same. After all, as Thomas Jefferson said, &#8220;The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”</p>
<p>Here’s the key takeaway: showing up on Election Day to express your position on a few things — even if you’re one of the few who took the time to research what you’re voting on — doesn’t cut it. Elected officials, no matter how saintly they may seem in their private lives, generally cannot be trusted to protect your rights. They work with, and are lobbied by, people who desire more power and money — at our expense. No matter what level of government, it is highly tempting to disregard liberty and constitutional fidelity in exchange for praise, political favors, and power.</p>
<p>Casting a few votes won’t change this trend. Abandoning the political process is unlikely to affect it. Campaigning for your neighbor or friend won’t do it. Big problems require bold solutions — and while there are a variety of options and strategies to consider, a fundamental question first needs to be addressed: do we even care?</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1416325003;}i:9;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:69:"Transparency, simplicity, publicity: Words for GOP to live by in 2015";s:4:"link";s:99:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015";s:8:"comments";s:108:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sat, 15 Nov 2014 04:13:09 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3396";s:11:"description";s:352:"The following op-ed was published this week by Fox News. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of Feardom. Every Republican newly elected to the U.S. Senate shares at least one thing in common: they each campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act. As Americans all across the political spectrum prepare for a [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:6230:"<p><em>The following op-ed was <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/13/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015/">published</a> this week by Fox News. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of <a href="http://feardombook.com">Feardom</a>.</em></p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>Every Republican newly elected to the U.S. Senate shares at least one thing in common: they each campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act.</p>
<p>As Americans all across the political spectrum prepare for a fresh round of debate regarding this controversial policy reform, it’s important to pause and address how it was adopted in the first place.</p>
<p>If we’re to believe one of its creators, “ObamaCare” came into existence only because of “the stupidity of the American voter.” Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and chief architect of the law, <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/" target="_blank">admitted last year</a> to a friendly audience that it “was written in a tortured way” to dodge legislative obstacles, and that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” that “was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”</p>
<p>Let’s take Gruber at his word—that the success of the president’s signature policy proposal was predicated on ignorance and obfuscation. One must conclude from his explanation that the Obama administration relied upon—and helped to maintain—the electorate’s alleged stupidity; in the eyes of a politician, an ignorant populace is a malleable one. “Great is truth,” wrote the dystopian author Aldous Huxley, “but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.”</p>
<p><span id="more-3396"></span></p>
<p>This ignorance was fostered through a number of false claims made both before and after ObamaCare’s passage. The president <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/" target="_blank">promised</a> Americans that, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.” Families were told that their premiums <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/10/23/now-there-can-be-no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-non-group-premiums-in-nearly-all-states/" target="_blank">would be lowered</a> “up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” Those who already had insurance were pacified by <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/02/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-people-health-insuranc/" target="_blank">being told</a> that their “only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”</p>
<p>Whether it be through omission of truth or outright lies such as these, designed to neutralize the opposition, politicians routinely keep the public in the dark and thus unable to mount a defense and oppose policies (or politicians) to which they object. Without the ability to recognize and respond to observable problems, an ignorant public must rely upon what Christopher Guzelian, a legal theorist, calls “risk communication”—the (often false) information conveyed to them by politicians and the media describing what threats exist, how scared they should be, and what measures they should support in response.</p>
<p>A policy predicated on deception and ignorance is ripe for repeal, but as the new Republican majority begins to agitate for reform, they should emphatically reject the tools and tactics used by Gruber and his associates by legislating, at a minimum, according to these three core principles:</p>
<p>First, transparency. Barack Obama campaigned on this promise, and has <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/barack_obama_promised_transparency_the_white_house_is_as_opaque_secretive.html" target="_blank">miserably failed</a>. While Gruber was correct to note that a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Republicans should repudiate this tactic and take the higher road by holding open meetings, providing draft text of legislation well in advance of a vote, including their political opponents in all relevant discussions, and being forthcoming, honest, and sincere with their constituents throughout the entire process. This alone would be a breath of fresh air, and perhaps increase their <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance" target="_blank">single digit approval rating</a>.</p>
<p>Second, simplicity. The Affordable Care Act is 381,517 words long—86.7 times longer than the U.S. Constitution and twice as long as the New Testament. “It will be of little avail to the people,” wrote James Madison, “that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” Republicans should commit to simple legislation and simple explanations, treating the American people as their equals—nay, employers—rather than uneducated underlings unable to comprehend congressional complexity, whether intentionally “tortured” or not.</p>
<p>Finally, publicity. If Americans are uniformed on a policy being proposed by congressional Republicans, then they should commit to proactively educating the public, using any and all means possible—and with substance, not sound bytes. A voter’s supposed “stupidity” should be seen as detrimental, rather than politically advantageous.</p>
<p>Republicans have been given an opportunity that they should not squander. Earning the public’s trust, and attempting to reverse course, will require more than talking points and tweaking policy—systemic changes are needed. A new Senate majority now exists for the Republicans in large measure because of bold promises made to the public. We now wait to see if we’ve been lied to once again.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:104:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:1:"5";}s:7:"summary";s:352:"The following op-ed was published this week by Fox News. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of Feardom. Every Republican newly elected to the U.S. Senate shares at least one thing in common: they each campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act. As Americans all across the political spectrum prepare for a [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:6230:"<p><em>The following op-ed was <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/13/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015/">published</a> this week by Fox News. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of <a href="http://feardombook.com">Feardom</a>.</em></p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>Every Republican newly elected to the U.S. Senate shares at least one thing in common: they each campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act.</p>
<p>As Americans all across the political spectrum prepare for a fresh round of debate regarding this controversial policy reform, it’s important to pause and address how it was adopted in the first place.</p>
<p>If we’re to believe one of its creators, “ObamaCare” came into existence only because of “the stupidity of the American voter.” Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and chief architect of the law, <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/" target="_blank">admitted last year</a> to a friendly audience that it “was written in a tortured way” to dodge legislative obstacles, and that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” that “was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”</p>
<p>Let’s take Gruber at his word—that the success of the president’s signature policy proposal was predicated on ignorance and obfuscation. One must conclude from his explanation that the Obama administration relied upon—and helped to maintain—the electorate’s alleged stupidity; in the eyes of a politician, an ignorant populace is a malleable one. “Great is truth,” wrote the dystopian author Aldous Huxley, “but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.”</p>
<p><span id="more-3396"></span></p>
<p>This ignorance was fostered through a number of false claims made both before and after ObamaCare’s passage. The president <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/" target="_blank">promised</a> Americans that, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.” Families were told that their premiums <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/10/23/now-there-can-be-no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-non-group-premiums-in-nearly-all-states/" target="_blank">would be lowered</a> “up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” Those who already had insurance were pacified by <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/02/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-people-health-insuranc/" target="_blank">being told</a> that their “only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”</p>
<p>Whether it be through omission of truth or outright lies such as these, designed to neutralize the opposition, politicians routinely keep the public in the dark and thus unable to mount a defense and oppose policies (or politicians) to which they object. Without the ability to recognize and respond to observable problems, an ignorant public must rely upon what Christopher Guzelian, a legal theorist, calls “risk communication”—the (often false) information conveyed to them by politicians and the media describing what threats exist, how scared they should be, and what measures they should support in response.</p>
<p>A policy predicated on deception and ignorance is ripe for repeal, but as the new Republican majority begins to agitate for reform, they should emphatically reject the tools and tactics used by Gruber and his associates by legislating, at a minimum, according to these three core principles:</p>
<p>First, transparency. Barack Obama campaigned on this promise, and has <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/barack_obama_promised_transparency_the_white_house_is_as_opaque_secretive.html" target="_blank">miserably failed</a>. While Gruber was correct to note that a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Republicans should repudiate this tactic and take the higher road by holding open meetings, providing draft text of legislation well in advance of a vote, including their political opponents in all relevant discussions, and being forthcoming, honest, and sincere with their constituents throughout the entire process. This alone would be a breath of fresh air, and perhaps increase their <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance" target="_blank">single digit approval rating</a>.</p>
<p>Second, simplicity. The Affordable Care Act is 381,517 words long—86.7 times longer than the U.S. Constitution and twice as long as the New Testament. “It will be of little avail to the people,” wrote James Madison, “that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” Republicans should commit to simple legislation and simple explanations, treating the American people as their equals—nay, employers—rather than uneducated underlings unable to comprehend congressional complexity, whether intentionally “tortured” or not.</p>
<p>Finally, publicity. If Americans are uniformed on a policy being proposed by congressional Republicans, then they should commit to proactively educating the public, using any and all means possible—and with substance, not sound bytes. A voter’s supposed “stupidity” should be seen as detrimental, rather than politically advantageous.</p>
<p>Republicans have been given an opportunity that they should not squander. Earning the public’s trust, and attempting to reverse course, will require more than talking points and tweaking policy—systemic changes are needed. A new Senate majority now exists for the Republicans in large measure because of bold promises made to the public. We now wait to see if we’ve been lied to once again.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1416024789;}i:10;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:61:"Forced Taxation to Fund Schools — For the Good of Society?";s:4:"link";s:88:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/forced-taxation-to-fund-schools-for-the-good-of-society";s:8:"comments";s:97:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/forced-taxation-to-fund-schools-for-the-good-of-society#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:58:12 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3395";s:11:"description";s:336:"I received my annual property tax notice in the mail last week, informing me of the amount of my hard-earned money that the government was demanding I submit, without mercy or exception. The penalty for non-compliance ranges from fines to foreclosure, clarifying to citizens that they do not in fact own the property for which [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:6828:"<p>I received my annual property tax notice in the mail last week, informing me of the amount of my hard-earned money that the government was demanding I submit, without mercy or exception. The penalty for non-compliance ranges from fines to foreclosure, clarifying to citizens that they do not in fact own the property for which they hold a title; we must pay rent to the government or be evicted.</p>
<p>The tax notice I was provided showed the break down of which government bodies would receive certain divisible amounts, the largest of which is the government school district in which I live—nearly $2,000, and $170 higher than last year&#8217;s mandate. </p>
<p>As a homeschooling father, I find this burden to be excessive and unjust. Because this taxation mandate carries with it significant penalties should I fail to pay, it becomes a priority expenditure. As such, the costs of my own children&#8217;s education becomes secondary; curriculum, materials, field trips, activities, and other resources needed to help my children learn can only be acquired after I have first financed the education of others&#8217; kids. </p>
<p>&#8220;But!&#8221; the statist immediately interjects. &#8220;Surely this sacrifice is necessary for the good of society—it is the price we pay to live in an educated populace.&#8221; This argument is represented fairly well—though in <a href="http://youtu.be/x78PnPd-V-A?t=2m34s">nausea-inducing fashion</a>—by author John Greene, who offered the following comment often paraded around by public school supporters:</p>
<p><span id="more-3395"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>We have discovered as a species that it is useful to have an educated population. You do not need to be a student or have a child who is a student to benefit from public education. Every second of every day of your life, you benefit from public education. So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don’t personally have a kid in school; it’s because I don’t like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.</p></blockquote>
<p>This commentary is <a href="http://jsbmorse.com/john-greens-fallacies-on-education/">full of logical fallacies</a>. I definitely benefit from others&#8217; <em>education</em>, which must be contrasted against <em>schooling</em>—the highly regimented, pedagogically watered down, and bureaucratically micromanaged daycare system in which millions of children are now eagerly placed by parents uninterested, unwilling, or unable to shoulder this aspect of their parental stewardship. <a href="http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/dumb-as-a-rock-you-will-be-absolutely-amazed-at-the-things-that-u-s-high-school-students-do-not-know">The result is alarming</a>, suggesting that heavy schooling does not really result in adequate (let alone excellent) education—which, in many cases, happens outside any formal schooling, and often <a href="http://www.libertyclassroom.com/">in spite of it</a>. (This definitely was <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/how-i-intend-to-educate-my-children">my experience</a>.)</p>
<p>Further, even if schools were a necessary environment to educate a person, it does not therefore follow that everybody who might indirectly benefit from a person&#8217;s education must be compelled to finance it. I definitely desire to live in an educated society and benefit from the wisdom and innovation that would follow. But I also desire to live in a religious and moral society—and few people have an appetite for compelling the payment of tithes, requiring attendance at church services, and intrusively ensuring that a person is acting in accordance with the moral standard defined by a panel of politicians whose claim to power is that they won a popularity contest.</p>
<p>The statist will have none of this, side-stepping this rebuttal to assert another illogical argument. &#8220;Imagine,&#8221; they say, &#8220;how oppressive it would be for families with several children to have to finance their own childrens&#8217; education!&#8221; At first blush, many might have sympathy with this argument, but it, too, is easily dismantled. The simple truth is that parents have the responsibility of providing for their children, and in deciding how many children to have, must ensure they can adequately provide their offspring with food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and yes, even education. Put simply, I should not be forced to subsidize the family planning decisions of my neighbor.</p>
<p>Education, like any other service provided by one person to another, should be paid for by those who are its direct beneficiaries. Arguing that the societal masses indirectly benefit from my child&#8217;s education does not justify coercing others to finance it, any more than does the suggestion that grocery stores should be taxpayer-funded and regulated by the government because society benefits in the aggregate from having a healthy, energetic, and active population. Most initiatives will indirectly affect others, in positive or negative ways, but these corollary consequences are insufficient reason to intervene and impose mandates.</p>
<p>As a father, I hope my children grow to improve others&#8217; lives to find fulfillment in their own. I want them to influence the world around them; a loving person, as Joseph Smith said, &#8220;is not content with blessing his family alone but ranges through the world, anxious to bless the whole of the human family.&#8221; This aspirational outcome, as it applies to their education, requires it be structured as and considered a blessing every step of the way, by all involved—and coercively taxing others to fund my children&#8217;s education divorces the praiseworthy ends from the illegitimate means. It is not an arrangement to which I can in good conscience consent for my own children, and it causes me to protest to being forced into this mandatory funding scheme to benefit other children over whom I am not a steward. </p>
<p>Education is paramount, and society is improved when composed of knowledgeable, hard-working people. This is not in dispute. The statists would have us believe that ends justify means, and that these means are the &#8220;price of living in an educated society.&#8221; But no price can be legitimately exacted from a person without their consent, and no consent has been granted by parents not using the government school system to shoulder its heavy financial burden in support of substandard educational outcomes for other children in their community. As such, justice demands that they—my family included—should be exempted from being required to pay.</p>
<p>But let&#8217;s not kid ourselves—a government that has systematized injustice is unlikely to concern itself with matters of justice such as this.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:93:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/forced-taxation-to-fund-schools-for-the-good-of-society/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"41";}s:7:"summary";s:336:"I received my annual property tax notice in the mail last week, informing me of the amount of my hard-earned money that the government was demanding I submit, without mercy or exception. The penalty for non-compliance ranges from fines to foreclosure, clarifying to citizens that they do not in fact own the property for which [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:6828:"<p>I received my annual property tax notice in the mail last week, informing me of the amount of my hard-earned money that the government was demanding I submit, without mercy or exception. The penalty for non-compliance ranges from fines to foreclosure, clarifying to citizens that they do not in fact own the property for which they hold a title; we must pay rent to the government or be evicted.</p>
<p>The tax notice I was provided showed the break down of which government bodies would receive certain divisible amounts, the largest of which is the government school district in which I live—nearly $2,000, and $170 higher than last year&#8217;s mandate. </p>
<p>As a homeschooling father, I find this burden to be excessive and unjust. Because this taxation mandate carries with it significant penalties should I fail to pay, it becomes a priority expenditure. As such, the costs of my own children&#8217;s education becomes secondary; curriculum, materials, field trips, activities, and other resources needed to help my children learn can only be acquired after I have first financed the education of others&#8217; kids. </p>
<p>&#8220;But!&#8221; the statist immediately interjects. &#8220;Surely this sacrifice is necessary for the good of society—it is the price we pay to live in an educated populace.&#8221; This argument is represented fairly well—though in <a href="http://youtu.be/x78PnPd-V-A?t=2m34s">nausea-inducing fashion</a>—by author John Greene, who offered the following comment often paraded around by public school supporters:</p>
<p><span id="more-3395"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>We have discovered as a species that it is useful to have an educated population. You do not need to be a student or have a child who is a student to benefit from public education. Every second of every day of your life, you benefit from public education. So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don’t personally have a kid in school; it’s because I don’t like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.</p></blockquote>
<p>This commentary is <a href="http://jsbmorse.com/john-greens-fallacies-on-education/">full of logical fallacies</a>. I definitely benefit from others&#8217; <em>education</em>, which must be contrasted against <em>schooling</em>—the highly regimented, pedagogically watered down, and bureaucratically micromanaged daycare system in which millions of children are now eagerly placed by parents uninterested, unwilling, or unable to shoulder this aspect of their parental stewardship. <a href="http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/dumb-as-a-rock-you-will-be-absolutely-amazed-at-the-things-that-u-s-high-school-students-do-not-know">The result is alarming</a>, suggesting that heavy schooling does not really result in adequate (let alone excellent) education—which, in many cases, happens outside any formal schooling, and often <a href="http://www.libertyclassroom.com/">in spite of it</a>. (This definitely was <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/how-i-intend-to-educate-my-children">my experience</a>.)</p>
<p>Further, even if schools were a necessary environment to educate a person, it does not therefore follow that everybody who might indirectly benefit from a person&#8217;s education must be compelled to finance it. I definitely desire to live in an educated society and benefit from the wisdom and innovation that would follow. But I also desire to live in a religious and moral society—and few people have an appetite for compelling the payment of tithes, requiring attendance at church services, and intrusively ensuring that a person is acting in accordance with the moral standard defined by a panel of politicians whose claim to power is that they won a popularity contest.</p>
<p>The statist will have none of this, side-stepping this rebuttal to assert another illogical argument. &#8220;Imagine,&#8221; they say, &#8220;how oppressive it would be for families with several children to have to finance their own childrens&#8217; education!&#8221; At first blush, many might have sympathy with this argument, but it, too, is easily dismantled. The simple truth is that parents have the responsibility of providing for their children, and in deciding how many children to have, must ensure they can adequately provide their offspring with food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and yes, even education. Put simply, I should not be forced to subsidize the family planning decisions of my neighbor.</p>
<p>Education, like any other service provided by one person to another, should be paid for by those who are its direct beneficiaries. Arguing that the societal masses indirectly benefit from my child&#8217;s education does not justify coercing others to finance it, any more than does the suggestion that grocery stores should be taxpayer-funded and regulated by the government because society benefits in the aggregate from having a healthy, energetic, and active population. Most initiatives will indirectly affect others, in positive or negative ways, but these corollary consequences are insufficient reason to intervene and impose mandates.</p>
<p>As a father, I hope my children grow to improve others&#8217; lives to find fulfillment in their own. I want them to influence the world around them; a loving person, as Joseph Smith said, &#8220;is not content with blessing his family alone but ranges through the world, anxious to bless the whole of the human family.&#8221; This aspirational outcome, as it applies to their education, requires it be structured as and considered a blessing every step of the way, by all involved—and coercively taxing others to fund my children&#8217;s education divorces the praiseworthy ends from the illegitimate means. It is not an arrangement to which I can in good conscience consent for my own children, and it causes me to protest to being forced into this mandatory funding scheme to benefit other children over whom I am not a steward. </p>
<p>Education is paramount, and society is improved when composed of knowledgeable, hard-working people. This is not in dispute. The statists would have us believe that ends justify means, and that these means are the &#8220;price of living in an educated society.&#8221; But no price can be legitimately exacted from a person without their consent, and no consent has been granted by parents not using the government school system to shoulder its heavy financial burden in support of substandard educational outcomes for other children in their community. As such, justice demands that they—my family included—should be exempted from being required to pay.</p>
<p>But let&#8217;s not kid ourselves—a government that has systematized injustice is unlikely to concern itself with matters of justice such as this.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1415635092;}i:11;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:29:"In the Shadows of the Unknown";s:4:"link";s:62:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/in-the-shadows-of-the-unknown";s:8:"comments";s:71:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/in-the-shadows-of-the-unknown#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:26:12 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3393";s:11:"description";s:363:"The following article was published in this month&#8217;s edition of The Freeman by The Foundation for Economic Education. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of Feardom. Your doorbell rings in the dark of night, so you quietly approach the peephole to size up your visitor. The porch light doesn’t illuminate the person [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:8972:"<p><em>The following article was <a href="http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/in-the-shadows-of-the-unknown">published</a> in this month&#8217;s edition of The Freeman by The Foundation for Economic Education. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of <a href="http://feardombook.com">Feardom</a>.</em></p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>Your doorbell rings in the dark of night, so you quietly approach the peephole to size up your visitor. The porch light doesn’t illuminate the person well enough to see him clearly, but he’s definitely wearing a mask. You move your eyes lower to get a better look at the tall figure. He’s standing, waiting, on the other side of the threshold. He’s holding a machete.</p>
<p>On any other night, this scenario might send adrenaline coursing through your veins, fueling an almost palpable fear. But tonight is different. It’s Halloween. And rather than feeling scared, you casually open the door to discover that the dimly lit figure is the teenager from down the street dressed as the killer from a slasher flick.</p>
<p>We don’t fear a scary-looking stranger on our doorstep on October 31 because we know it’s very likely to be a friendly neighbor seeking sugar. This information, born of experience, empowers us to act rationally. It&#8217;s possible, of course, that the machete-wielding figure really is a murderer going door to door — but the odds are against it, especially on this night of the year.</p>
<p>Imagine if you didn&#8217;t know how to assess that risk. Imagine locking your doors, turning off all the lights, and cowering in the dark, waiting for all the trick-or-treaters to go away. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is the situation we too often find ourselves in when politicians and the media tell us to be scared — of terrorists, of deadly contagions from overseas, or just of each other. We know that not all of the threats can be real, but how are we to discern the true menaces from the false alarms?</p>
<p>When people are scared, they will support policies that promise to keep us safe, but end up costing us ever more—both in tax dollars and lost liberties. That’s why despots throughout history have sought means by which the masses could be intentionally kept in the dark: ignorance and fear give the despots power. It doesn&#8217;t matter which political party is in power. The left tries to scare people with dark visions of unchecked greed and exploitation. The right wants people to fear alleged threats to our security, both abroad and within our borders. Fear pervades politics generally. As John Adams once wrote, it is “the foundation of most governments.”</p>
<p>We naturally defer decision making to those who have access to greater political and military intelligence than the general population does. Christopher Guzelian, a legal theorist, posits that politicians are so successful in their use of fear because of “risk information (whether correct or false) that is communicated to society.” In other words, we fear the hobgoblins we can’t see solely on the basis that we’re told they exist and are coming after us. Guzelian concludes that it is “risk communication, not personal experience, [that] causes most fear these days.” Without information, and lacking direct experience, we often respond irrationally.</p>
<p>What can we do when we are not ourselves scientists, soldiers, or spies? How do we protect our freedom from a political class that benefits from our fears?</p>
<p>We’re all familiar with the fable about the boy who cried wolf. A shepherd boy repeatedly tricked nearby villagers into thinking that a wolf was attacking his flock of sheep. After multiple “false alarms,” the wolf actually did attack. But this time, when the boy called for help like he had many times before, the villagers did not respond. What changed? This time, they had information. While they didn’t know if there was a wolf or not, they did have observational data informing them about the trustworthiness of their source.</p>
<p>Our lives are filled with supposed shepherds warning us about the terror du jour. This warning may be completely concocted for political gain, or simply amplified or misinterpreted as a prediction of how a potential malefactor might act. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in an analysis of predictions made by 300 subject matter experts — and summarized in his book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? — Philip Tetlock observes that “there is a tendency for experts to claim to know more than they do about the future.” Put differently, we rely on people who often do not know what they’re talking about.</p>
<p>While we may not have access to the information necessary to know whether a purported political, economic, or other threat is as bad as is claimed, we are not helpless. Some sources are more reliable than others. We can cautiously develop a sense of which sources to listen to based on their track records.</p>
<p>The US government&#8217;s record is especially bad on foreign threats. &#8220;A few recent examples,&#8221; writes historian Tom Woods, &#8220;include the alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam), babies being tossed out of incubators (Iraq I), &#8216;genocide&#8217; (Kosovo, where &#8216;hundreds of thousands&#8217; of dead turned out to be 2000 dead on both sides of a civil war combined), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq II), and many others.&#8221;</p>
<p>Like the villagers in the fable, we cannot trust our shepherd — but what alternative do we have? Having grown weary of being duped by false reports, the villagers might have constructed a tower and employed an observer to stand watch and provide an accurate assessment of the surrounding area. The problem for the villagers, and for us, is that new infrastructure can be expensive. And, in the end, the new guardian may develop the same incentives as the old one.</p>
<p>Fortunately, modern technology offers us a superior strategy to combat those who wish to deprive us of the truth.</p>
<p>Prior to Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1436, it was economically unfeasible for most individuals to own books, leading to widespread illiteracy. Without the ability to read information, let alone scrutinize and judge it, commoners had no intellectual defense with which they could combat falsehoods. The printing revolution empowered people to access and act upon truth, thus holding religious and political officials accountable for their misdeeds.</p>
<p>The Internet has similarly revolutionized information access and analysis. Leaks of confidential government documents have turned into a flood; firsthand reports from theaters of war circumvent government censors and combat propaganda; the proliferation of mobile devices has turned every citizen into an agent of accountability who can document the actions of police officers and turn their abuses of authority into viral videos. These and a host of other innovations empower the individual to obtain and act upon the truth. They also minimize the risk of our believing that something is a threat to our health, safety, or welfare when it really isn’t.</p>
<p>The most important and innovative byproduct of this technological advance is the decentralization of information, including inputs and outputs. There are now an abundance of sources and a variety of means by which we can listen to them. We’re not reliant upon a single shepherd. The world features observation towers in abundance—a marketplace of investigators, researchers, analysts, and commentators. Should one source prove untrustworthy, we have other options from which to choose.</p>
<p>Likewise, our ability to share the truth using technology ensures that controls and censorship will forever be circumvented; with the click of a button, we can now help countless others see that the emperor isn’t wearing clothes. Social media has radically altered the traditional news networks, and citizen journalists are increasingly empowered to identify, investigate, and report on an issue of concern. Worldwide dissemination of information is no longer a fanciful, futuristic dream—the revolution has become our reality.</p>
<p>We live in a dangerous world, where threats do exist and should be dealt with. We should be diligent, however, in figuring out what is or isn’t a credible threat. Imagine if your young neighbor was shot and killed by another homeowner unfamiliar with Halloween. Wouldn&#8217;t we agree that more information would have caused that neighbor to respond differently?</p>
<p>We can’t expect people to act reasonably in the face of some purported threat unless they can access the truth and the context that surround it. Thankfully, today we have more tools than ever to check those who cry wolf and expect people to stay cowering in the shadows of the unknown.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:67:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/in-the-shadows-of-the-unknown/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:1:"1";}s:7:"summary";s:363:"The following article was published in this month&#8217;s edition of The Freeman by The Foundation for Economic Education. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of Feardom. Your doorbell rings in the dark of night, so you quietly approach the peephole to size up your visitor. The porch light doesn’t illuminate the person [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:8972:"<p><em>The following article was <a href="http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/in-the-shadows-of-the-unknown">published</a> in this month&#8217;s edition of The Freeman by The Foundation for Economic Education. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of <a href="http://feardombook.com">Feardom</a>.</em></p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>Your doorbell rings in the dark of night, so you quietly approach the peephole to size up your visitor. The porch light doesn’t illuminate the person well enough to see him clearly, but he’s definitely wearing a mask. You move your eyes lower to get a better look at the tall figure. He’s standing, waiting, on the other side of the threshold. He’s holding a machete.</p>
<p>On any other night, this scenario might send adrenaline coursing through your veins, fueling an almost palpable fear. But tonight is different. It’s Halloween. And rather than feeling scared, you casually open the door to discover that the dimly lit figure is the teenager from down the street dressed as the killer from a slasher flick.</p>
<p>We don’t fear a scary-looking stranger on our doorstep on October 31 because we know it’s very likely to be a friendly neighbor seeking sugar. This information, born of experience, empowers us to act rationally. It&#8217;s possible, of course, that the machete-wielding figure really is a murderer going door to door — but the odds are against it, especially on this night of the year.</p>
<p>Imagine if you didn&#8217;t know how to assess that risk. Imagine locking your doors, turning off all the lights, and cowering in the dark, waiting for all the trick-or-treaters to go away. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is the situation we too often find ourselves in when politicians and the media tell us to be scared — of terrorists, of deadly contagions from overseas, or just of each other. We know that not all of the threats can be real, but how are we to discern the true menaces from the false alarms?</p>
<p>When people are scared, they will support policies that promise to keep us safe, but end up costing us ever more—both in tax dollars and lost liberties. That’s why despots throughout history have sought means by which the masses could be intentionally kept in the dark: ignorance and fear give the despots power. It doesn&#8217;t matter which political party is in power. The left tries to scare people with dark visions of unchecked greed and exploitation. The right wants people to fear alleged threats to our security, both abroad and within our borders. Fear pervades politics generally. As John Adams once wrote, it is “the foundation of most governments.”</p>
<p>We naturally defer decision making to those who have access to greater political and military intelligence than the general population does. Christopher Guzelian, a legal theorist, posits that politicians are so successful in their use of fear because of “risk information (whether correct or false) that is communicated to society.” In other words, we fear the hobgoblins we can’t see solely on the basis that we’re told they exist and are coming after us. Guzelian concludes that it is “risk communication, not personal experience, [that] causes most fear these days.” Without information, and lacking direct experience, we often respond irrationally.</p>
<p>What can we do when we are not ourselves scientists, soldiers, or spies? How do we protect our freedom from a political class that benefits from our fears?</p>
<p>We’re all familiar with the fable about the boy who cried wolf. A shepherd boy repeatedly tricked nearby villagers into thinking that a wolf was attacking his flock of sheep. After multiple “false alarms,” the wolf actually did attack. But this time, when the boy called for help like he had many times before, the villagers did not respond. What changed? This time, they had information. While they didn’t know if there was a wolf or not, they did have observational data informing them about the trustworthiness of their source.</p>
<p>Our lives are filled with supposed shepherds warning us about the terror du jour. This warning may be completely concocted for political gain, or simply amplified or misinterpreted as a prediction of how a potential malefactor might act. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in an analysis of predictions made by 300 subject matter experts — and summarized in his book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? — Philip Tetlock observes that “there is a tendency for experts to claim to know more than they do about the future.” Put differently, we rely on people who often do not know what they’re talking about.</p>
<p>While we may not have access to the information necessary to know whether a purported political, economic, or other threat is as bad as is claimed, we are not helpless. Some sources are more reliable than others. We can cautiously develop a sense of which sources to listen to based on their track records.</p>
<p>The US government&#8217;s record is especially bad on foreign threats. &#8220;A few recent examples,&#8221; writes historian Tom Woods, &#8220;include the alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam), babies being tossed out of incubators (Iraq I), &#8216;genocide&#8217; (Kosovo, where &#8216;hundreds of thousands&#8217; of dead turned out to be 2000 dead on both sides of a civil war combined), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq II), and many others.&#8221;</p>
<p>Like the villagers in the fable, we cannot trust our shepherd — but what alternative do we have? Having grown weary of being duped by false reports, the villagers might have constructed a tower and employed an observer to stand watch and provide an accurate assessment of the surrounding area. The problem for the villagers, and for us, is that new infrastructure can be expensive. And, in the end, the new guardian may develop the same incentives as the old one.</p>
<p>Fortunately, modern technology offers us a superior strategy to combat those who wish to deprive us of the truth.</p>
<p>Prior to Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1436, it was economically unfeasible for most individuals to own books, leading to widespread illiteracy. Without the ability to read information, let alone scrutinize and judge it, commoners had no intellectual defense with which they could combat falsehoods. The printing revolution empowered people to access and act upon truth, thus holding religious and political officials accountable for their misdeeds.</p>
<p>The Internet has similarly revolutionized information access and analysis. Leaks of confidential government documents have turned into a flood; firsthand reports from theaters of war circumvent government censors and combat propaganda; the proliferation of mobile devices has turned every citizen into an agent of accountability who can document the actions of police officers and turn their abuses of authority into viral videos. These and a host of other innovations empower the individual to obtain and act upon the truth. They also minimize the risk of our believing that something is a threat to our health, safety, or welfare when it really isn’t.</p>
<p>The most important and innovative byproduct of this technological advance is the decentralization of information, including inputs and outputs. There are now an abundance of sources and a variety of means by which we can listen to them. We’re not reliant upon a single shepherd. The world features observation towers in abundance—a marketplace of investigators, researchers, analysts, and commentators. Should one source prove untrustworthy, we have other options from which to choose.</p>
<p>Likewise, our ability to share the truth using technology ensures that controls and censorship will forever be circumvented; with the click of a button, we can now help countless others see that the emperor isn’t wearing clothes. Social media has radically altered the traditional news networks, and citizen journalists are increasingly empowered to identify, investigate, and report on an issue of concern. Worldwide dissemination of information is no longer a fanciful, futuristic dream—the revolution has become our reality.</p>
<p>We live in a dangerous world, where threats do exist and should be dealt with. We should be diligent, however, in figuring out what is or isn’t a credible threat. Imagine if your young neighbor was shot and killed by another homeowner unfamiliar with Halloween. Wouldn&#8217;t we agree that more information would have caused that neighbor to respond differently?</p>
<p>We can’t expect people to act reasonably in the face of some purported threat unless they can access the truth and the context that surround it. Thankfully, today we have more tools than ever to check those who cry wolf and expect people to stay cowering in the shadows of the unknown.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1414765572;}i:12;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:26:"After Ferguson, Then What?";s:4:"link";s:57:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/after-ferguson-then-what";s:8:"comments";s:66:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/after-ferguson-then-what#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:53:30 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3391";s:11:"description";s:325:"Cheye Calvo was the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, in 2008 when law enforcement officers raided his home as part of a botched drug raid. The mayor and his mother-in-law were held at gunpoint, and officers shot and killed the mayor&#8217;s two dogs—one while it was trying to escape to safety. If this story is [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:4281:"<p><img src="/img/ferguson.jpg"/></p>
<p>Cheye Calvo was the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, in 2008 when law enforcement officers raided his home as part of a botched drug raid. The mayor and his mother-in-law were held at gunpoint, and officers shot and killed the mayor&#8217;s two dogs—one while it was trying to escape to safety. If this story is unfamiliar to you, read Radley Balko&#8217;s summary <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/militarized_police_overreach_oh_god_i_thought_they_were_going_to_shoot_me_next%E2%80%9D/">here</a>.</p>
<p>Calvo and his mother-in-law were completely innocent, and the officers involved in the raid faced no repercussions. The Sheriff was even so bold as <a href="http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/08052010/prinnew160645_32538.php">to say that</a> &#8220;we&#8217;d do it again. Tonight.&#8221;</p>
<p>The mayor began lobbying the state legislature for reform, and succeeded in passing a bill that would bring a bit of transparency to law enforcement. It required every Maryland police agency with a SWAT team to periodically issue a report on how many times the team was deployed, whether shots were fired, the nature of the alleged crime, etc. It did not enact any restrictions on law enforcement activity, yet it was opposed by every police organization in the state. Still, it passed. Crisis paved the path for reform.</p>
<p><span id="more-3391"></span></p>
<p>I share this story because a similar situation is unfolding in Ferguson, Missouri. 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by police, sparking riots and protests in the small city. The conflict has significantly escalated, and peaceful protestors and reporters alike are being targeted and arrested by police officers eager, it seems, to <a href="http://boingboing.net/2014/08/14/video-of-ferguson-police-gassi.html">shield their activity</a> from public scrutiny.</p>
<p>After the proverbial (and literal) smoke clears, then what? As tragic as Brown&#8217;s shooting is, it&#8217;s not unique—people are harmed and killed every day by law enforcement officers. District Attorney Sim Gill recently said, at our <a href="http://libertasutah.org/blog/key-quotes-from-the-first-annual-fourth-amendment-forum/">Fourth Amendment Forum</a>, that &#8220;When you fail to hold bad officers accountable, good officers suffer.&#8221; So how should we hold bad officers accountable? What reforms are needed? And more importantly, will there even be an attempt for substantive reform?</p>
<p>Millions of Americans watch the footage from Ferguson outraged, and their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism">slacktivism</a> leads them to share updates on Facebook and Twitter. There&#8217;s nothing wrong with that—in fact, it&#8217;s a good thing to widely disseminate details of what&#8217;s going on. But if that&#8217;s all that&#8217;s done, then an opportunity has been lost. Brown&#8217;s death, while tragic, should serve as a catalyst for necessary reform.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s what happened in Utah. The shootout between Matthew David Stewart and police officers over a few plants turned our state, with <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a> leading the way, to become &#8220;<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/utah-police-reform_n_4165218.html?1382806699">a hotbed for police reform</a>.&#8221; As in Calvo&#8217;s case, the Utah legislature overwhelmingly approved <a href="http://libertasutah.org/policy-analysis/sb185-law-enforcement-transparency/">a transparency bill</a>—even better than the one in Maryland—that will help policy makers see a bird&#8217;s eye view of the level of force being utilized in our communities. But Utah went further, passing <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57677465-82/bill-utah-requires-data.html.csp">other legislation</a> which included restrictions on when forcible entry warrants can be used. </p>
<p>There is a healthy appetite for reform, and reasonable minds recognize that systemic reforms may be necessary to prevent the type of abuse being witnessed in Ferguson. All around the country, and most recently in Ferguson, catalytic events offer opportunities to press for reform. We in Utah have been doing our part. Others elsewhere should do the same.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:62:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/after-ferguson-then-what/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"12";}s:7:"summary";s:325:"Cheye Calvo was the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, in 2008 when law enforcement officers raided his home as part of a botched drug raid. The mayor and his mother-in-law were held at gunpoint, and officers shot and killed the mayor&#8217;s two dogs—one while it was trying to escape to safety. If this story is [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:4281:"<p><img src="/img/ferguson.jpg"/></p>
<p>Cheye Calvo was the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, in 2008 when law enforcement officers raided his home as part of a botched drug raid. The mayor and his mother-in-law were held at gunpoint, and officers shot and killed the mayor&#8217;s two dogs—one while it was trying to escape to safety. If this story is unfamiliar to you, read Radley Balko&#8217;s summary <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/militarized_police_overreach_oh_god_i_thought_they_were_going_to_shoot_me_next%E2%80%9D/">here</a>.</p>
<p>Calvo and his mother-in-law were completely innocent, and the officers involved in the raid faced no repercussions. The Sheriff was even so bold as <a href="http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/08052010/prinnew160645_32538.php">to say that</a> &#8220;we&#8217;d do it again. Tonight.&#8221;</p>
<p>The mayor began lobbying the state legislature for reform, and succeeded in passing a bill that would bring a bit of transparency to law enforcement. It required every Maryland police agency with a SWAT team to periodically issue a report on how many times the team was deployed, whether shots were fired, the nature of the alleged crime, etc. It did not enact any restrictions on law enforcement activity, yet it was opposed by every police organization in the state. Still, it passed. Crisis paved the path for reform.</p>
<p><span id="more-3391"></span></p>
<p>I share this story because a similar situation is unfolding in Ferguson, Missouri. 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by police, sparking riots and protests in the small city. The conflict has significantly escalated, and peaceful protestors and reporters alike are being targeted and arrested by police officers eager, it seems, to <a href="http://boingboing.net/2014/08/14/video-of-ferguson-police-gassi.html">shield their activity</a> from public scrutiny.</p>
<p>After the proverbial (and literal) smoke clears, then what? As tragic as Brown&#8217;s shooting is, it&#8217;s not unique—people are harmed and killed every day by law enforcement officers. District Attorney Sim Gill recently said, at our <a href="http://libertasutah.org/blog/key-quotes-from-the-first-annual-fourth-amendment-forum/">Fourth Amendment Forum</a>, that &#8220;When you fail to hold bad officers accountable, good officers suffer.&#8221; So how should we hold bad officers accountable? What reforms are needed? And more importantly, will there even be an attempt for substantive reform?</p>
<p>Millions of Americans watch the footage from Ferguson outraged, and their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism">slacktivism</a> leads them to share updates on Facebook and Twitter. There&#8217;s nothing wrong with that—in fact, it&#8217;s a good thing to widely disseminate details of what&#8217;s going on. But if that&#8217;s all that&#8217;s done, then an opportunity has been lost. Brown&#8217;s death, while tragic, should serve as a catalyst for necessary reform.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s what happened in Utah. The shootout between Matthew David Stewart and police officers over a few plants turned our state, with <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a> leading the way, to become &#8220;<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/utah-police-reform_n_4165218.html?1382806699">a hotbed for police reform</a>.&#8221; As in Calvo&#8217;s case, the Utah legislature overwhelmingly approved <a href="http://libertasutah.org/policy-analysis/sb185-law-enforcement-transparency/">a transparency bill</a>—even better than the one in Maryland—that will help policy makers see a bird&#8217;s eye view of the level of force being utilized in our communities. But Utah went further, passing <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57677465-82/bill-utah-requires-data.html.csp">other legislation</a> which included restrictions on when forcible entry warrants can be used. </p>
<p>There is a healthy appetite for reform, and reasonable minds recognize that systemic reforms may be necessary to prevent the type of abuse being witnessed in Ferguson. All around the country, and most recently in Ferguson, catalytic events offer opportunities to press for reform. We in Utah have been doing our part. Others elsewhere should do the same.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1408031610;}i:13;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:55:"Why I Now Remain Silent During the Pledge of Allegiance";s:4:"link";s:88:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-now-remain-silent-during-the-pledge-of-allegiance";s:8:"comments";s:97:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-now-remain-silent-during-the-pledge-of-allegiance#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:41:00 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3387";s:11:"description";s:300:"Four years ago I wrote an article explaining the sordid history of the pledge of allegiance and the modification I made to its words to make it more palatable to me. For a couple of years I used this version whenever I found myself at an event or meeting in which those present were invited [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:4927:"<p>Four years ago I <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-do-not-pledge-allegiance-to-the-flag">wrote an article</a> explaining the sordid history of the pledge of allegiance and the modification I made to its words to make it more palatable to me. For a couple of years I used this version whenever I found myself at an event or meeting in which those present were invited to verbally demonstrate their allegiance.</p>
<p>Now I don&#8217;t say any pledge at all.</p>
<p>Honestly, I have simply grown tired of seeing people wear their supposed love of freedom on their sleeve. Whether it&#8217;s attending a patriotic event, expressing gratitude for &#8220;living in the freest country,&#8221; saying the pledge of allegiance, participating in a parade, or a variety of other superficial activities, these are devoid of any substantive meaning without corresponding actions. In short, many talk the talk but few walk the walk—or, in Tom Paine&#8217;s words, there are too many summer soldiers and sunshine patriots.</p>
<p>While I take issue with the pledge itself—both its history and its textual composition (why do so few find it odd that they are pledging their allegiance to a piece of cloth or symbol of the state?)—my primary motivation for abstaining altogether from saying the pledge is to encourage people to think about their regurgitation of the same. In other words, I want people to focus on the &#8220;walk&#8221; and see how without it, the &#8220;talk&#8221; is worthless fluff.</p>
<p><span id="more-3387"></span></p>
<p>I am extremely active in political issues, having now made it my full time (and then some) career. I&#8217;ve written several books on liberty issues, I regularly speak at events or in interviews to provide a liberty perspective on current events or public policy, and I founded and now operate a successful &#8220;think tank&#8221; that is changing the political landscape. It would be very difficult to accuse me of being &#8220;unpatriotic&#8221; or in opposition to the &#8220;liberty and justice for all&#8221; that the pledge calls for—and, let&#8217;s be honest, that&#8217;s the initial thought the average American would have upon seeing somebody refuse to make the pledge. (If you don&#8217;t believe me, research the reactions made to Barack Obama when he didn&#8217;t put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. Oy.) Given that my public identity is so closely tied to my political persona, those who observe me standing silently during the pledge—while every other person is acting like a &#8220;good citizen&#8221; and performing as expected—are led to wonder why. This initial confusion can give way to greater consideration to the problems presented in my <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-do-not-pledge-allegiance-to-the-flag">previous article</a> on the pledge. In my experience, those with whom I discuss the pledge often change their behavior as I did several years ago. </p>
<p>I pledge my allegiance cautiously and conscientiously. I do not pledge it to a group of politicians and bureaucrats that routinely violates my rights and the rights of my friends and family. I do not pledge it to an institution that has harmed, starved, occupied, and killed millions of innocent individuals. I do not pledge it to a theoretical governmental system (the &#8220;Republic&#8221;) that has failed to protect and preserve liberty and justice. I do not pledge it to an indivisible nation, for I believe in the right of secession as did the founders. I do not pledge it to a symbol or a tangible item.</p>
<p>I pledge my allegiance to God and my conscience. I am loyal to my family and friends. I am committed to the truth. Because no political system is perfect, and because they are almost always overrun by conniving individuals seeking power and fortune, I withhold my allegiance from them preferring to focus on immutable principles. My allegiance is freely given to the cause of liberty, desiring for all people the enjoyment of their unalienable rights.</p>
<p>As I think about the thousands of times I&#8217;ve said the pledge throughout my life, my thoughts turn to the people who said it along with me—mostly good and sincere people, no doubt. But most of these individuals made no effort to defend the liberty and justice they claimed to revere, and, to the extent that they had any interest in political issues, often voted for or supported politicians and policies that <em>violated</em> these ideals. Clearly, reciting the pledge is a pathetic barometer of one&#8217;s understanding of and commitment to the principles upon which the Republic was founded.</p>
<p>Abigail Adams once wrote to her husband, John, that “we have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.” I&#8217;m inclined to agree with her, and therefore have decided to let my actions speak for themselves.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:93:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-now-remain-silent-during-the-pledge-of-allegiance/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:3:"138";}s:7:"summary";s:300:"Four years ago I wrote an article explaining the sordid history of the pledge of allegiance and the modification I made to its words to make it more palatable to me. For a couple of years I used this version whenever I found myself at an event or meeting in which those present were invited [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:4927:"<p>Four years ago I <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-do-not-pledge-allegiance-to-the-flag">wrote an article</a> explaining the sordid history of the pledge of allegiance and the modification I made to its words to make it more palatable to me. For a couple of years I used this version whenever I found myself at an event or meeting in which those present were invited to verbally demonstrate their allegiance.</p>
<p>Now I don&#8217;t say any pledge at all.</p>
<p>Honestly, I have simply grown tired of seeing people wear their supposed love of freedom on their sleeve. Whether it&#8217;s attending a patriotic event, expressing gratitude for &#8220;living in the freest country,&#8221; saying the pledge of allegiance, participating in a parade, or a variety of other superficial activities, these are devoid of any substantive meaning without corresponding actions. In short, many talk the talk but few walk the walk—or, in Tom Paine&#8217;s words, there are too many summer soldiers and sunshine patriots.</p>
<p>While I take issue with the pledge itself—both its history and its textual composition (why do so few find it odd that they are pledging their allegiance to a piece of cloth or symbol of the state?)—my primary motivation for abstaining altogether from saying the pledge is to encourage people to think about their regurgitation of the same. In other words, I want people to focus on the &#8220;walk&#8221; and see how without it, the &#8220;talk&#8221; is worthless fluff.</p>
<p><span id="more-3387"></span></p>
<p>I am extremely active in political issues, having now made it my full time (and then some) career. I&#8217;ve written several books on liberty issues, I regularly speak at events or in interviews to provide a liberty perspective on current events or public policy, and I founded and now operate a successful &#8220;think tank&#8221; that is changing the political landscape. It would be very difficult to accuse me of being &#8220;unpatriotic&#8221; or in opposition to the &#8220;liberty and justice for all&#8221; that the pledge calls for—and, let&#8217;s be honest, that&#8217;s the initial thought the average American would have upon seeing somebody refuse to make the pledge. (If you don&#8217;t believe me, research the reactions made to Barack Obama when he didn&#8217;t put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. Oy.) Given that my public identity is so closely tied to my political persona, those who observe me standing silently during the pledge—while every other person is acting like a &#8220;good citizen&#8221; and performing as expected—are led to wonder why. This initial confusion can give way to greater consideration to the problems presented in my <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-do-not-pledge-allegiance-to-the-flag">previous article</a> on the pledge. In my experience, those with whom I discuss the pledge often change their behavior as I did several years ago. </p>
<p>I pledge my allegiance cautiously and conscientiously. I do not pledge it to a group of politicians and bureaucrats that routinely violates my rights and the rights of my friends and family. I do not pledge it to an institution that has harmed, starved, occupied, and killed millions of innocent individuals. I do not pledge it to a theoretical governmental system (the &#8220;Republic&#8221;) that has failed to protect and preserve liberty and justice. I do not pledge it to an indivisible nation, for I believe in the right of secession as did the founders. I do not pledge it to a symbol or a tangible item.</p>
<p>I pledge my allegiance to God and my conscience. I am loyal to my family and friends. I am committed to the truth. Because no political system is perfect, and because they are almost always overrun by conniving individuals seeking power and fortune, I withhold my allegiance from them preferring to focus on immutable principles. My allegiance is freely given to the cause of liberty, desiring for all people the enjoyment of their unalienable rights.</p>
<p>As I think about the thousands of times I&#8217;ve said the pledge throughout my life, my thoughts turn to the people who said it along with me—mostly good and sincere people, no doubt. But most of these individuals made no effort to defend the liberty and justice they claimed to revere, and, to the extent that they had any interest in political issues, often voted for or supported politicians and policies that <em>violated</em> these ideals. Clearly, reciting the pledge is a pathetic barometer of one&#8217;s understanding of and commitment to the principles upon which the Republic was founded.</p>
<p>Abigail Adams once wrote to her husband, John, that “we have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.” I&#8217;m inclined to agree with her, and therefore have decided to let my actions speak for themselves.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1404744060;}i:14;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:59:"The Public Relations Meltdown Regarding a Renouncing of War";s:4:"link";s:92:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-public-relations-meltdown-regarding-a-renouncing-of-war";s:8:"comments";s:101:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-public-relations-meltdown-regarding-a-renouncing-of-war#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:38:00 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3385";s:11:"description";s:351:"The events of 9/11 served as a catalyst for the neocolonial interventionist power brokers in government to advance their agenda. In the months that followed, fabrications and talking points intertwined to paint a large target on the nation of Iraq. Not three months later, George Bush identified the country, along with Iran and North Korea, [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:11192:"<p><img src="/img/fb/nelson_small.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The events of 9/11 served as a catalyst for the neocolonial interventionist power brokers in government to advance their agenda. In the months that followed, fabrications and talking points intertwined to paint a large target on the nation of Iraq. Not three months later, George Bush identified the country, along with Iran and North Korea, as part of an &#8220;axis of evil.&#8221; Sanctions against the Iraqi people were renewed and focused. World leaders were <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/">told by Bush</a> at the United Nations General Assembly that Saddam&#8217;s regime was a “grave and gathering danger” and failure to escalate tensions would make the UN &#8220;irrelevant.&#8221;</p>
<p>Amid all the (supposed) diplomacy and agitation, the flames of fear and revenge were being eagerly fanned by the media. As one commentator has said, &#8220;Propaganda is still used more as an antecedent to war; in other words, if war is the paint, then propaganda is the paint primer that makes possible the total devotion of the public to the just cause of the state in wartime.” Americans had to be sold on the idea of fighting in Iraq before politicians pressed too hard.</p>
<p>Days after his speech at the United Nations, Bush pushed Congress to authorize him to use military force in Iraq. A bill was introduced on October 2, 2002. A few days later, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held its twice-yearly general conference in Salt Lake City. On Saturday afternoon, apostle Russell N. Nelson <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng">delivered an address</a> that any faithful Christian would consider gospel truth. He drew attention to our living in the last days, full of prophesied turmoil. He referenced our mandate to follow the Prince of Peace, and noted that he taught, &#8220;Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3385"></span></p>
<p>He highlighted the Golden Rule: &#8220;<span style="color: #2f393a;">Wherever it is found and however it is expressed, the Golden Rule encompasses the moral code of the kingdom of God. It forbids interference by one with the rights of another. It is equally binding upon nations, associations, and individuals.&#8221;</span></p>
<p>He rightly taught that the scriptures &#8220;<span style="color: #2f393a;">condemn wars of aggression&#8221; and that despite conflict, &#8220;Peace is a prime priority that pleads for our pursuit.&#8221; Of diplomacy in the post-9/11 world, he said that &#8220;Resolution of present political problems will require much patience and negotiation. The process would be enhanced greatly if pursued prayerfully.&#8221; Nelson unabashedly affirmed that Jesus Christ&#8217;s teachings would bring actual and welcome peace:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p id="p29" style="color: #2f393a;">These prophecies of hope could materialize if leaders and citizens of nations would apply the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ours could then be an age of unparalleled peace and progress. Barbarism of the past would be buried. War with its horrors would be relegated to the realm of maudlin memory. Aims of nations would be mutually supportive. Peacemakers could lead in the art of arbitration, give relief to the needy, and bring hope to those who fear. Of such patriots, future generations would shout praises, and our Eternal God would pass judgments of glory.</p>
<p id="p30" style="color: #2f393a;">The hope of the world is the Prince of Peace—our Creator, Savior, Jehovah, and Judge. He offers us the good life, the abundant life, and eternal life. Peaceful—even prosperous—living can come to those who abide His precepts<sup class="noteMarker"> </sup>and follow His pathway to peace. This I declare to all the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Concluding his remarks, Elder Nelson stated that God expects us, as it states in the scriptures, to &#8220;renounce war and proclaim peace.&#8221; While objecting to aggressive war is part of the equation, it&#8217;s only a part—we should also, he said, &#8220;follow after the things which make for peace. We should be personal peacemakers.&#8221; These, Nelson says, are the true patriots. And lip service is insufficient—&#8221;we should <em>live</em> by the Golden Rule&#8221; (emphasis mine).</p>
<p>Dissent from the buildup to war being rare at the time, what happened next was unsurprising. The Associated Press issued a <a href="http://wwrn.org/articles/5993/">brief report</a>, stating:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Mormon church issued a strong anti-war message at its semiannual General Conference, clearly referring to current hostilities in the Middle East, advocating patience and negotiation, and urging the faithful to be peacemakers.</p></blockquote>
<p>Some may have objected to this characterization of the remarks, but I find it to be fair and accurate. Renouncing war is necessarily &#8220;anti-war,&#8221; and Elder Nelson definitely advocated patience and negotiation, calling for peacemakers to proactively let their influence be felt. Of course, different outlets added their twists—one newspaper&#8217;s headline <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&amp;dat=20021006&amp;id=5LszAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=rPIDAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=6758,3918474">announced</a> that he had &#8220;railed&#8221; against war, though it&#8217;s hard to see how a sweet old man, talking calmly and lovingly, could be perceived as railing.</p>
<p>The Church was quick to respond—perhaps anticipating a PR nightmare like the one that happened just five months later to the Dixie Chicks, when one of the band&#8217;s members told an audience &#8220;We do not want this war, this violence, and we&#8217;re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.&#8221; In that case, massive controversy erupted, boycotts ensued, sales tanked, radio stations stopped playing their music, and the band very quickly plummeted from red hot to has-been. Drowning in war propaganda, Americans were quick to demonize anybody who did not support the war. Of course, this was merely a successful implementation of a long-known strategy perhaps summed up best by Hermann Goering, one of the highest ranking Nazis who survived the war and who was well versed in propaganda. The people &#8220;can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders,&#8221; he remarked. &#8220;That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.&#8221;</p>
<p>One day after the conference concluded—and one day after the media reports began to take off about Elder Nelson&#8217;s anti-war remarks—the Church&#8217;s PR division <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/message-of-peace-misinterpreted-76121247.html">issued a media advisory</a> stating that some news outlets had &#8220;misinterpreted&#8221; the address, encouraging reporters and editors to &#8220;consider the full text.&#8221; However, it&#8217;s difficult to see how a fair reading of the remarks would produce a different conclusion. He condemned wars of aggression, justified war in cases of self-defense, all the while repeatedly emphasizing that peace is possible, peace is optimal, peace is what we should all be striving for—even (and especially) during the run-up to full blown military intervention.</p>
<p>The Associated Press issued a <a href="http://wwrn.org/articles/5994/?&amp;place=united-states&amp;section=christianity">follow-up report</a>, explaining that the Church had &#8220;qualified&#8221; Nelson&#8217;s remarks and &#8220;offered support for President Bush&#8217;s policy in the Middle East&#8221; in the form of <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/941749/A-clear-and-simple-case.html?pg=all">an editorial</a> in the Church-owned <em>Deseret News</em>. That editorial, issued on the Wednesday following general conference, completely contradicted the substance of Elder Nelson&#8217;s address. &#8220;Saddam Hussein and the threat he represents to the United States and her allies will not go away on his own,&#8221; it read. &#8220;This time, the nation may well have to strike first.&#8221; It concluded that &#8220;<span style="color: #464646;">Americans have known they must face Saddam again sooner or later. It appears the time has come.&#8221;</span></p>
<p>Of course, the pro-war <em>Deseret News</em> is not an official outlet for proclaiming the mind and will of Church leaders, but its editorial, accompanied by the Church&#8217;s back-pedaling press statement, left clear in the mind of its members—and everybody else—how Elder Nelson&#8217;s renouncement of war was to be interpreted. While certainly not privy to the behind the scenes information, let alone any potential divine inspiration there may have been to lead to this PR &#8220;spin,&#8221; I can&#8217;t help but feel that this was a missed opportunity to boldly stand on some of the most important doctrine we have.</p>
<p>Did Jesus back down when challenged? Charged with blasphemy—a &#8220;crime&#8221; for which capital punishment was mandated—the high priest demanded of him, &#8220;Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?&#8221; Jesus&#8217; response: &#8220;I am.&#8221; There was no mincing words here, nor walking back of Christ&#8217;s claims.</p>
<p>It may have been seen as strategically sound to try and minimize the opposition to and criticism against Elder Nelson&#8217;s talk, for fear of incurring the wrath of the citizenry, media, and political leaders—all of which, especially when combined, would likely harm missionary work at home and abroad. I am skeptical, however, in light of popular opinions currently toward same-sex marriage and the Church&#8217;s open opposition to that trend. When Church leaders want to, they are content to press an issue despite its unpopularity.</p>
<p>But even if strategy was involved, strategy must succumb to <em>commandments</em>;<em> </em><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.15-16?lang=eng#14">after saying</a> that &#8220;if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me,&#8221; Jesus tells his modern-day disciples that we must, presumably as part of this covenant, &#8220;renounce war and proclaim peace.&#8221; Elder Nelson did that, and getting us to do the same was the entire point of his address.</p>
<p>I suppose what I&#8217;m saying is that rather than shying away from the substance of what Elder Nelson said, it would have been great if the PR department doubled down, positioning Christ&#8217;s church as the leading voice of peace amid a cacophony of conspiring warmongers in the very act of deceiving the American people to drum up support for an <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/preventive-war-and-the-book-of-mormon">offensive</a> military campaign. Truth may be treason in an empire of lies, but if we&#8217;re to follow Christ&#8217;s example, let&#8217;s boldly say it anyway, come what may.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:97:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-public-relations-meltdown-regarding-a-renouncing-of-war/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"19";}s:7:"summary";s:351:"The events of 9/11 served as a catalyst for the neocolonial interventionist power brokers in government to advance their agenda. In the months that followed, fabrications and talking points intertwined to paint a large target on the nation of Iraq. Not three months later, George Bush identified the country, along with Iran and North Korea, [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:11192:"<p><img src="/img/fb/nelson_small.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The events of 9/11 served as a catalyst for the neocolonial interventionist power brokers in government to advance their agenda. In the months that followed, fabrications and talking points intertwined to paint a large target on the nation of Iraq. Not three months later, George Bush identified the country, along with Iran and North Korea, as part of an &#8220;axis of evil.&#8221; Sanctions against the Iraqi people were renewed and focused. World leaders were <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/">told by Bush</a> at the United Nations General Assembly that Saddam&#8217;s regime was a “grave and gathering danger” and failure to escalate tensions would make the UN &#8220;irrelevant.&#8221;</p>
<p>Amid all the (supposed) diplomacy and agitation, the flames of fear and revenge were being eagerly fanned by the media. As one commentator has said, &#8220;Propaganda is still used more as an antecedent to war; in other words, if war is the paint, then propaganda is the paint primer that makes possible the total devotion of the public to the just cause of the state in wartime.” Americans had to be sold on the idea of fighting in Iraq before politicians pressed too hard.</p>
<p>Days after his speech at the United Nations, Bush pushed Congress to authorize him to use military force in Iraq. A bill was introduced on October 2, 2002. A few days later, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held its twice-yearly general conference in Salt Lake City. On Saturday afternoon, apostle Russell N. Nelson <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng">delivered an address</a> that any faithful Christian would consider gospel truth. He drew attention to our living in the last days, full of prophesied turmoil. He referenced our mandate to follow the Prince of Peace, and noted that he taught, &#8220;Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3385"></span></p>
<p>He highlighted the Golden Rule: &#8220;<span style="color: #2f393a;">Wherever it is found and however it is expressed, the Golden Rule encompasses the moral code of the kingdom of God. It forbids interference by one with the rights of another. It is equally binding upon nations, associations, and individuals.&#8221;</span></p>
<p>He rightly taught that the scriptures &#8220;<span style="color: #2f393a;">condemn wars of aggression&#8221; and that despite conflict, &#8220;Peace is a prime priority that pleads for our pursuit.&#8221; Of diplomacy in the post-9/11 world, he said that &#8220;Resolution of present political problems will require much patience and negotiation. The process would be enhanced greatly if pursued prayerfully.&#8221; Nelson unabashedly affirmed that Jesus Christ&#8217;s teachings would bring actual and welcome peace:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p id="p29" style="color: #2f393a;">These prophecies of hope could materialize if leaders and citizens of nations would apply the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ours could then be an age of unparalleled peace and progress. Barbarism of the past would be buried. War with its horrors would be relegated to the realm of maudlin memory. Aims of nations would be mutually supportive. Peacemakers could lead in the art of arbitration, give relief to the needy, and bring hope to those who fear. Of such patriots, future generations would shout praises, and our Eternal God would pass judgments of glory.</p>
<p id="p30" style="color: #2f393a;">The hope of the world is the Prince of Peace—our Creator, Savior, Jehovah, and Judge. He offers us the good life, the abundant life, and eternal life. Peaceful—even prosperous—living can come to those who abide His precepts<sup class="noteMarker"> </sup>and follow His pathway to peace. This I declare to all the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Concluding his remarks, Elder Nelson stated that God expects us, as it states in the scriptures, to &#8220;renounce war and proclaim peace.&#8221; While objecting to aggressive war is part of the equation, it&#8217;s only a part—we should also, he said, &#8220;follow after the things which make for peace. We should be personal peacemakers.&#8221; These, Nelson says, are the true patriots. And lip service is insufficient—&#8221;we should <em>live</em> by the Golden Rule&#8221; (emphasis mine).</p>
<p>Dissent from the buildup to war being rare at the time, what happened next was unsurprising. The Associated Press issued a <a href="http://wwrn.org/articles/5993/">brief report</a>, stating:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Mormon church issued a strong anti-war message at its semiannual General Conference, clearly referring to current hostilities in the Middle East, advocating patience and negotiation, and urging the faithful to be peacemakers.</p></blockquote>
<p>Some may have objected to this characterization of the remarks, but I find it to be fair and accurate. Renouncing war is necessarily &#8220;anti-war,&#8221; and Elder Nelson definitely advocated patience and negotiation, calling for peacemakers to proactively let their influence be felt. Of course, different outlets added their twists—one newspaper&#8217;s headline <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&amp;dat=20021006&amp;id=5LszAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=rPIDAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=6758,3918474">announced</a> that he had &#8220;railed&#8221; against war, though it&#8217;s hard to see how a sweet old man, talking calmly and lovingly, could be perceived as railing.</p>
<p>The Church was quick to respond—perhaps anticipating a PR nightmare like the one that happened just five months later to the Dixie Chicks, when one of the band&#8217;s members told an audience &#8220;We do not want this war, this violence, and we&#8217;re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.&#8221; In that case, massive controversy erupted, boycotts ensued, sales tanked, radio stations stopped playing their music, and the band very quickly plummeted from red hot to has-been. Drowning in war propaganda, Americans were quick to demonize anybody who did not support the war. Of course, this was merely a successful implementation of a long-known strategy perhaps summed up best by Hermann Goering, one of the highest ranking Nazis who survived the war and who was well versed in propaganda. The people &#8220;can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders,&#8221; he remarked. &#8220;That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.&#8221;</p>
<p>One day after the conference concluded—and one day after the media reports began to take off about Elder Nelson&#8217;s anti-war remarks—the Church&#8217;s PR division <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/message-of-peace-misinterpreted-76121247.html">issued a media advisory</a> stating that some news outlets had &#8220;misinterpreted&#8221; the address, encouraging reporters and editors to &#8220;consider the full text.&#8221; However, it&#8217;s difficult to see how a fair reading of the remarks would produce a different conclusion. He condemned wars of aggression, justified war in cases of self-defense, all the while repeatedly emphasizing that peace is possible, peace is optimal, peace is what we should all be striving for—even (and especially) during the run-up to full blown military intervention.</p>
<p>The Associated Press issued a <a href="http://wwrn.org/articles/5994/?&amp;place=united-states&amp;section=christianity">follow-up report</a>, explaining that the Church had &#8220;qualified&#8221; Nelson&#8217;s remarks and &#8220;offered support for President Bush&#8217;s policy in the Middle East&#8221; in the form of <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/941749/A-clear-and-simple-case.html?pg=all">an editorial</a> in the Church-owned <em>Deseret News</em>. That editorial, issued on the Wednesday following general conference, completely contradicted the substance of Elder Nelson&#8217;s address. &#8220;Saddam Hussein and the threat he represents to the United States and her allies will not go away on his own,&#8221; it read. &#8220;This time, the nation may well have to strike first.&#8221; It concluded that &#8220;<span style="color: #464646;">Americans have known they must face Saddam again sooner or later. It appears the time has come.&#8221;</span></p>
<p>Of course, the pro-war <em>Deseret News</em> is not an official outlet for proclaiming the mind and will of Church leaders, but its editorial, accompanied by the Church&#8217;s back-pedaling press statement, left clear in the mind of its members—and everybody else—how Elder Nelson&#8217;s renouncement of war was to be interpreted. While certainly not privy to the behind the scenes information, let alone any potential divine inspiration there may have been to lead to this PR &#8220;spin,&#8221; I can&#8217;t help but feel that this was a missed opportunity to boldly stand on some of the most important doctrine we have.</p>
<p>Did Jesus back down when challenged? Charged with blasphemy—a &#8220;crime&#8221; for which capital punishment was mandated—the high priest demanded of him, &#8220;Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?&#8221; Jesus&#8217; response: &#8220;I am.&#8221; There was no mincing words here, nor walking back of Christ&#8217;s claims.</p>
<p>It may have been seen as strategically sound to try and minimize the opposition to and criticism against Elder Nelson&#8217;s talk, for fear of incurring the wrath of the citizenry, media, and political leaders—all of which, especially when combined, would likely harm missionary work at home and abroad. I am skeptical, however, in light of popular opinions currently toward same-sex marriage and the Church&#8217;s open opposition to that trend. When Church leaders want to, they are content to press an issue despite its unpopularity.</p>
<p>But even if strategy was involved, strategy must succumb to <em>commandments</em>;<em> </em><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.15-16?lang=eng#14">after saying</a> that &#8220;if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me,&#8221; Jesus tells his modern-day disciples that we must, presumably as part of this covenant, &#8220;renounce war and proclaim peace.&#8221; Elder Nelson did that, and getting us to do the same was the entire point of his address.</p>
<p>I suppose what I&#8217;m saying is that rather than shying away from the substance of what Elder Nelson said, it would have been great if the PR department doubled down, positioning Christ&#8217;s church as the leading voice of peace amid a cacophony of conspiring warmongers in the very act of deceiving the American people to drum up support for an <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/preventive-war-and-the-book-of-mormon">offensive</a> military campaign. Truth may be treason in an empire of lies, but if we&#8217;re to follow Christ&#8217;s example, let&#8217;s boldly say it anyway, come what may.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1404149880;}i:15;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:52:"Libertarianism Does Not Mean “Live and Let Live”";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/libertarianism-does-not-mean-live-and-let-live";s:8:"comments";s:88:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/libertarianism-does-not-mean-live-and-let-live#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:14:18 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3380";s:11:"description";s:421:"Critics of libertarianism—and there are many—object to the supposed &#8220;selfishness&#8221; they believe is at the core of the political philosophy. It is common, in reviewing their complaints, to see libertarianism referred to as &#8220;live and let live mentality&#8221; or, synonymously, a laissez-faire approach. I intend to show that this characterization is misguided; libertarianism does not mean, [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:9326:"<p class="p1">Critics of libertarianism—and there are many—object to the supposed &#8220;selfishness&#8221; they believe is at the core of the political philosophy. It is common, in reviewing their complaints, to see libertarianism referred to as &#8220;live and let live mentality&#8221; or, synonymously, a <em>l<i style="color: #252525;">aissez-faire</i></em> approach. I intend to show that this characterization is misguided; libertarianism does not mean, and should not be interpreted as, a blanket &#8220;live and let live&#8221; attitude towards the actions and beliefs of others.</p>
<p class="p1">It is true that an anti-authoritarian undercurrent pervades libertarianism. This is an inevitable counter-cultural response to the rise of the <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/05/john-w-whitehead/american-authoritarianism/">authoritarian state</a>. It is therefore not surprising that those who generally sympathize with or support the state&#8217;s presumption and actual exercise of authority would object to those who dissent. If government, as Tom Paine said, &#8220;even in its best state is but a necessary evil [and] in its worst state an intolerable one,&#8221; then it is generally evil—and evil should be opposed.</p>
<p class="p1">Libertarians see the injustice in the system and therefore want to distance themselves from it. This is basic human nature; where danger exists, a rational individual desires to keep a safe distance. Because the state claims absolute authority, and because absolute power corrupts absolutely, as a general rule libertarianism stands at odds with the status quo. But does this equate to an across-the-board <em>laissez-faire</em> lifestyle?</p>
<p class="p1"><span id="more-3380"></span></p>
<p class="p1">The reason why so many believe this to be true is because society is often conflated with government, and therefore opposition to a government action is construed by many to indicate opposition to the action itself. Libertarians, however, separate society from government, believing that voluntary actions and individual rights predate and therefore <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/rights-precede-and-supercede-the-government">precede</a> the state. As with most such issues, Frédéric Bastiat hit the nail on the head:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1">Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1">If a person is unable to divorce these two things in their mind, then it is expected that they will see libertarians as selfish isolationists who want to do whatever they want, and don&#8217;t care what anybody around them does. But this is simply not the case; libertarianism concerns itself only with the political realm and makes no commentary on issues that are purely societal, moral, or religious in nature. As Murray Rothbard explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1">The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1">Herein lies the answer to the initial objection. Libertarians are outspoken opponents of the state&#8217;s use of violence—a position that is becoming increasingly popular as that violence is aggressively implemented, and fortunately, widely broadcast through social media. But this opposition, as Bastiat noted, should not be seen as general opposition to the underlying actions. Opposition to government education says nothing of whether religious private schools are better than secular ones, or whether homeschooling is optimal over unschooling. Opposition to free medical care for poor people is not synonymous with a desire for poor people to die from neglect. Opposition to government-owned recreation centers does not mean that libertarians hate swimming pools. And on and on.</p>
<p class="p1">The &#8220;live and let live&#8221; characterization chiefly comes into play on matters of self-harm, or, more generally, individual actions that do not immediately violate another person&#8217;s rights, but may in the aggregate, or over the long term, affect others in a variety of ways. This position is well summarized by <a href="http://www.williamgairdner.com/journal/2009/4/24/the-weakness-of-libertarianism.html">one commentator</a> as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span style="color: #000000;">What libertarians miss is the responsibility we all must share  for the vigour or weakness of this middle layer, about which they simply have nothing to say, except &#8220;don&#8217;t harm me.&#8221; In other words, they have nothing to say about the many activities that, beyond their destructive effect on mere individuals, may as clearly be destructive of civil society itself, of our traditions, customs, community standards, social affections, and the traditional decencies of our commonly-held way of life. Indeed, if they do speak of such things it is usually to protest that these, too, are forms of moral oppression.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1">This writer is not correct. Libertarians do not all &#8220;miss&#8221; this responsibility—though, like conservatives and liberals and all the rest, there are plenty who do abdicate <a href="http://www.latterdayresponsibility.com">their responsibility</a>. (Parenthetically, it should be noted that personally fulfilling a moral duty to help others is not the same thing as casting a vote to tax others to pay for government agents to help others on your behalf.) Libertarians do not have &#8220;nothing to say&#8221; about activities that harm an individual. Many of them have <em>plenty</em> to say—but the context in which the debate is framed, <em>e.g.</em> should the government punish this action or not, confines the libertarian discussion only to terms of state power. If it is accepted that the government should be involved, then the libertarian&#8217;s position will be one of objection.</p>
<p class="p1">But if the debate is open to alternative viewpoints, <em>e.g.</em> the government should not concern itself with this action, then the libertarian may, depending on his personal views, have a variety of things to say about it. Personally, I believe drugs are harmful. I believe abortion is awful. I believe pornography is destructive. I believe people should eat healthy. I believe consuming large amounts of entertainment is mind-numbing. I believe that not regularly reading books is a bad idea.</p>
<p class="p1">I, like many libertarians, have many, many things to say about nearly every aspect of life. But when asked what the libertarian viewpoint is on X, libertarians narrow their consideration only to the political realm, for libertarianism itself has no position otherwise. In this context, the libertarian line of thinking is, simply, <em>should I condone the use of violence against an individual who does X</em>? The answer, most often, is an extremely easy one—and one that is unsatisfactory to the authoritarians who prefer state coercion to enforce perceived societal ideals.</p>
<p class="p1">Libertarianism is the moral political philosophy, for it rejects violence as a means to these ends, and instead relies on persuasion and voluntary action to encourage the ideals that an individual has and desires others to also have. Libertarians, though we are generally united on political matters, are an extremely diverse group of people whose religious and societal opinions run the gamut. We would be content to have fierce debate about these ideas outside the political realm, but to the extent that the state presumes authority to enforce a single standard, we will dutifully line up in objection.</p>
<p class="p1">This is not so much &#8220;live and let live&#8221; as it is &#8220;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Florida_Taser_incident">don&#8217;t tase me, bro!</a>&#8220;</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:84:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/libertarianism-does-not-mean-live-and-let-live/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"11";}s:7:"summary";s:421:"Critics of libertarianism—and there are many—object to the supposed &#8220;selfishness&#8221; they believe is at the core of the political philosophy. It is common, in reviewing their complaints, to see libertarianism referred to as &#8220;live and let live mentality&#8221; or, synonymously, a laissez-faire approach. I intend to show that this characterization is misguided; libertarianism does not mean, [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:9326:"<p class="p1">Critics of libertarianism—and there are many—object to the supposed &#8220;selfishness&#8221; they believe is at the core of the political philosophy. It is common, in reviewing their complaints, to see libertarianism referred to as &#8220;live and let live mentality&#8221; or, synonymously, a <em>l<i style="color: #252525;">aissez-faire</i></em> approach. I intend to show that this characterization is misguided; libertarianism does not mean, and should not be interpreted as, a blanket &#8220;live and let live&#8221; attitude towards the actions and beliefs of others.</p>
<p class="p1">It is true that an anti-authoritarian undercurrent pervades libertarianism. This is an inevitable counter-cultural response to the rise of the <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/05/john-w-whitehead/american-authoritarianism/">authoritarian state</a>. It is therefore not surprising that those who generally sympathize with or support the state&#8217;s presumption and actual exercise of authority would object to those who dissent. If government, as Tom Paine said, &#8220;even in its best state is but a necessary evil [and] in its worst state an intolerable one,&#8221; then it is generally evil—and evil should be opposed.</p>
<p class="p1">Libertarians see the injustice in the system and therefore want to distance themselves from it. This is basic human nature; where danger exists, a rational individual desires to keep a safe distance. Because the state claims absolute authority, and because absolute power corrupts absolutely, as a general rule libertarianism stands at odds with the status quo. But does this equate to an across-the-board <em>laissez-faire</em> lifestyle?</p>
<p class="p1"><span id="more-3380"></span></p>
<p class="p1">The reason why so many believe this to be true is because society is often conflated with government, and therefore opposition to a government action is construed by many to indicate opposition to the action itself. Libertarians, however, separate society from government, believing that voluntary actions and individual rights predate and therefore <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/rights-precede-and-supercede-the-government">precede</a> the state. As with most such issues, Frédéric Bastiat hit the nail on the head:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1">Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1">If a person is unable to divorce these two things in their mind, then it is expected that they will see libertarians as selfish isolationists who want to do whatever they want, and don&#8217;t care what anybody around them does. But this is simply not the case; libertarianism concerns itself only with the political realm and makes no commentary on issues that are purely societal, moral, or religious in nature. As Murray Rothbard explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1">The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1">Herein lies the answer to the initial objection. Libertarians are outspoken opponents of the state&#8217;s use of violence—a position that is becoming increasingly popular as that violence is aggressively implemented, and fortunately, widely broadcast through social media. But this opposition, as Bastiat noted, should not be seen as general opposition to the underlying actions. Opposition to government education says nothing of whether religious private schools are better than secular ones, or whether homeschooling is optimal over unschooling. Opposition to free medical care for poor people is not synonymous with a desire for poor people to die from neglect. Opposition to government-owned recreation centers does not mean that libertarians hate swimming pools. And on and on.</p>
<p class="p1">The &#8220;live and let live&#8221; characterization chiefly comes into play on matters of self-harm, or, more generally, individual actions that do not immediately violate another person&#8217;s rights, but may in the aggregate, or over the long term, affect others in a variety of ways. This position is well summarized by <a href="http://www.williamgairdner.com/journal/2009/4/24/the-weakness-of-libertarianism.html">one commentator</a> as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span style="color: #000000;">What libertarians miss is the responsibility we all must share  for the vigour or weakness of this middle layer, about which they simply have nothing to say, except &#8220;don&#8217;t harm me.&#8221; In other words, they have nothing to say about the many activities that, beyond their destructive effect on mere individuals, may as clearly be destructive of civil society itself, of our traditions, customs, community standards, social affections, and the traditional decencies of our commonly-held way of life. Indeed, if they do speak of such things it is usually to protest that these, too, are forms of moral oppression.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1">This writer is not correct. Libertarians do not all &#8220;miss&#8221; this responsibility—though, like conservatives and liberals and all the rest, there are plenty who do abdicate <a href="http://www.latterdayresponsibility.com">their responsibility</a>. (Parenthetically, it should be noted that personally fulfilling a moral duty to help others is not the same thing as casting a vote to tax others to pay for government agents to help others on your behalf.) Libertarians do not have &#8220;nothing to say&#8221; about activities that harm an individual. Many of them have <em>plenty</em> to say—but the context in which the debate is framed, <em>e.g.</em> should the government punish this action or not, confines the libertarian discussion only to terms of state power. If it is accepted that the government should be involved, then the libertarian&#8217;s position will be one of objection.</p>
<p class="p1">But if the debate is open to alternative viewpoints, <em>e.g.</em> the government should not concern itself with this action, then the libertarian may, depending on his personal views, have a variety of things to say about it. Personally, I believe drugs are harmful. I believe abortion is awful. I believe pornography is destructive. I believe people should eat healthy. I believe consuming large amounts of entertainment is mind-numbing. I believe that not regularly reading books is a bad idea.</p>
<p class="p1">I, like many libertarians, have many, many things to say about nearly every aspect of life. But when asked what the libertarian viewpoint is on X, libertarians narrow their consideration only to the political realm, for libertarianism itself has no position otherwise. In this context, the libertarian line of thinking is, simply, <em>should I condone the use of violence against an individual who does X</em>? The answer, most often, is an extremely easy one—and one that is unsatisfactory to the authoritarians who prefer state coercion to enforce perceived societal ideals.</p>
<p class="p1">Libertarianism is the moral political philosophy, for it rejects violence as a means to these ends, and instead relies on persuasion and voluntary action to encourage the ideals that an individual has and desires others to also have. Libertarians, though we are generally united on political matters, are an extremely diverse group of people whose religious and societal opinions run the gamut. We would be content to have fierce debate about these ideas outside the political realm, but to the extent that the state presumes authority to enforce a single standard, we will dutifully line up in objection.</p>
<p class="p1">This is not so much &#8220;live and let live&#8221; as it is &#8220;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Florida_Taser_incident">don&#8217;t tase me, bro!</a>&#8220;</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1403190858;}i:16;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:38:"Don’t Confuse Progress With Apostasy";s:4:"link";s:68:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/dont-confuse-progress-with-apostasy";s:8:"comments";s:77:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/dont-confuse-progress-with-apostasy#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 19 May 2014 03:04:17 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3377";s:11:"description";s:341:"In my last post, I argued that ideally we should progress past the point of constitutionalism and find even better ways to secure individual liberty and promote the common good. But I was careful not to use the word progress, because it is so charged and ill-defined—like many words, it has been commandeered and contorted. When [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:4003:"<p>In my <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-constitution-was-a-means-not-an-end">last post</a>, I argued that ideally we should progress past the point of constitutionalism and find even better ways to secure individual liberty and promote the common good. But I was careful not to use the word <em>progress</em>, because it is so charged and ill-defined—like many words, it has been commandeered and contorted.</p>
<p>When somebody describes their political ideology as &#8220;progressive,&#8221; what do you think? Do they support or oppose elective abortion? Do they support or oppose imposing new or higher taxes? Would this person object to, or advocate for, redistributive welfare programs? What, exactly, is a progressive?</p>
<p>Those who apply this label to themselves often believe that they are intellectual—smart in the sense that they have risen above the ignorance of past generations. Where tradition, culture, and political or religious views prevent others from being similarly enlightened, the progressive has evolved beyond such caveman-esque thinking. After all, who can object to <em>progress</em>? Its very name suggests a positive development that every sensible person should support.</p>
<p><span id="more-3377"></span></p>
<p>But progress is only a positive thing when heading in the right direction; every step taken up a ladder leaning against the wrong building is a step upward, yes, but a step in the wrong direction all the same.</p>
<p>We can appreciate progress to the extent that it entails bringing systems or individual actions more in line with fundamental principles. For example, terminating the legal sanction of slavery was important progress that was consistent with the ideas evoked at the heart of secession from, and defense against, the British crown. (Obviously, how progress is achieved is equally important; ending war is good, but ending it by exterminating mass quantities of innocent individuals is not.)</p>
<p>Progress cannot be divorced from its context—what is being accomplished must be understood in terms of what is being abandoned, changed, or superseded. Because much of political progressivism involves a rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethic and the classical liberal ideology developed during the enlightenment era, it should be seen for what it is: an apostasy from the American tradition.</p>
<p>Apostasy is generally used in the religious realm, and its use in this context remains consistent: many individuals feel that they have progressed past the alleged superstition and subjugation of Christian religion. They might be &#8220;spiritual&#8221; as opposed to religious, or tolerant whether others are dismissed as bigoted. Theirs is the customized gospel—the comfortable, sanitized set of guidelines (not commandments) that are made to fit their lives (and, of course, not the other way around).</p>
<p>But as with politics, this is not progress within Christianity, but the abandonment thereof. And because progressives are merely abandoning previously held traditions and beliefs, they are joining forces with plenty of people throughout history who have done the same. Progress, to be defined as such, would require advancement beyond what was previously known or done. But in this case, those who reject political or religious principles are repeating what has occurred many, many times in the past. Some progress…</p>
<p>It cannot be emphasized enough: there is such a thing as progress, and to the extent that it is founded on correct principles and done in the correct manner, then we should support and seek it. Moving away from these principles, however, is not at all progressive—as C.S. Lewis once said, &#8220;If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”</p>
<p>Given how off course most people are, the world could use more (true) progressives.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:73:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/dont-confuse-progress-with-apostasy/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:1:"6";}s:7:"summary";s:341:"In my last post, I argued that ideally we should progress past the point of constitutionalism and find even better ways to secure individual liberty and promote the common good. But I was careful not to use the word progress, because it is so charged and ill-defined—like many words, it has been commandeered and contorted. When [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:4003:"<p>In my <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-constitution-was-a-means-not-an-end">last post</a>, I argued that ideally we should progress past the point of constitutionalism and find even better ways to secure individual liberty and promote the common good. But I was careful not to use the word <em>progress</em>, because it is so charged and ill-defined—like many words, it has been commandeered and contorted.</p>
<p>When somebody describes their political ideology as &#8220;progressive,&#8221; what do you think? Do they support or oppose elective abortion? Do they support or oppose imposing new or higher taxes? Would this person object to, or advocate for, redistributive welfare programs? What, exactly, is a progressive?</p>
<p>Those who apply this label to themselves often believe that they are intellectual—smart in the sense that they have risen above the ignorance of past generations. Where tradition, culture, and political or religious views prevent others from being similarly enlightened, the progressive has evolved beyond such caveman-esque thinking. After all, who can object to <em>progress</em>? Its very name suggests a positive development that every sensible person should support.</p>
<p><span id="more-3377"></span></p>
<p>But progress is only a positive thing when heading in the right direction; every step taken up a ladder leaning against the wrong building is a step upward, yes, but a step in the wrong direction all the same.</p>
<p>We can appreciate progress to the extent that it entails bringing systems or individual actions more in line with fundamental principles. For example, terminating the legal sanction of slavery was important progress that was consistent with the ideas evoked at the heart of secession from, and defense against, the British crown. (Obviously, how progress is achieved is equally important; ending war is good, but ending it by exterminating mass quantities of innocent individuals is not.)</p>
<p>Progress cannot be divorced from its context—what is being accomplished must be understood in terms of what is being abandoned, changed, or superseded. Because much of political progressivism involves a rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethic and the classical liberal ideology developed during the enlightenment era, it should be seen for what it is: an apostasy from the American tradition.</p>
<p>Apostasy is generally used in the religious realm, and its use in this context remains consistent: many individuals feel that they have progressed past the alleged superstition and subjugation of Christian religion. They might be &#8220;spiritual&#8221; as opposed to religious, or tolerant whether others are dismissed as bigoted. Theirs is the customized gospel—the comfortable, sanitized set of guidelines (not commandments) that are made to fit their lives (and, of course, not the other way around).</p>
<p>But as with politics, this is not progress within Christianity, but the abandonment thereof. And because progressives are merely abandoning previously held traditions and beliefs, they are joining forces with plenty of people throughout history who have done the same. Progress, to be defined as such, would require advancement beyond what was previously known or done. But in this case, those who reject political or religious principles are repeating what has occurred many, many times in the past. Some progress…</p>
<p>It cannot be emphasized enough: there is such a thing as progress, and to the extent that it is founded on correct principles and done in the correct manner, then we should support and seek it. Moving away from these principles, however, is not at all progressive—as C.S. Lewis once said, &#8220;If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”</p>
<p>Given how off course most people are, the world could use more (true) progressives.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1400468657;}i:17;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:40:"The Constitution was a Means, Not an End";s:4:"link";s:72:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-constitution-was-a-means-not-an-end";s:8:"comments";s:81:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-constitution-was-a-means-not-an-end#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 08 May 2014 21:18:42 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3374";s:11:"description";s:401:"After several generations of preceding philosophical musings and political pamphleteering, a group of American colonists revolted against the most powerful empire in the world. It&#8217;s quite staggering to contemplate the boldness of their action—short of the divine providence to which many of them credited their ultimate success, they surely would have failed. &#8220;Mankind are more [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:4135:"<p>After several generations of preceding philosophical musings and political pamphleteering, a group of American colonists revolted against the most powerful empire in the world. It&#8217;s quite staggering to contemplate the boldness of their action—short of the divine providence to which many of them credited their ultimate success, they surely would have failed. </p>
<p>&#8220;Mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable,&#8221; they wrote in their treasonous Declaration of Independence, &#8220;than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.&#8221; This is, after all, the human condition; apathy and inertia are powerful tools of the state to keep its subjects in line. &#8220;But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,&#8221; they wrote, &#8220;it is their right, <em>it is their duty</em>, to throw off such government…&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3374"></span></p>
<p>This argument justified secession and a defensive war against Britain&#8217;s attempt to compel obedience. Following their victory on the battlefield, delegates produced a Constitution which created and empowered a federal government—a government that has become much more oppressive than the regime under which the colonists &#8220;patiently suffered,&#8221; as they alleged in the Declaration. </p>
<p>In response to the gargantuan nature of government in our day, many argue that a restoration of the Constitution is needed—that we need to enforce its restrictions on the federal government and apply its principles. While it is true that doing so would be a significant victory for liberty, this would only be the first of many steps worth taking to protect our unalienable rights. The Constitution has many good things going for it, but it&#8217;s not perfect.</p>
<p>That position is hard to stomach for many whose reverence for the document equates to a soft form of idolatry. Many patriotic people romanticize the past and long for a day when we will &#8220;return to constitutional government.&#8221; They focus so much on this lofty goal that they can&#8217;t see the forest for the trees—they obsess over amendments and clauses and case law but give little attention to fundamental principles, political philosophy, and, frankly, ways in which the Constitution is deficient. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s as if these individuals believe that the Constitution is the final and only application of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enlightenment">enlightenment</a> philosophy and <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html">Judeo-Christian ethic</a> that formed the basis of the colonists&#8217; &#8220;throwing off&#8221; of the alleged &#8220;absolute despotism&#8221; under which they suffered. Is that it? Is the Constitution a political utopia of sorts to which all of our loyalty and energy must be given? Can we not advance further, or better? Should we not learn from the past to improve upon it—and not simply copy and paste it to the present day?</p>
<p>Had the colonists themselves believed this way, they would have been content to live with the Magna Carta. The actions of their political predecessors would have been reverenced and repeated, upheld as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum"><em>summum bonum</em></a> of good government. Fortunately they recognized the importance of improving upon the past, and did just that—and they were (and we are) better off for it. </p>
<p>The Constitution was a means to an end—not an end unto itself. Obviously, that &#8220;means&#8221; has proven rather ineffective, for it failed to actually restrain the government it created. Today we suffer from &#8220;repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny&#8221; over people whose unalienable rights are being institutionally and repeatedly violated. Defending them in full requires more than merely suggesting that the Constitution be reinstated.</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:77:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-constitution-was-a-means-not-an-end/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"17";}s:7:"summary";s:401:"After several generations of preceding philosophical musings and political pamphleteering, a group of American colonists revolted against the most powerful empire in the world. It&#8217;s quite staggering to contemplate the boldness of their action—short of the divine providence to which many of them credited their ultimate success, they surely would have failed. &#8220;Mankind are more [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:4135:"<p>After several generations of preceding philosophical musings and political pamphleteering, a group of American colonists revolted against the most powerful empire in the world. It&#8217;s quite staggering to contemplate the boldness of their action—short of the divine providence to which many of them credited their ultimate success, they surely would have failed. </p>
<p>&#8220;Mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable,&#8221; they wrote in their treasonous Declaration of Independence, &#8220;than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.&#8221; This is, after all, the human condition; apathy and inertia are powerful tools of the state to keep its subjects in line. &#8220;But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,&#8221; they wrote, &#8220;it is their right, <em>it is their duty</em>, to throw off such government…&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3374"></span></p>
<p>This argument justified secession and a defensive war against Britain&#8217;s attempt to compel obedience. Following their victory on the battlefield, delegates produced a Constitution which created and empowered a federal government—a government that has become much more oppressive than the regime under which the colonists &#8220;patiently suffered,&#8221; as they alleged in the Declaration. </p>
<p>In response to the gargantuan nature of government in our day, many argue that a restoration of the Constitution is needed—that we need to enforce its restrictions on the federal government and apply its principles. While it is true that doing so would be a significant victory for liberty, this would only be the first of many steps worth taking to protect our unalienable rights. The Constitution has many good things going for it, but it&#8217;s not perfect.</p>
<p>That position is hard to stomach for many whose reverence for the document equates to a soft form of idolatry. Many patriotic people romanticize the past and long for a day when we will &#8220;return to constitutional government.&#8221; They focus so much on this lofty goal that they can&#8217;t see the forest for the trees—they obsess over amendments and clauses and case law but give little attention to fundamental principles, political philosophy, and, frankly, ways in which the Constitution is deficient. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s as if these individuals believe that the Constitution is the final and only application of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enlightenment">enlightenment</a> philosophy and <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html">Judeo-Christian ethic</a> that formed the basis of the colonists&#8217; &#8220;throwing off&#8221; of the alleged &#8220;absolute despotism&#8221; under which they suffered. Is that it? Is the Constitution a political utopia of sorts to which all of our loyalty and energy must be given? Can we not advance further, or better? Should we not learn from the past to improve upon it—and not simply copy and paste it to the present day?</p>
<p>Had the colonists themselves believed this way, they would have been content to live with the Magna Carta. The actions of their political predecessors would have been reverenced and repeated, upheld as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum"><em>summum bonum</em></a> of good government. Fortunately they recognized the importance of improving upon the past, and did just that—and they were (and we are) better off for it. </p>
<p>The Constitution was a means to an end—not an end unto itself. Obviously, that &#8220;means&#8221; has proven rather ineffective, for it failed to actually restrain the government it created. Today we suffer from &#8220;repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny&#8221; over people whose unalienable rights are being institutionally and repeatedly violated. Defending them in full requires more than merely suggesting that the Constitution be reinstated.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1399583922;}i:18;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:48:"Why Religious Liberty is the Wrong Fight to Pick";s:4:"link";s:81:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-religious-liberty-is-the-wrong-fight-to-pick";s:8:"comments";s:90:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-religious-liberty-is-the-wrong-fight-to-pick#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:49:25 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3371";s:11:"description";s:400:"There&#8217;s been heavy debate regarding religious liberty in the past several years, specifically in relation to the mandate under Obamacare for employers to provide contraception and the surging movement to legalize same-sex marriage. The conversation extends to other issues such as the right to refuse service in commerce, discrimination in employment and housing, and adoption—among [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:9977:"<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">There&#8217;s been heavy debate regarding religious liberty in the past several years, specifically in relation to the mandate under Obamacare for employers to provide contraception and the surging movement to legalize same-sex marriage. The conversation extends to other issues such as the </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.npr.org/2014/02/25/282523501/religious-freedom-bills-rooted-in-obama-era-fears">right to refuse service in commerce</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://prospect.org/article/religious-liberty-next-big-front-culture-wars">discrimination in employment and housing</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, and </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/catholic-bishops-claim-laws-allowing-gay-adoption-violate-religious-liberty/">adoption</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">—among many others.</span></p>
<p>Without question, there are an abundance of examples one might reference suggesting a violation of religious liberty. In other words, many laws require a person to act contrary to the tenets of his faith, presenting him with what Bastiat <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">called</a> &#8220;the cruel alternative&#8221; of deciding between obedience to God or Caesar. This trend led Pope Benedict XVI to <a href="http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/our-first-most-cherished-liberty.cfm">comment</a> in 2012 that this, the &#8220;most cherished of American freedoms,&#8221; was being undermined by government policies.</p>
<p>But what, exactly, is religious liberty? Most would define it as the ability to believe in God—or, more generally, the supernatural—and act on those beliefs. Of course, religion is often comprehensive and all-encompassing; theology isn&#8217;t just focused upward upon God, but more importantly downward on each individual—our lives, our interpersonal relationships, our behaviors, our thoughts, our feelings. As Stephen L. Richards once stated:</p>
<p><span id="more-3371"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>Our religion is not a thing apart from our life. It is incorporated in it, and forms a part of the very tissue and sinews of our being. It provides a rule of conduct and of action for us, not only in our occasional worship but in our lives, in our work, in our play, in all that we do in the whole course of our conduct.</p></blockquote>
<p>Few object to this conduct and action when it is personal, confined, and inconspicuous. How and where a person prays, for example, is not a subject of public controversy. A person who fasts, renders service, or baptizes another person is rarely the topic du jour amongst talking heads on TV. But when these actions affect other individuals, especially in a visible and direct manner, many consider the activity to be appropriately subject to public scrutiny and government regulation.</p>
<p>Consider the case of George Reynolds, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While married to one woman he additionally married another in the polygamous Utah territory.  Reynolds was convicted in 1875 and sentenced to two years of hard labor in prison along with a fine of $500. He was defeated in each level of court appeals, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices of which unanimously upheld his conviction.</p>
<p>&#8220;Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary [of the law] because of his religious belief?&#8221; questioned the Court. &#8220;To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.&#8221;</p>
<p>Thus did the black-robed lawyers in the Supreme Court draw a dividing line between religious <em>belief</em> and religious <em>behavior</em>. While the former was protected by the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the latter was subjected to legislative mandates, bureaucratic restrictions, and judicial interpretations. Religious opinion was still a jealously guarded freedom, but religious activity thereafter became a circumstantial, government-granted permission.</p>
<p>Those who speak of religious liberty today hope to converge the two, allowing people of faith to outwardly act in a manner that is consistent with their inward thoughts. &#8220;I am deeply concerned,&#8221; Rep. Raul Labrador <a href="http://heritageaction.com/2014/02/raul-labrador-exercising-religious-liberty-with-the-fear-of-government-penalities/">recently said</a>, &#8220;that this administration will begin to use the federal government to discriminate against individuals and organizations who believe [in] traditional marriage and believe in it for religious reasons.&#8221; Of course, the belief alone in opposite-gender marriage is not the issue—it is the desire by those who hold this belief to use political power to enforce their belief as a statewide (or nationwide) standard, to the detriment of those who have different beliefs. Thus, Rep. Labrador added, &#8220;all Americans should be free to <em>act</em> in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of any government penalty.&#8221;</p>
<p>But is this true? Should individuals be free to act based on their religious beliefs? This was a question the Court dealt with in the <em>Reynolds</em> case. In an editorial defending the Court&#8217;s decision, the <em>New York Times</em> wrote that &#8220;a sect which should pretend, or believe, that incest, infanticide, or murder was a divinely appointed ordinance, to be observed under certain conditions, could set up that the enforcement of the common law, as against either [sic] of these practices, was an invasion of the rights of conscience.&#8221; It&#8217;s a valid point—there certainly must be boundaries against actions that are excused because they are based on a religious belief.<sup id="cite_ref-4"></sup></p>
<p>The glaring difference <span style="line-height: 1.5em;">between polygamy, on which the <em>Times</em> was commenting, and things like incest, infanticide, or murder, is that polygamy is <em>consensual</em> and does not harm those whose beliefs oppose the practice. To the extent that religious action does not violate the life, liberty, or property of another, then it should not be prohibited. Abstaining from offering contraception insurance coverage to one&#8217;s employees does not violate their rights. Refusing to offer products or services to a person because of one&#8217;s religious belief does not violate that person&#8217;s rights. </span></p>
<p>This is why religious liberty is the wrong fight to pick. The issue here is not that religious people are being compelled to choose between conscience and Caesar—the issue is that the state is <em>requiring these things at all</em>. We should not give the green light to burdensome mandates so long as exemptions exist for those whose religious beliefs require them to act differently. Focusing on faith in the context of the law necessarily excludes those who object to a given law on non-religious grounds.</p>
<p>Myopically focusing on religious liberty narrows our attention and energy to a small subset of liberty—an important one, yes, but a subset nonetheless. Questions of oppressive government shouldn&#8217;t be framed only in terms of violations of <em>conscience</em>; our focus should be in pointing out, and objecting to, violations of <em>authority</em>. The government should not oppress anybody, religious or not. Thoreau was right:</p>
<blockquote><p>Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.</p></blockquote>
<p>It can certainly be useful to object to oppression on religious grounds—but this alone should not be the summum bonum of our advocacy and efforts. We should fight for liberty, generally. Occupational licensure, property rights, tax reform, gun control, education, drug legalization, immigration, environmental regulations, searches and seizures—these and a host of other political issues have no, or at best only a minimal, connection to religious belief. But these issues are equally worthy of our attention, despite our religious beliefs finding little to no application to them.</p>
<p>Religious liberty is important; people should be free to act in a manner consistent with their privately held beliefs, so long as that action does not violate another&#8217;s rights. This benchmark alone should be the litmus test for whether the government may be permitted to mandate or prohibit an action. Ultimately, however, it does not matter whether the belief and intent underlying the action stems from religious conviction, personal interest, ignorance, a profit motive, or some other influencing factor. So long as it&#8217;s consensual and not harmful, the government should butt out. Religion, in the end, has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>Daniel Webster once stated, &#8220;God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.&#8221; Focusing only on religious liberty is tantamount to wearing only a breastplate in a battle against the state. Let&#8217;s instead wear a complete set of armor, defending liberty generally—not only for the religious among us, but for all individuals whose <a href="http://libertasutah.org/op-eds/selling-our-birthright-for-a-mess-of-pottage/">birthright</a> it is.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:86:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-religious-liberty-is-the-wrong-fight-to-pick/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"14";}s:7:"summary";s:400:"There&#8217;s been heavy debate regarding religious liberty in the past several years, specifically in relation to the mandate under Obamacare for employers to provide contraception and the surging movement to legalize same-sex marriage. The conversation extends to other issues such as the right to refuse service in commerce, discrimination in employment and housing, and adoption—among [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:9977:"<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">There&#8217;s been heavy debate regarding religious liberty in the past several years, specifically in relation to the mandate under Obamacare for employers to provide contraception and the surging movement to legalize same-sex marriage. The conversation extends to other issues such as the </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.npr.org/2014/02/25/282523501/religious-freedom-bills-rooted-in-obama-era-fears">right to refuse service in commerce</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://prospect.org/article/religious-liberty-next-big-front-culture-wars">discrimination in employment and housing</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, and </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/catholic-bishops-claim-laws-allowing-gay-adoption-violate-religious-liberty/">adoption</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">—among many others.</span></p>
<p>Without question, there are an abundance of examples one might reference suggesting a violation of religious liberty. In other words, many laws require a person to act contrary to the tenets of his faith, presenting him with what Bastiat <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">called</a> &#8220;the cruel alternative&#8221; of deciding between obedience to God or Caesar. This trend led Pope Benedict XVI to <a href="http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/our-first-most-cherished-liberty.cfm">comment</a> in 2012 that this, the &#8220;most cherished of American freedoms,&#8221; was being undermined by government policies.</p>
<p>But what, exactly, is religious liberty? Most would define it as the ability to believe in God—or, more generally, the supernatural—and act on those beliefs. Of course, religion is often comprehensive and all-encompassing; theology isn&#8217;t just focused upward upon God, but more importantly downward on each individual—our lives, our interpersonal relationships, our behaviors, our thoughts, our feelings. As Stephen L. Richards once stated:</p>
<p><span id="more-3371"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>Our religion is not a thing apart from our life. It is incorporated in it, and forms a part of the very tissue and sinews of our being. It provides a rule of conduct and of action for us, not only in our occasional worship but in our lives, in our work, in our play, in all that we do in the whole course of our conduct.</p></blockquote>
<p>Few object to this conduct and action when it is personal, confined, and inconspicuous. How and where a person prays, for example, is not a subject of public controversy. A person who fasts, renders service, or baptizes another person is rarely the topic du jour amongst talking heads on TV. But when these actions affect other individuals, especially in a visible and direct manner, many consider the activity to be appropriately subject to public scrutiny and government regulation.</p>
<p>Consider the case of George Reynolds, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While married to one woman he additionally married another in the polygamous Utah territory.  Reynolds was convicted in 1875 and sentenced to two years of hard labor in prison along with a fine of $500. He was defeated in each level of court appeals, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices of which unanimously upheld his conviction.</p>
<p>&#8220;Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary [of the law] because of his religious belief?&#8221; questioned the Court. &#8220;To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.&#8221;</p>
<p>Thus did the black-robed lawyers in the Supreme Court draw a dividing line between religious <em>belief</em> and religious <em>behavior</em>. While the former was protected by the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the latter was subjected to legislative mandates, bureaucratic restrictions, and judicial interpretations. Religious opinion was still a jealously guarded freedom, but religious activity thereafter became a circumstantial, government-granted permission.</p>
<p>Those who speak of religious liberty today hope to converge the two, allowing people of faith to outwardly act in a manner that is consistent with their inward thoughts. &#8220;I am deeply concerned,&#8221; Rep. Raul Labrador <a href="http://heritageaction.com/2014/02/raul-labrador-exercising-religious-liberty-with-the-fear-of-government-penalities/">recently said</a>, &#8220;that this administration will begin to use the federal government to discriminate against individuals and organizations who believe [in] traditional marriage and believe in it for religious reasons.&#8221; Of course, the belief alone in opposite-gender marriage is not the issue—it is the desire by those who hold this belief to use political power to enforce their belief as a statewide (or nationwide) standard, to the detriment of those who have different beliefs. Thus, Rep. Labrador added, &#8220;all Americans should be free to <em>act</em> in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of any government penalty.&#8221;</p>
<p>But is this true? Should individuals be free to act based on their religious beliefs? This was a question the Court dealt with in the <em>Reynolds</em> case. In an editorial defending the Court&#8217;s decision, the <em>New York Times</em> wrote that &#8220;a sect which should pretend, or believe, that incest, infanticide, or murder was a divinely appointed ordinance, to be observed under certain conditions, could set up that the enforcement of the common law, as against either [sic] of these practices, was an invasion of the rights of conscience.&#8221; It&#8217;s a valid point—there certainly must be boundaries against actions that are excused because they are based on a religious belief.<sup id="cite_ref-4"></sup></p>
<p>The glaring difference <span style="line-height: 1.5em;">between polygamy, on which the <em>Times</em> was commenting, and things like incest, infanticide, or murder, is that polygamy is <em>consensual</em> and does not harm those whose beliefs oppose the practice. To the extent that religious action does not violate the life, liberty, or property of another, then it should not be prohibited. Abstaining from offering contraception insurance coverage to one&#8217;s employees does not violate their rights. Refusing to offer products or services to a person because of one&#8217;s religious belief does not violate that person&#8217;s rights. </span></p>
<p>This is why religious liberty is the wrong fight to pick. The issue here is not that religious people are being compelled to choose between conscience and Caesar—the issue is that the state is <em>requiring these things at all</em>. We should not give the green light to burdensome mandates so long as exemptions exist for those whose religious beliefs require them to act differently. Focusing on faith in the context of the law necessarily excludes those who object to a given law on non-religious grounds.</p>
<p>Myopically focusing on religious liberty narrows our attention and energy to a small subset of liberty—an important one, yes, but a subset nonetheless. Questions of oppressive government shouldn&#8217;t be framed only in terms of violations of <em>conscience</em>; our focus should be in pointing out, and objecting to, violations of <em>authority</em>. The government should not oppress anybody, religious or not. Thoreau was right:</p>
<blockquote><p>Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.</p></blockquote>
<p>It can certainly be useful to object to oppression on religious grounds—but this alone should not be the summum bonum of our advocacy and efforts. We should fight for liberty, generally. Occupational licensure, property rights, tax reform, gun control, education, drug legalization, immigration, environmental regulations, searches and seizures—these and a host of other political issues have no, or at best only a minimal, connection to religious belief. But these issues are equally worthy of our attention, despite our religious beliefs finding little to no application to them.</p>
<p>Religious liberty is important; people should be free to act in a manner consistent with their privately held beliefs, so long as that action does not violate another&#8217;s rights. This benchmark alone should be the litmus test for whether the government may be permitted to mandate or prohibit an action. Ultimately, however, it does not matter whether the belief and intent underlying the action stems from religious conviction, personal interest, ignorance, a profit motive, or some other influencing factor. So long as it&#8217;s consensual and not harmful, the government should butt out. Religion, in the end, has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>Daniel Webster once stated, &#8220;God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.&#8221; Focusing only on religious liberty is tantamount to wearing only a breastplate in a battle against the state. Let&#8217;s instead wear a complete set of armor, defending liberty generally—not only for the religious among us, but for all individuals whose <a href="http://libertasutah.org/op-eds/selling-our-birthright-for-a-mess-of-pottage/">birthright</a> it is.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1397753365;}i:19;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:50:"Consequences of a Refusal to Recognize Our Creator";s:4:"link";s:83:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/consequences-of-a-refusal-to-recognize-our-creator";s:8:"comments";s:92:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/consequences-of-a-refusal-to-recognize-our-creator#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:13:34 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3191";s:11:"description";s:326:"Can an ungodly society be a free society? This question has kept busy both philosophers and pastors for ages. Whether the bondage of sin correlates to, or causes, the bondage of statism is a subject of significant importance. How necessary, really, is a belief in God? Of course, a belief in God is rather irrelevant [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:6283:"<p>Can an ungodly society be a free society?</p>
<p>This question has kept busy both philosophers and pastors for ages. Whether the bondage of sin correlates to, or causes, the bondage of statism is a subject of significant importance. How necessary, really, is a belief in God?</p>
<p>Of course, a belief in God is rather irrelevant without corresponding behavior; actionable belief, or in other words <em>faith</em> in God, is what&#8217;s important. Too often faith is treated with tunnel vision, whereby people only consider its influence on their individual lives. But just as faith can move mountains, it can shape societies—and a lack of it can likewise leave a noticeable imprint.</p>
<p>It takes effort not to notice the many stains on society that surround us—news reports overwhelm us constantly with tales of government corruption, societal scandal, depravity, or corporate malfeasance. In systematic fashion, people use their rights in an irresponsible way or have them violated by others acting wrongfully. All of this stems from a rejection of our Creator. </p>
<p><span id="more-3191"></span></p>
<p>The Declaration of Independence rightly recognizes that our Creator endowed us with unalienable rights. This acknowledgement of a pre-existing source elevates our rights over the state and suggests their importance. Can we ignore or outright reject this Creator without disregarding the endowments he gave us? </p>
<p>Closing our eyes to God&#8217;s role in our lives does not just impact our belief regarding, and attitude towards, our birthright of freedom. Abandoning a Creator-centric philosophy impacts our every action; if a person is not concerned about being judged for his behavior, then the natural course is to proverbially <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.7-8?lang=eng#6">eat, drink, and be merry</a> despite a higher, ignored life calling. </p>
<p>The Protestant traditions that influenced the foundations of the New World recognized the self-moderating nature of this future judgment and pointed to it often. Many philosophers of the time, along with the politicians that learned from them, understood the role of religion and morality in influencing civil government for the better—including restraining the abuse of power. Thus John Adams&#8217; first draft of the Massachusetts Constitution stated that &#8220;the knowledge and belief of the being of God… and of a future state of rewards and punishments [are] the only true foundation of morality.&#8221; </p>
<p>Corrupt figures both past and present concern themselves primarily with whatever they think they can get away with. They take no thought of God&#8217;s approbation of their activity, but instead conceal their crime from their peers. They &#8220;seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord&#8221; and <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.9?lang=eng#8">work</a> &#8220;in the dark.&#8221; When their scandals are made public they consider themselves &#8220;caught,&#8221; but even then place little importance on the punishment their Creator may have in store for them. </p>
<p>Diminishing our Creator&#8217;s role in our lives distorts how we understand, value, and exercise our rights. It also removes this future judgment as a factor in our daily decisions. A person who is considering an immoral action might subconsciously perform a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the pros and cons. Getting caught might entail angering the person&#8217;s spouse, jeopardizing employment, or risking social status, fines, or jail time. Pride or simple stupidity might give the person confidence that he can evade detection, increasing the likelihood that the action will be performed.</p>
<p>If this same person had faith in God and placed any sort of importance in His judgment, the Creator&#8217;s ever-present knowledge of our activities would surely be an factor in that same cost-benefit analysis. Spouses, friends, co-workers, and reporters may never learn of our behavior, but God sees everything and therefore can hold us accountable. This reality can restrain our individual behavior, but <a href="http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/let-there-be-light?lang=eng">more generally</a>, it &#8220;benefits society in a dramatic way when adherents engage in moral conduct because they feel accountable to God.&#8221;</p>
<p>President George Washington wrote that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.” Benjamin Franklin agreed: &#8220;Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.&#8221; Patrick Henry listed &#8220;virtue, morality, and religion&#8221; as the &#8220;great pillars of all government.&#8221; He continued: “This is the armor&#8230; and this alone, that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed&#8230; so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.”</p>
<p>The reason that many of the studious Founders encouraged faith in God was because they understood this concept: as we alienate ourselves from God, so too do we alienate the liberty He bestowed upon us. Contrary to Cain&#8217;s misguided <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.33?lang=eng#32">claim</a>, we cannot be free while being evil. </p>
<p>This is not to say that we must all share a common theology, or pay tithes and perform service and otherwise engage in the positive behavior most such religions require. What has long been recognized as important and influential, rather, is an allegiance to God—a recognition of our role as stewards and a belief that we will one day be held accountable. </p>
<p>And it is our deficiency in this regard that has led our society to become as it is; sin has contributed to statism. If we wish to be free, we must understand that a future judgment will hold us accountable for our actions, whether or not those actions are recognized and rewarded or punished by our peers in this life. More importantly, that understanding must lead to self-restraint, personal responsibility, and submission to our King. </p>
<p>Those who do not accept the yoke of Christ, as is readily evident, are led to bear the yoke of Caesar. </p>
";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:88:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/consequences-of-a-refusal-to-recognize-our-creator/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"13";}s:7:"summary";s:326:"Can an ungodly society be a free society? This question has kept busy both philosophers and pastors for ages. Whether the bondage of sin correlates to, or causes, the bondage of statism is a subject of significant importance. How necessary, really, is a belief in God? Of course, a belief in God is rather irrelevant [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:6283:"<p>Can an ungodly society be a free society?</p>
<p>This question has kept busy both philosophers and pastors for ages. Whether the bondage of sin correlates to, or causes, the bondage of statism is a subject of significant importance. How necessary, really, is a belief in God?</p>
<p>Of course, a belief in God is rather irrelevant without corresponding behavior; actionable belief, or in other words <em>faith</em> in God, is what&#8217;s important. Too often faith is treated with tunnel vision, whereby people only consider its influence on their individual lives. But just as faith can move mountains, it can shape societies—and a lack of it can likewise leave a noticeable imprint.</p>
<p>It takes effort not to notice the many stains on society that surround us—news reports overwhelm us constantly with tales of government corruption, societal scandal, depravity, or corporate malfeasance. In systematic fashion, people use their rights in an irresponsible way or have them violated by others acting wrongfully. All of this stems from a rejection of our Creator. </p>
<p><span id="more-3191"></span></p>
<p>The Declaration of Independence rightly recognizes that our Creator endowed us with unalienable rights. This acknowledgement of a pre-existing source elevates our rights over the state and suggests their importance. Can we ignore or outright reject this Creator without disregarding the endowments he gave us? </p>
<p>Closing our eyes to God&#8217;s role in our lives does not just impact our belief regarding, and attitude towards, our birthright of freedom. Abandoning a Creator-centric philosophy impacts our every action; if a person is not concerned about being judged for his behavior, then the natural course is to proverbially <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.7-8?lang=eng#6">eat, drink, and be merry</a> despite a higher, ignored life calling. </p>
<p>The Protestant traditions that influenced the foundations of the New World recognized the self-moderating nature of this future judgment and pointed to it often. Many philosophers of the time, along with the politicians that learned from them, understood the role of religion and morality in influencing civil government for the better—including restraining the abuse of power. Thus John Adams&#8217; first draft of the Massachusetts Constitution stated that &#8220;the knowledge and belief of the being of God… and of a future state of rewards and punishments [are] the only true foundation of morality.&#8221; </p>
<p>Corrupt figures both past and present concern themselves primarily with whatever they think they can get away with. They take no thought of God&#8217;s approbation of their activity, but instead conceal their crime from their peers. They &#8220;seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord&#8221; and <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.9?lang=eng#8">work</a> &#8220;in the dark.&#8221; When their scandals are made public they consider themselves &#8220;caught,&#8221; but even then place little importance on the punishment their Creator may have in store for them. </p>
<p>Diminishing our Creator&#8217;s role in our lives distorts how we understand, value, and exercise our rights. It also removes this future judgment as a factor in our daily decisions. A person who is considering an immoral action might subconsciously perform a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the pros and cons. Getting caught might entail angering the person&#8217;s spouse, jeopardizing employment, or risking social status, fines, or jail time. Pride or simple stupidity might give the person confidence that he can evade detection, increasing the likelihood that the action will be performed.</p>
<p>If this same person had faith in God and placed any sort of importance in His judgment, the Creator&#8217;s ever-present knowledge of our activities would surely be an factor in that same cost-benefit analysis. Spouses, friends, co-workers, and reporters may never learn of our behavior, but God sees everything and therefore can hold us accountable. This reality can restrain our individual behavior, but <a href="http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/let-there-be-light?lang=eng">more generally</a>, it &#8220;benefits society in a dramatic way when adherents engage in moral conduct because they feel accountable to God.&#8221;</p>
<p>President George Washington wrote that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.” Benjamin Franklin agreed: &#8220;Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.&#8221; Patrick Henry listed &#8220;virtue, morality, and religion&#8221; as the &#8220;great pillars of all government.&#8221; He continued: “This is the armor&#8230; and this alone, that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed&#8230; so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.”</p>
<p>The reason that many of the studious Founders encouraged faith in God was because they understood this concept: as we alienate ourselves from God, so too do we alienate the liberty He bestowed upon us. Contrary to Cain&#8217;s misguided <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.33?lang=eng#32">claim</a>, we cannot be free while being evil. </p>
<p>This is not to say that we must all share a common theology, or pay tithes and perform service and otherwise engage in the positive behavior most such religions require. What has long been recognized as important and influential, rather, is an allegiance to God—a recognition of our role as stewards and a belief that we will one day be held accountable. </p>
<p>And it is our deficiency in this regard that has led our society to become as it is; sin has contributed to statism. If we wish to be free, we must understand that a future judgment will hold us accountable for our actions, whether or not those actions are recognized and rewarded or punished by our peers in this life. More importantly, that understanding must lead to self-restraint, personal responsibility, and submission to our King. </p>
<p>Those who do not accept the yoke of Christ, as is readily evident, are led to bear the yoke of Caesar. </p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1392671614;}}s:7:"channel";a:8:{s:5:"title";s:32:"Politics – Connor's Conundrums";s:4:"link";s:32:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog";s:11:"description";s:71:"Rants and musings about things political, philosophical, and religious.";s:13:"lastbuilddate";s:31:"Sun, 18 Feb 2018 20:12:06 +0000";s:8:"language";s:5:"en-US";s:2:"sy";a:2:{s:12:"updateperiod";s:6:"hourly";s:15:"updatefrequency";s:1:"1";}s:9:"generator";s:30:"https://wordpress.org/?v=5.0.2";s:7:"tagline";s:71:"Rants and musings about things political, philosophical, and religious.";}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:3:"RSS";s:12:"feed_version";s:3:"2.0";s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Sun, 18 Feb 2018 20:12:06 GMT
";s:4:"etag";s:41:""998fb6dedb98ace322b9b0108626f59b-gzip"
";}