Tomorrow's the day

This is not a political blog. And that doesn’t change today. But I will remind my U.S. readers that tomorrow is Election Day. Unless you’ve already voted absentee or early in your state, I hope you’ll head to the polls tomorrow to exercise your right to have your voice heard.

Of course new coverage has been focused on the presidential race, but in my community, the ballot is six pages long, including:

President / Vice President
U.S. Senator
Two U.S. House of Representative slots – one temporary one for the rest of this year (a crazy story I’d tell if this were a more political blog), and one full-term
State Representative
School Board
State School Board
Regents at various State Universities
Judges (State Supreme Court, Appeals Court and Local District Court)
Six state ballot proposals, five of which propose changes to the state constitution
Five county proposals that would significantly alter the county charter
And, Library Board

It’s easy to become cynical. It’s easy to be turned off by all the negative ads, especially at the top. (It’s times like this I’m glad we only get our TV entertainment through Hulu, Netflix and AppleTV.) It’s easy to be annoyed at the robocalls (we have three registered voters at our address, so we get LOTS of these calls).

But it’s also not that hard to rise above the annoyance and to read the voter guides, the candidate websites, and make some informed choices.

I’ll close with two memories:

First, in fourth or fifth grade, we did a little skit that we took around to other classes in the school encouraging people to encourage their parents to vote. One member of the class was dressed as Uncle Sam as we all sang some patriotic song. I wanted so much to be Uncle Sam, but I was beat out by another kid – taller and more boisterous than me. That stinging political defeat did not turn me off to politics, however: it continues to remind me that I need to use my vote, my voice.

Second, my patriarchal blessing encourages me specifically to exercise my franchise and vote. It seemed an odd thing to include in a patriarchal blessing when I heard it, as I pretty much thought the blessing would confine itself to quite spiritual things. As I’ve considered my blessing since, I realize it has a mix of temporal and spiritual counsel, and I’ve tried to be true to that part that urges me to vote.

I hope you’ll vote tomorrow.

-----

Oh, there's another place to vote: head on over to Everyday Mormon Writer and learn how to vote for your favorites in their Four Centuries of Mormon Stories contest! Voting closes tomorrow there, too.

You can also check out my latest post at Real Intent, "Questions? You've got Questions?? here.

Romneynews

I’ve watched the Republican primary battles with great interest. I follow presidential politics closely each cycle, and have been doubly intrigued to have prominent LDS candidates in the hunt. It has been interesting, of course, to see how the press and other candidates deal with Romney’s LDS faith.

This article which appeared in today’s Detroit Free Press (my local paper) caught my attention:

Mitt Romney's run for president spurs interest in Mormon faith

It’s a pretty favorable story – as most stories on the church are in the Free Press. There’s a sidebar in the paper that also comments on Romney’s father’s faith and its role in his political career:

Mormon faith helped George Romney decide to run for governor of Michigan

It’s inevitable that the church will turn up in conversations about Romney. I think at the face-to-face level with friends, most church members are happy to help clarify issues of facts around the church’s beliefs, as the Free Press article illustrates.

Personally, most of the non-member associates I have don’t make a big deal (to me, anyway) of Romney’s religion. Many of them see Romney the way the media portrays him -- as the defacto nominee who will win that nomination because of his business background and his superior campaign organization. The relative lack of concern about his faith may be a result of his father’s already having had a high-profile political career here, but I think it’s more likely that most people around here just don’t care.

Of the People, By the People and For the People

I've been on vacation this week with my family, and we travelled to Washington, DC, via Gettysburg. As a result, I've been more reflective about my country, its founding fathers and principles, and about my own political views.

This is my sixth trip to Washington DC, and my third in the last fifteen years (we've come about every five years with our kids; the last two at home are 13 and 9). For this trip and the last we stopped in Gettyburg on our way to DC, and this time, after a brief stop in Gettysburg, we ended up on the Mall in Washington the same day.

So we stood at sunset in the Lincoln Memorial, and reviewed together the words chiseled into the south wall of the monument, the text of Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Just hours before we had driven the self-guided tour across the fields of Gettysburg where thousands of Union and Confederate soldiers gave their lives in an astounding show of valor, and where the Union armies finally began to turn the war in favor of the north.

Lincoln's words on that occasion, elegant in their brevity, remind me of the source of our nation's strength, and cite the conflict that divided them: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

He concludes indicating that the ground which they were dedicating as a cemetery had already been hallowed by the blood of the fallen, and suggests instead: "It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

At stake for Lincoln was the fate of the Union. In a presentation given in the National Museum of American History (one of the Smithsonians), we listened to a film which suggested for Lincoln his first priority was preservation of the Union, and all else came second to that priority as he prosecuted the war, and has he wrote and signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

In Lincoln we had, as happens through history, a man forged for a particular point in time, a man who rose to a challenge and faced it and led his nation through it. It was not without pain and sacrifice, as his Gettysburg address makes clear. And it was not without controversy, as his own assassination demonstrated. But through it our nation survived.

Today we find our public discourse mired in discontent. A duly elected president and members of a duly elected congress are enacting a health care plan they campaigned on. Yet there are those who feel their liberty is at risk because of government interference in their lives, and because of the implicit tax that the new health care legislation places on those who would otherwise choose not to be covered (and the actual tax increase on some to help pay the cost). Some feel that the political brinksmanship under which this new plan has been enacted diminishes its legitimacy (though the methodology is legal and has been used before). And to hear some commentators tell it, we are either on the road to ruin economically because of run-away costs (or their potential) or because of the loss of basic freedoms or both. There is stark argument about whether there is a right to health care, and whether there is a right to be free of it.

Indeed, I would not be surprised to see either side quote Lincoln to support their view. But for me the point of remembering Lincoln in this instance is that no war is needed. There is an established political process – in fact several – that will allow us to move forward peacefully (even if the discussions are rancorous). First, midterm elections will soon be upon us and voters once again will have the chance to exercise their franchise, just as they did when electing the present congress and president. Second, the court's check-and-balance of the legislature will allow some to test the correctness of the measure at hand and how it came to be.

I'm grateful to live in the country I do, knowing that this matter will sort itself out. The debate will continue to be vigorous, and I hope that the debate may proceed on its merits (though I am not so naïve as to believe it will limit itself to the merits of the matter, Elder Cook's counsel notwithstanding).

Mormons teach that there are blessings for those who live righteously, and the Book of Mormon promises that is especially so for those who live on the American continent. As a result, members of the LDS church have passionate views about politics. I've expressed before that there are not political litmus tests for worthiness, and I believe that is so. I also personally do not generally favor citing religious views to support political positions. But I am glad to know my fellow saints will engage in the debate with their countrymen. And I'm grateful to live in a country where the engagement of the citizenry continues to encourage a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

The Debate

I have not wanted to use this space to discuss the recent health care debate in the United States, primarily because that conversation is outside the parameters of this blog. But comments on another blog (sorry I can't link to it; I've been unable to find it again) have pushed me over the edge, so here I am. The blog itself discussed questions of the present healthcare debate and the blogger offered his view. I had no issue with that, since that's what we bloggers do.

What got me more troubled was a comment from a reader who suggested those who favored any government involvement in healthcare reform must not be good members of the church. (She asked, "How can you call yourselves good Mormons?") Her argument suggested that government involvement limited our agency because it used tax dollars, "forcing" us to subsidize healthcare for others.

This commenter is not alone. I've read similar comments from other politically conservative church members. Now, I am not intending to discuss the pros and cons of the present health care plan approved by Congress, but rather the notion that there might be a political litmus test of faithfulness.

There is not.

Faithful church members periodically declare their worthiness to their ecclesiastical leaders. This happens as people prepare for specific ordinances, and in bi-annual temple recommend interviews. It's a chance for members to report to their direct ecclesiastical leader their own faithfulness in keeping the covenants they've made as members of the church. The temple recommend interview contains specific questions, and there is no political litmus test as a part of that interview.

Further, there are faithful Latter-day Saints all around the world (more outside the US than in these days), many of whom live happily and faithfully in countries that have some level of socialized medicine (far more socialized than what is presently under debate here). Their faithfulness is not compromised by their living in those countries, or supporting those governments.

If we have strong and opposing political views, that is fine. Let us debate those vigorously, openly and honestly. But let us not suggest that supporting one view or the other is a matter of worthiness in the church. Except for a few notable exceptions, the church remains politically neutral, and faithful church members are on both sides of the political aisle.

The Church in Shanghai

I had the opportunity to spend eight of the last ten weeks in China on business (two trips, four weeks each). While there I attended the Shanghai Pudong Branch in the Shanghai China International District. And my last Sunday I was able to attend a district conference of the Shanghai China International District, as well.

The Chinese government allows for religious freedom, but places some restrictions on the church there. Like other denominations, expatriate branches of the church are open only to holders of foreign (non-Peoples Republic of China) passports, or the spouses of holders of such passports. Church members are not to disseminate church literature to Chinese nationals, nor are they to proselyte in any way. In the branch I attended, an announcement in the bulletin and also from the stand at the beginning of sacrament meeting made this policy clear.

Non-LDS friends in China also indicated that their experience is the same at their churches. (They attend different denominations in different languages: English, German, Spanish and Mandarin (Taiwanese).)

I'm impressed (but not surprised) that the church is so cautious. Until sometime last year, the church was recognized by the national government, but not by the local Shanghai government, so they could not rent a public space for meetings. With the official recognition in Shanghai, the church can now rent a beautiful conference center for Sunday services of the two Shanghai branches. There were two other branches represented at the district conference: Nanjing and Suzhou. I didn't count noses, but I'd estimate we had over 500 people there for the Sunday session of conference.

One of the things I noticed early on in my visits to the Pudong Branch was the absence of full time missionaries. When we lived in Taiwan, we met in a stake center next to the temple, and shared our building with five wards, and there were full time missionaries in the building throughout the day on Sunday. Not having missionaries in regular church meetings was strange to me. (The last time I attended a ward without missionaries was in Provo while I was at BYU.)

Of course, lessons and topics are common, though the population of these branches is more diverse than my suburban ward in Southeast Michigan. In the branch I attended, over the course of my visit I heard speakers from the US, Japan, Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Italy. Many (including Americans) have been in China for years. A young man of Korean birth spoke in district conference. He said his family had been in China for ten years which meant he's probably attended all his schooling in China. And others were from close to home. I sat next to someone from my home stake in Michigan during conference.

It's a rich blessing for the saints to be able to meet wherever they find themselves. I know I was glad to have the Pudong Branch to call my own for the weeks I was in Shanghai.

UPDATE:  Because this particular post generates a lot of traffic, I'm adding a link to my more recent post on the Church's website on the Church in China.  You can read the post here.

Do unto others?

An item appeared in yesterday's Detroit Free Press. Headline: "Atheist bus ads are desecrated." It's a story about how ads placed on city buses by a coalition of atheist and agnostic groups have been defaced. There are two things that strike me:

First is the misuse of the word "desecrate" in the headline. Since the whole point of the ads is to proclaim that God does not exist, how can the vandalism of the ads be counted as desecration, which is to make unholy something that is holy? This is not the first time I've been irked at newspaper writers who regularly misuse the English language, and it further reinforces for me the counsel I received from a high school English teacher (back when dirt was new) that if I continued my plan to study journalism, I should do it through an English department and not a communications department. (I ignored that advice and studied journalism in a communications department until I got bored; I eventually found my way to that English department after all).

But the second issue is far more important. Who is defacing the ads purchased by the coalition? One assumes, since they're being "modified" to read "believe in God?" instead of "Don't believe in God?" that it is a group of believers. Now of course maybe it's a group of kids just misbehaving. Or the conspiracy theorist in me might wonder if it's the atheists again, seeking yet another chance to get in the paper (first article was when these ads appeared). But in my gut I worry that it's believers who are taking it upon themselves to modify the message.

I hope it's not the believers. And here's why:

First, we do have freedom of speech and freedom of religion in this country (even the freedom to be absent religion). So trying to stop atheists from spreading their point of view is akin to preventing us from spreading ours. The ads on the buses are purchased. This is not about what happens in school or some government office. This is public discourse, and there should be a place for everyone in that discourse.

Second, religious folks should understand that we don't destroy private property. It's part of the common decency my parents taught me and I have tried to teach my kids. Aside from its being illegal, it's wrong. The Savior taught that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Do we want someone else tearing down our property? Of course not. (Some might argue that others have vandalized our sacred places. The Savior had an answer for that, too: turn the other cheek.)

Finally, what influence would believers have doing such a thing? Is there reason to fear the non-believers among us? Surely the message of the ads comes as no surprise: there are many who do not believe in God. But that does not deter us from our belief, nor does it change the fact that God lives and He loves his children. There have always been non-believers, sometimes more vocal than others. That they exist will not change God, nor will it stop His work from progressing