post rss
Liberal and Mormon?… DEFINITELY
I am sure that many of you have had the same experience that I have had here at BYU. People find out that you are liberal and subsequently give you a look of confusion or disgust. How can we have not support President Bush and his attempt to protect the family? How can we not support our troops in Iraq? First I will address these issues and then attempt to shed some light on how to frame the conversation in a liberal light.
What has President Bush done to protect the family? He was unable to have a republican legislative branch pass an amendment banning gay marriage or making abortion illegal. Since the House and the Senate have been controlled by democrats we have not pushed through any amendments making either totally legal. “Protecting the Family” is a prime example of republican framing (those not familiar with the concept of framing should find books by George Lakoff). It is language that appeals to the religious beliefs of Americans but actually has not had any tangible political results.
Why do we not support the troops? We DO support the troops. I know that we are all very proud of the troops that sacrifice their blood, sweat, and sometimes even their lives for our freedom. I support the troops so much that I want them to come home so they can stop dying to occupy a country that does not want us there. Soldiers should not have to sacrifice their lives to protect the interests of a few, powerful people. They do us a great service by fighting for our freedom and beliefs. However, AMERICAN BELIEFS DO NOT INVOLVE OCCUPYING IRAQ. Support our troops… BRING THEM HOME. While we are discussing our troops, why do we have such terrible medical and psychological support for our honorable veterans? Give them the respect and care they deserve for what they have sacrificed for us.
What about liberal views and LDS beliefs? How do they coincide? personally, I believe that our views on education, welfare, taxes, and military policy all represent the views of the church.
The gospel talks repeatedly about the importance of education. As a Democrat, I believe that all people should receive a quality education regardless of social economic status or race. Polices such as “No Child Left Behind” punish students because it forces teachers to teach students test-taking skills instead of teaching them KNOWLEDGE. Children should be given every possibility to learn all that they can regardless of who they are.
People should have their basic needs cared for. The Church has a fantastic welfare program and does a great job of humanitarian aid. Shouldn’t our government also care for the basic needs of its citizens? the scriptures talk repeatedly about caring for the poor and the meek. I believe that we all should care for those who are incapable of caring for themselves. This includes a right to shelter, food, healthcare, and clothing.
Taxes have a strong tie to providing for people. If a government does not have any money then it is not able to provide for its citizens. I follow the gospel principles that say we should give our excess to care for the poor. I am perfectly happy living a good, humble lifestyle (like the one recommend by the gospel that warns about greed) and giving my excess money to provide for those who are not as fortunate as I am.
We are told in the gospel that we are stewards of the planet. Why then, do we continue to rape and destroy our environment in a race towards extinction? We are meant to care for the planet, not destroy it in our own selfish greed.
Finally (and in my opinion most importantly) I believe that my democratic anti-violence beliefs coincide with strongly with the gospel. Christ taught us to turn the other cheek and to avoid violence whenever possible. Invading Iraq resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people who had done nothing wrong. Occupying Iraq is about greed and has nothing to do with 9/11. We have no right to impose our beliefs on people that clearly do not want us in their country. We should pull out the troops and try diplomatic routes, such as talking to other countries as equals, to establish ourselves as a world leader and spreader of democracy. Our warmongering is driven by our economic need to have a overinflated military. Why do we need to spend billions of dollars on a war that most of the country does not want us to be in? Why do we have enough nuclear warheads to blow up the entire planet many times over? Why are we the only “civilized” country that still murders its own citizens via the death penalty? Why do we push the boundaries of what is and is not torture? What gives us the right to claim to be the leader of the civilized world when are often only a beacon of hypocrisy and double-standards?
This has been a brief discussion about why Liberal beliefs are LDS beliefs. I have not gone into specific details on these issues because their is a plethora of evidence, both spiritual and temporal, that supports our beliefs and it would take a 20-page paper to explain why our beliefs are right. There are many other issues out there that we should be proud of our stances on because they magnify our religious beliefs. We should not be afraid to have this moral discussion with republicans. We have the moral high-ground and should be proud of that. We should make an effort to be informed on issues so that we can proudly stand up for our beliefs.
Proudly Liberal,
Hyrum Salmond
I have been wondering for a long time if being politically pro-choice or supportive of gay rights is tantamount to being a bad Mormon. Is it not possible to believe the role of government should not be to impose moral values that are derived from religious belief? While i am personally pro-life and personally think gay marriage is not part of God’s plan, I understand others do not hold the religious beliefs that give me these standards. I recently read a transcript of a pew forum discussion with Richard Lyman Bushman answering some questions on “Mormons in Democratic Politics,” and he stated that the church would never punish anybody with these political views. I could be way off, and may need to change my mind set, any thoughts?
I’m supportive of pro-choice policies and gay rights, and I don’t think that goes against church teachings. Here’s how I see it. As far as pro-choice, the church’s approach to abortion is that it is wrong and should only be considered in extreme cases. The decisionmaking process in having an abortion should involve ecclesiastical leaders, prayer, and much spiritual contemplation. However, at the end of the day, it is the woman who chooses what happens to her body and unborn child. In my mind that is my point of view as well, and that fits squarely within the “pro-choice” idea. While personal religious views on the aspect undoubtedly view greatly throughout the country, every person should maintain their personal agency, and making abortion illegal could have the disastrous effect of creating a black market for abortion that would not only put would-be mothers at the risk of unmonitored procedures but also may actually encourage higher abortion rates.
On gay rights, I believe that no right assumed to be universal under U.S. law should be denied to any individual regardless of sexual orientation. In my mind, there are two aspects of marriage that often get combined into one, and must be considered separately in order to arrive at a correct conclusion. First, marriage involves a legal contract in which spouses are considered, in many situations, part of the same legal unit. This effects legal rights, tax benefits, etc., and is based on the assumption that the individuals invovled have decided to live their lives together. These civil unions and the rights that accompany them, in my mind, should be granted to any two individuals that choose to live together, because they promote stability and, if not granted, could amount to economic discrimination in the form of ungranted tax benefits. The other aspect of marriage, which amounts to a religious, spiritual union with theological implications, should rest entirely under the jurisdiction of the religious sect to which individuals ascribe, and in no way should the government involve themselves. If a church decides its interpretation of marriage allows for homosexual marriage, so be it. Our church does not. But this doesn’t mean that me must discriminate in individual rights as a result.