In most political discussions in the US church, if one starts to advocate the liberal policies which most liberals feel are abundant throughout our standard works, many of our conservative sisters and brothers will cite Ezra Taft Benson in 'denouncing' such views. While we have a great love for the service President Benson gave, especially while President of the church, we strongly disagree with his political opinions. We often hear that his opinions were not his opinions, but rather 'the truth' or 'doctrine.' In an effort to address the view that Ezra Taft Benson's political opinions were doctrine, we present this condensed (and admittedly cherry-picked) summary of the reactions and interactions of Elder Benson with his church leaders on the topic of politics.

Read more

Post by Joseph M -

Let's just admit it now and get it out of the way: Romney looked strong in tonight's debate, and President Obama seemed  as if he didn't want to offend anyone.  Well, the Presidential race may have gotten a little more interesting - especially because the undecided voters (those who tend to have no idea what is going on in politics) may have been watching this evening.  And if they tuned in to this debate without the back story... then maybe Romney came out ahead?

The next two debates will both cover foreign policy, and the final debate is focusing exclusively on this topic.  And it is here that Romney may have found an opening: there is strong indication that the American officials at the Libyan consulate made several requests for extra security before the attack on September 11th that killed the US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans there.  Additionally, the State Department is reversing its former statements that the attack on the consulate was a result of popular protests due to American-made anti-Muslim video, "The Innocence of Muslims;" the State Dept now confirms that this was actually a coordinated terrorist attack.

Romney is rumored to be planning a coordinated attack of his own on President Obama's foreign policy record in order to assert that Obama is weak on terrorists.  This would be a much-needed boon after his "shoot-first-and-aim-later" statement on the evening of the attack in Benghazi and then his 47% comment that caused some Mormons to cringe.  Romney will need to continue to boost his image after the debate this evening, and maybe this is it.

Yes, Romney needs to seize upon this Muslim Moment.

But I wonder what is really going on here.  Maybe this is an area that Romney should avoid altogether.  Seriously folks, this is the President that killed Osama bin Laden. I mean, is it possible that the only voters who might respond to the idea that President Obama is weak on Islamic terrorism are those who believe that Obama is himself a Muslim?

Of course, Obama supporters do not require convincing that the President is the man for the job; it's just like tonight's debate - if one already supports Obama, then Mitt Romney's red-bull-infused attack did nothing more than cause a slightly irritating rash on the proverbial backside of listener's intellect.  (And poor poor Big Bird.  As one tweet asked: "doesn't Big Bird live on the street?; Romney hates the homeless.")

Anyway, I am amazed by how many questions still abound about Obama's religiosity and faith, and many come from our fellow Mormon brothers and sisters.  Interestingly enough, some of these same Mormons also question the faith and commitment of us here at Mormons for Obama, as evidenced by the constant trickle of hate mail we receive. (One would assume that since we Mormons are often challenged regarding our Christianity, we would be careful not to level the same charges at someone else.)  Alas, this is not so.

We recently received a comment that expressed a considerable amount of disdain for President Obama and our support for him. The commenter disparaged Obama as a "lover of Islam," and went on to say that she would not allow him to watch over her dog, "less (sic) alone my grandchildren." (To which I ask, did Obama even ask to babysit her grandchildren?) But she does have a point about Obama watching her dog, although I would add that both Romney and Obama carry baggage in this department; Romney's baggage is on the roof of his car, while Obama's is on his plate.

In the end I deleted the comment, seeing that it did not follow our guidelines of civil discourse. Obviously, this begs the question as to why I would review its content here - giving it more prominence than what it possibly deserves.

Well, first I wish to correct the assertion that Obama is a Muslim. Clearly, this woman, like many others, believes every anti-Obama email forward she receives in her inbox (which, I will add, is producing another convert to Mormons for Obama. Read this hilarious piece by Mark Saal.) She also must have arrived late to the town hall where John McCain rebuked a woman (and a member of the Blood gang?) for saying something similar.  If Obama says he is Christian, why would it behoove us Latter-day Saints to question this?

But this leads to an even a more important aspect of this whole debate: it does not matter whether our President is Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, or even a Mormon.  In fact, I would vote for Obama even if he was Muslim, and I am pleased that Minnesota elected our first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison.  We are a country of many cultures, ethnic groups, and religious affiliations.  If I feel I cannot trust a Muslim to properly represent my views and interests on a national or local level, then why should we expect an American Muslim, Buddhist, or Jew to accept a Christian president?

Many people became very upset when a mosque was proposed at a site near Ground Zero.  This hostility seemed to imply that all Muslims are somehow responsible for the events of 9/11. However, this public battle failed to acknowledge or demostrate the proper respect for the lives of the many innocent American Muslims who were lost in the World Trade Center attacks.  Of course, my argument is not new.

Regardless, many people continue to assert that Islam is a violent faith; however, I caution that we don't need to look too far to find violence in Christianity - and I am not just speaking of the Holy Wars: bombings of abortion clinics, Jones, Koresh, Northern Ireland, and Mountain Meadows, all happened under the banner of heaven.

I don't know everything about Islam, but I am unconvinced that Muslim Americans are somehow less American than Christians, or that consequently, a Muslim is somehow less qualified to be President of the United States.  The Christian Right often states that America was founded on Christian principles, but one only need to watch the season finale of Sorkin's The Newsroom to know that this is not exactly true.  Maggie spent all evening to find the supporting quotations from our founding fathers - but it took me 30 seconds: Top 5 Myths About America.  (Will MacAvoy, hire me please?  --and where were you tonight?  The tired Jim Leher could've used your crib notes.)  See this article on Wikipedia as well, because Wikipedia is always correct.

But I will quote one of our founding fathers here:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people who declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 And by the way Fox Newsies, the Pledge of Allegiance had its famous line, "one nation under God," added to it in 1954 by our other founding father, President Eisenhower. See this article.

In the end, I believe that Obama is adept at handling our troubles in the Middle East.  Romney might possibly attempt to seize upon this anti-Muslim Moment and use it (as Bush the W. did before him) to stoke fear in the more bigoted hearts of America.  But as this article explains, it is high time we separated church and hate.  Obama has demonstrated how to do this; far from being the great apologizer as Romney accuses him of being, President Obama has exhibited true Christianity time and time again.  As Eric R. pointed out in his post:

(B)eyond the common sense reasons to be culturally sensitive to the Muslim faith..., there is another reason, an even better reason, for being thoughtful.  That reason, of course, is because it is the right thing to do.  Rather than subscribing to Krauthamer’s ‘only do good unto others when they have done good unto you’ worldview, I am more inclined to go with another philosophy, something more like ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’

So Romney can debate on and on and on; some may listen and believe.  However, a quick tongue and a smart retort in tonight's contest doesn't obscure the fact that President Obama understands this country (beyond its capitalistic leanings) and its extremely important place in the world at large.  And yes - even the Muslim world.  Once again, I affirm my support for the President in 2012.

Comments from Joseph M -

This is wonderful advice from Joanna Brooks - I also am amazed by the emails and comments that we receive on the Mormons for Obama website using similar condemnatory language. Of course, for us here this kind of thing may be a little easier to deal with because the emails are coming from strangers rather than our "friends" on Facebook.  So I appreciate Joanna's comments and admonition that we try to understand Mormon Republicans and where they are coming from, and also that this goes both ways.  So let each of us speak gently with our Mormon brothers and sisters during this political season, and we ask the same thing of them as well.  We hope that no one would feel "out of place" in their ward congregations because of political divisiveness or something that we said, and thus we must remember to have compassion and understanding for those who may believe differently than us.

Admittedly, I am also very excited to see a picture of my car on Joanna Brooks' website. This makes my car more famous than my car ever dreamed it would be.

This picture appeared on an Italian language news site!  Kelly, one of our own, was at a rally in Virginia representing Mormons for Obama!  She is proudly wearing her "Mormons for Obama" t-shirt.  This shirt, by the way, is available on CafePress.com.

And Kelly wasn't even aware she had ended up on a news site - she just knew that a lot of people wanted to take her picture (considering her awesome shirt she wore for the rally!)  So, it wasn't until she saw the link posted on our Facebook page that she learned that she was famous.   Congratulations Kelly!  Great job representing Mormons and representing Obama supporters!

I am constantly criticized by my Republicans friends about the apparent contradictory position of being a pro-life Democrat.  To them this position is contradictory and dishonest.  To me voting with this political platform is irrelevant and insignificant.  Why?  Because whether or not someone is pro-life is a moral argument, and these kind of arguments are mainly used to divide the masses.  They are also nearly impossible to legislate.  Republicans go to the polls to elect pro-life candidates and what they get in return is the Republican agenda: tax subsidies for corporations, increased military spending, tax breaks for the wealthy, and pork spending for major donors that funded the campaigns.  What doesn't happen is any major change in the moral issues that were instrumental in driving voter turnout.

Let me give a couple examples. From 2002 - 2006 the GOP controlled the House, Senate, Presidency, Governorships, and appointed 7 of 9 Supreme Court seats.  In 2006 they attempted to pass a gay marriage amendment that did not even garner enough Republican support to make it out of the Senate.  They did not challenge Roe v. Wade or push though any lower court case giving the Supreme Court a chance to rule on abortion (they did however find a way to deliver the Affordable Health Care Act to the high court).  In four years of total control the only moral law the GOP passed was the 2003 partial-birth abortion bill, which was a minor feat given the overwhelming bi-partisan support.

Abortion rates have been declining over the past thirty years.  Directly following the passing of Roe v. Wade, 30 of every 1000 women were having abortions.  Today that number has fallen to 19.  What's even more interesting is the abortion rate experienced its sharpest decline during the Clinton Administration (from 25 to 20 abortions per thousand) and has been relatively flat ever since.  Data suggests abortion rates correlate to the economic conditions of the US (and not who is president).  When the economy is tough, the abortion rate rises as couples rethink their choices about having children, given the financial pressures that raising children bring.

Improving economic conditions is not the only lever to drive down abortion cases.  In 2006 Governor Romney passed a statewide health reform that contracted private insurance companies to provide care for the state's uninsured.  Directly following the implementation of the law, the state's abortion rate declined.  The thinking behind this is that expanding healthcare led to greater doctor access, who then could deliver education and access to contraceptives.  Brian Fung of The Atlantic wrote extensively about the Massachusetts findings and made the same argument for the Affordable Health Care Act.

I am quite aware of President Obama's pro-choice stance, but like his Republican counterparts, his position is empty rhetoric.  President Obama has not signed one piece of legislation or a solitary executive order that expands access to abortion in the US.  In fact, the only abortion-related executive order he has signed denied using federal funds to pay for abortions.  President Obama has passed a significant healthcare bill that makes access to doctors easier for millions of Americans.

When my Republican friends come and lecture me why I should support their pro-life candidates due to moral obligations, I quickly ask what impact will the candidates have on legislating abortion?  Until a reasonable response is articulated, I will continue to vote for the man who made access to contraceptives and doctors available for 20 million additional women.

Remarks that Mitt Romney made to wealthy donors back in May 2012, have put Romney in an awkward position. Romney denigrated nearly half of the population of the U.S. and erroneously claimed that Obama supporters were all dependent on government assistance. After receiving a question about how Romney would be able to win the election, Romney remarked:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax… My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Read more

During the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, a highly respected, soft-spoken Republican congressional staffer, Mike Lofgren, abruptly ended his 30-year career in government. To the surprise of everyone who knew him, in September of that year he authored an explosive Internet post titled Goodbye to all that: Reflections of a GOP operative who left the cult, which exposed the dysfunction of Congress from the point of view of the ultimate insider. The post received over a million views.

Like fellow Republican apostates David Stockman and Bruce Bartlett, Lofgren has plenty of criticism for both parties, but saves the most devastating denunciation for the GOP. Lofgren has authored a best-selling book expanding on the theme of his original piece. The title is a pretty good summary of the book: The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted.

Similar to several recent authors, Lofgren places blame for the sad state of our politics on two things: the capitulation of the GOP to extreme right wing reactionaries, and more importantly, the influence of big money, for which he blasts both Republicans and Democrats, although not equally. He documents the corruption and craziness of our elected officials in language that is both eloquent and devastating; not the kind of prose you would expect from someone with the reputation of being mild-mannered. Lofgren has obviously long been internalizing his frustration with the government he served so faithfully, and when the frustration broke, it came out with a bang.

These books usually contain suggestions for how Americans can rescue our nation from the influence of big money power brokers and give it back to the citizens. I found the ideas proposed by Lofgren extraordinarily intriguing; enough so that I’m listing an abbreviated summary (you should read the book for more detail). Some are familiar, some are unique.

• Get all private money out of our elections. All Congressional and Presidential elections must be publically funded, no private donations or self-funding allowed. Here’s a quote, typical of the language he uses in the book: “A politician is a hog that is grateful to whoever is rattling the stick inside the swill bucket. It is time to take that swill bucket away from corporations and plutocrats.”
  


• The above process must allow for independent/third party candidates, with a carefully designed qualification process to weed out the kooks but not be too onerous for legitimate candidates.


• Campaign season limited to 60 days before the election.


• Eliminate tax-exempt status for political advocacy organizations and think tanks.


• The law should oblige television broadcasters to offer a reasonable but limited amount of free political advertising during the campaign period. “The broadcasters’ permission from the Federal Communications Commission to use the public airwaves gives them a virtual license to print money – should they not give something back to the public for that privilege?”
  


• If media outlets choose to accept paid commercials for so-called “independent” issue ads, they must offer equivalent time to the opposing view for free. That’s what happened to cigarette ads on TV; they weren’t directly outlawed, but the requirement to give anti-smoking messages equal time killed them.


• Primaries should be open and non-partisan with the top two finishers contesting the general election, regardless of party, thus doing away with the hyper-partisan convention/closed primary process.


• Voting districts should be drawn by non-partisan commissions.

Most reading this would likely agree with many, if not all of the above recommendations – but are saying, “So what – there’s no chance any of this can happen!”

I don’t know. Here’s a thought: It’s too early to know how the election will turn out, but let’s assume for a moment the Democrats win (defined as a victory for President Obama, Democrats retaining control of the Senate, and cutting significantly into the Republican majority in the House). If that happens, what should we rank-and-file Democrats do?

I say we should pressure the President and congressional Democrats to take a page out of the playbook of obstructionist Republicans the last two years. The pattern was given by Lawrence Lessig in his book Republic Lost from last year. Here’s how it would work: The President would refuse to sign any bill from Congress until they place on his desk acceptable legislation to take big money out of politics. If that legislation needs to be a constitutional amendment, so be it. The above suggestions could serve as a pattern. Maybe there are better ideas. But here’s the deal: Barack Obama was right in 2008; our problems will not be solved until the broken system is fixed. Unfortunately (and I say this as an Obama supporter), he tried to fix the problems before fixing the system. My opinion is that his main priority his second term should be fixing the system. Once we get our legislators away from spending half their time dialing for dollars and take away the swill bucket, the system will start working again as intended and we can get America back on track.

While we will not ever say that our interpretation of Mormon doctrine's political implications is the only viable one, we here at MormonLiberals.org firmly believe that ours is the most viable. We will never say "You can't be a good Mormon and a good conservative" (even though we've been told we can't be liberal and be good Mormons hundreds of times). Here's what we say instead.

Read more

Post by Joseph M -

The Seahawks beat the Packers last night in this amazing down-to-the-wire knuckle-biter, (the finger nails were all gone by the end of the third quarter,) where Russel threw a 24-yard touchdown to Golden Tate.  Clearly, there were angels in the endzone to solidify this miracle of epic proportions.  (For optimum effect, reread that last line imagining Sean Connery's voice.)  Of course, this wasn't without controversy: football fans all over the country called foul (baseball?) in that M.D. Jennings maybe/probably/most-likely had a hold of the ball before Tate got his hands on it, making the play an interception, not a touchdown, as it was called by the high-school-football-type referees called in to replace the striking professional refs.

After the call, all of us in Seattle jumped, cheered, and high-fived each other, and even if us Hawks fans acknowledged that it might have been an interception, we sang together in one unified harmonious chorus: "We'll take it."

And President Obama also jumped into the fray, calling the outcome "terrible," and Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan tried to score a political touchdown of his own by comparing the amateur-refereeing to the Obama administration.

Well, Ryan's comments seem to further the assertion that the Romney campaign is struggling and desperate.  The way I see it,  Mitt Romney is running out of ways to get himself to the White House.  While all roads lead to Rome, there's only one or two that'll get him to D.C.  With a series of missteps in the past few weeks (admittedly, no-apologies-Romney doesn't publicly refer to them as that,) Romney's image as an out-of-touch, privileged, and somewhat surly rich man continues to surge in inverse proportion to his chances of winning the election.

I am starting to think that he really only has a few ways to win at this point:

1.) Voter suppression.  I used to be unconvinced that this was a real thing.  However, I can no longer pretend this isn't actually happening.  Read here for an article on its effect on Latino voters.   We even have reports of people trying to register ONLY Romney voters.  See below:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7RvuSnsNGI?rel=0]
But I have to admit that my heart goes out to this cute little girl - I swear she looks like a Mia Maid I knew growing up.  And plus, the woman with the camera is so mean!  She yells at her and calls her honey bunch!  My opinion (although patronizing and sexist) is that we should give this poor girl a pass because she seems so nice and sweet, and I think that her father probably made her do this.

2.) Money. Now that Romney and Obama are the nominees, spending on the part of both candidates is astronomical.  According to PBS News Hour yesterday, the rates of spending on TV advertisements has doubled the amount of what was spent in 2008.  Both candidates are after that (unbelievably) undecided middle-voter, and these ads target them without regard to truth or reality.  And of course, this says nothing about the Super-PAC money out there.  Michael Moore predicted a Romney win for just this reason: "Mitt Romney is going to raise more money than Barack Obama. That should guarantee his victory."  True enough; he does have a lot of dough to spend, and if Romney ever needed his wealth to buy something, the time is now.

3.) A miracle.  I believe in miracles, but I don't know that the Republicans should wait for seagulls to swoop down and gobble up the elderly and minority voters in those states that have overturned the voter-suppression laws.  However, that doesn't mean that some other natural disaster or man-made calamity couldn't set the president off of his stride.  Just look to Bush (W.) in 2000.  A bunch of hanging chads and that Michelle Bachman look-alike handed him the election - and of course, this was subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court.  But all of that refers back to point number one.  So could more poor job numbers or an uptick in the Middle East conflict send voters fleeing for Romney?

But alas, pondering on a Romney win causes me to think about that wonderfully awesome football game from last night with its game-winning Hail Mary pass; while Republicans would celebrate if Romney was elected in November, somewhere deep in their heads they might recognize that it came about through happenstance, a bad call, or even nefarious means.  And just like in 2000, when the presidency was given to George W. Bush by the Supreme Court, the Republicans will intone simultaneously, "We'll take it."