America and our Constitutional Crisis

Way back when the founding father decided they had to break away from England they did so because they felt they had no say in the laws, taxes and things being placed on them in the colonies.

"And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.” (1 Ne. 13:18–19.)

Thus the American colonies attained their independence and set up the government of the United States, all under the divine intervention of God in preparing this land for its divine destiny.

If They Will But Serve the God of the Land - N. Eldon Tanner April 1976

We can at times say the same thing is happening to us today.  However, they set up a divinely inspired system that includes check and balances such that we have a hard time saying that.
For those that say - I don't want those taxes or I don't believe in that war etc.   Did you vote?  Have you been involved.   When we find there is an activist judge legislating from the bench we have to decide to do something about the folks that can put someone new in his place or decide that type of person is not a suitable judge.  That is where the checks and balances comes into play.

“This is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ.” (Ether 2:12.)


Presidents and Congress have to be elected every couple of years.  They don't get the position for life.
The Supreme Court does  though that is another topic of discussion for another day.  Just think if the supreme court had to be elected every 3 years?  What kind of havoc would that create..... create a situation of campaign promises when interpreting the laws set forth by congress and ratified by the president.  I don't think that would be a very good situation.

Unfortunately, you may find that things seem to be heading into a cesspool if they have not already gotten there.  We may be dismayed by activist judges, or decisions by the Supreme Court that are so narrow they seem to be skirting the issue at hand.  You may see the president through executive order circumvent the system, or the inability of congress to agree on anything as just another sign of our demise.  Maybe so.  There is however hope.



"Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City). " 
Our Divine Constitution Ezra Taft Benson President of the Church October 1987

"How then can we best befriend the Constitution in this critical hour and secure the blessings of liberty and ensure the protection and guidance of our Father in Heaven?

First and foremost, we must be righteous.

 

"John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31). If the Constitution is to have continuance, this American nation, and especially the Latter-day Saints, must be virtuous.

"The Book of Mormon warns us relative to our living in this free land: “Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever” (2 Ne. 1:7).

 

Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

 

"Have we read The Federalist papers? Are we reading the Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it?

As Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be” (Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 6 Jan. 1816).

Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented.

 

"The Lord said that “he holds men accountable for their acts in relation” to governments “both in making laws and administering them” (D&C 134:1). We must follow this counsel from the Lord: “Honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil” (D&C 98:10).

Note the qualities that the Lord demands of those who are to represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest.

Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice.

 

"We must become accurately informed and then let others know how we feel. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is our duty to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound. ‘Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it. … From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get” (History of the Church, 5:286).

"I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.

Our Divine Constitution Ezra Taft Benson President of the Church October 1987

As we look to the current issues surrounding immigration we can clear see that the system is broken.

In reality it appears be that those in charge are not interested in upholding the laws on the books.  This is a country of law, the rule of law so why is it so hard to uphold the law?

Same thing could be applied in many of the situations we find ourselves in.  People have decided to selectively apply the laws that benefit their angle.   Federal judges making decisions on laws passed at the state level.  Where is their jurisdiction?

There is nothing new here really.  Want the country heading in the right direction?  Start by getting involved.  Find out who the best candidates will be - good, wise, and honest.  That means going beyond the TV or radio commercials.  Then keep them to what they promised.  Let them know how you feel.   You see to many times the press blames things on the members of congress directly.  In many if not most cases they are following the will of the people they represent.  In some cases that can clearly see a moral position needs to be taken and will in the end vote their convictions even if the majority of their district or state are voicing the opposite.    They may become a one term representative but, they have done right by God.


So take heart that the "Choice Land" is not completely in the dumps.  We may have to raise up and keep things on track but, as long as we are not asleep at the wheel things can't get to bad.

So take the bull by the horns and get involved.......

Buaidh - NO - Bas

The Line between Public and Private

I would like to discuss the line between public and private.
What sparked this interest are two recent events that make you wonder where does the line get drawn on your public and private life.

The first is the total infusion of the racist comments secretly recorded of Donald Sterling - owner of the Clippers basketball team. (still as of 05/12/2014).  And the second is the ousting of the CEO of Mozilla due to a $1000 donation to the Prop 8 (California Marriage intuitive) several years ago.


Any smart person knows that what they do and say in private could and likely will be used against you in the future if you have some sort of more public profile.  That being - if you are in upper management of an organization, are in entertainment in anyway etc you have a public profile.
Those that are just one of 30k employees for a large company need not worry as much.


So what makes these situations a bit disturbing?   The fact that something that should be private has turned into something that is public.  Take the Mozilla case for a moment.  What does a $1000 donation to a political cause have to do with anything?  Would it have mattered if he had given the money to elect a green party candidate?  How about to a political party - Communist of America, or the US NAZI party or the Democrats.  It really would not.  It would be a bit disturbing, but, is not a person allowed the ability to express themselves?  The more disturbing is that because it was in support of a cause that got labeled as anti-gay he got hit.  He donated to a hot button issue.

"The forces of intolerance won. With Eich caving in, there is no conversation, and the world is not a better place for the free exchange of ideas. " Mozilla CEO Eich caves over Prop. 8 donation

Again where does one's support of prop 8 have to do with his ability to run the company?
Maybe it does but, in the end talk is talk and actions are actions.  You need to judge the person more by the actions not just the talk.
It takes a pretty good charlatan to talk like a racist in private and be 100% non racist in public.
The Sterling case is classic in this regard.  He was discriminator long before these comments were leaked.  He'd been to court multiple times on just these issues.  But, that finally do something now years later.  Seems like they are a little late to the party, and may have gone overboard to make up for something that should have been done years ago.





Where should the line be drawn when it comes to conduct in private for a more or less public figure.

Have people become so intolerant of a person being able to express their views if they are against a hot button group that they in reality are being intolerant?
I definitely see a difference between someone donating to prop. 8 for example and them saying that anyone that is gay or gay leaning can not work at my company.  One is discrimination and the other is expressing a voice in the public square and going through legal channels to get things changed.
Also it seems that now in some cases you find a cloud of fear hanging over you.  Decide to support something deemed against our protected group(s) and you'll be run out of town.  So you don't express your opinion since you feel afraid to be harassed if someone decides to turn against you.  Not good.
You begin to cut out even the civilized discussion.  Why, fear that's why!

Many groups have been putting the fear factor into things for quite some time now.  They make themselves appear to be move then the 10% of the population that they are.  This in turn with the fact they are willing to fight in court helps them to get their way.  Those groups reluctant to go to court, and that do not have a lot of people in high profile professions don't seem to be much of a threat.

Take the Montgomery bus boycott as an example.  This worked as all non-violent protest should in the end due to what it caused.  They found an injustice and decided to show how much they as a group could effect the overall good.  They simply quit using the bus.  They company to gain back the ridership and fix things had to reevaluate their policy of who sits where in the bus.  They did not go around bad mouthing the drivers (they just doing their job) , or egging the buses or the like.  No they found alternate forms of transportation.  Then as the economics began to be felt the bus company, local government and the like had to come to the table to rectify the situation.

This is how things should be handled in cases like the basketball team owner that is racist.  Quit going and then as things do down the drain he will have to sell.  Who will hold on to a team that is losing a ton of money?
Works the same with any business.  Take the baker and photographer that decided they would not do business associated with a same-sex wedding.  The people that got rejected decided to do more then just take their business elsewhere and tell all their friends and like minded individuals to do the same.  No they had to go to court and claim discrimination.  Sadly, it was for what would have to be classified as religious discrimination.  They chose to not bake a cake or take pictures their religious belief do not support same sex marriage.  And sadly, the baker and photographer both lost.




This opens up another can of worms in my opinion.  The can that states - your religious beliefs don't matter if we decide they don't matter.   I guess someone could come and take someone to court if they decided to their business being closed on Sunday is discrimination.  Do I see a future law suite against Hobby Lobby on the horizon.  Some Atheist or agnostic decides he feels threatened, or discriminated against due to the fact they are closed on Sunday (day of the Lord ie. Sabbath) and since they don't believe in a supreme being.
Someone tried this against the Boy Scouts and it did not work in relation to the Pledge of Allegiance and Oath/Law.

Where do you draw the line?  When do your religious beliefs become discrimination?

Liberty versus liberty: religious freedom bills trouble gay rights supporters

At UVU, Elder Oaks sees hope despite 'alarming' religious liberty trends

"Elder Oaks maintained that freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion doubly protect religious liberty, but he said there are reasons to be concerned about the vitality of both.
"I fear that free speech is diminishing as a result of the chilling effect of mostly invisible restraints, even censorship."
He cited a number of examples but then added another, one "very personal to me," of the boycotts, firings and intimidation of those who backed Proposition 8 — defining marriage as between a man and a woman — in California. He mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago.
Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

I think the Mozilla case show a bit of over reach.  The Donald Sterling case show a lack of action till it was past the time it would not cause other problems.


We really need to be careful when we go and take a person's personal at home talk and put it out in the the public arena.  We need to be careful that we don't take things out of context.  That we give the benefit of the doubt first and after we have good details then we take action.  That way we allow everyone to have their turn and so there can be a civilized discourse.

Once we throw out the ability to have a civilized conversation about Politics, Religion, racism, and the like we have lost a lot of what makes America great.  We have decided to let fear and extortion rule supreme.  And unfortunately that is what they use in dictatorships to keep themselves in power.






Buaidh - NO - Bas