The balanced budget amendment is a bad idea.
Consider the family that lives paycheck to paycheck. Common sense states, do not spend more than you make. Great advice, and I would recommend it to any family. If you spend less than you make, guaranteed you will never file for bankruptcy.
Great for families, good MICRO economics, bad MACRO economics. Running a nation has a few other considerations ones have to consider.
Say we ratify the amendment that Congress can only spend what it takes in revenue. Let us also say in March of any given year we are attacked by a foreign power and a declaration of war is needed. Wars cost money, the fiscal year does not start until October, and the National Budget is set before March. Therefore, legally, and constitutionally our response would have to be "Next fiscal year, you're going to regret this because we are going to war."
So we make a provision for acts of war.
Here's another scenario. Let's say in February, we have an Earthquake the magnitude of what happened in Chile, or Haiti. "Sorry San Fransisco, you need to wait until October to get your aide."
Now we have a provision for natural disasters.
Let's say come August we realize that our revenue projections were short and we are out of money (this happens all the time actually). Do we shut the government down completely until October? Do we stop all forms of welfare? Do we halt defense spending completely?
So now you have a poor populace that depends on food stamps for food, that can no longer feed their families, and you expect to put down the resulting riots (people will do desperate things when they are hungry) with unpaid soldiers?
Now that I have outlined a few of the problems, let us deal with a few other issues. One of the basic underlying principles of any government is to facilitate trade and economy. Government must help control inflation/deflation and facilitate employment. At times, they must inject money into the system (via spending) and at times they must take money from the system (via taxes). A congress that cannot deficit spend cannot do their job.
Am I implying that government should spend, spend spend? No. Spending must be decided on what will benefit the economy. One tell tale sign of overspending is inflation. Some inflation will happen naturally, regardless of government does. Spending too much will increase the supply of money, and the demand for it will fall, and that will destroy the economy. Currently our inflation rate is 1.5%, almost non existent. Our unemployment rate is 9.1%. Of the two, unemployment is the larger problem, and that is generally resolved via SPENDING(like the widely unpopular Stimulus bill of 2009). Were the two numbers flipped, you would want to TAX.
The idea of the national debt being too high is a scare tactic used by politicians use to get elected. Please see my above analogy. My house cannot spend more than it makes, therefore the country cannot. That is false. That uses the economic logical fallacy of what works for one works for all. As long as the Congress has the power to deficit spend and regulate commerce, we are fine. If we take that power away, then we cripple ourselves.
Lecture is over, now for me to get on my soapbox.
If you want a balanced budget (which some years is good) then Congress should propose one. However, I feel that the failure of this amendment to be ratified will be used as an excuse by the Republican held House to not pass a balanced budget. The tea party ran on cutting spending, but they never said where. So I challenge you, Congress. Put your money where your mouth is. Pass a balanced budget this year, and then try to get re-elected. Pass a balanced budget, but don't cut my government services(you can cut from the services my neighbor uses though), and don't raise my taxes, this is the cry of the tea party. There is not reason to amend the Constitution. If a balanced budget is the way to go, Congress already has spending power, they can pass one from year to year.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
National Government Vs States Rights
I have mentioned in a previous posting that I love reading the Deseret News opinion forums. If that is ever taken away from me, I really don't know how I would function.
Ever since the last presidential election, I have seen an overwhelming amount of letters stating that the Founding Fathers and Framers never meant to have a strong national government and that is why the Constitution was written. I am going to say nothing could be further from the truth.
Let us go back and examine a little history. During the American Revolution, the American people fought against the tyranny of the Crown and Parliament. They drafted the Declaration of Independence, and shortly afterward drafted the Articles of Confederation, although not officially ratified until 1781, they were essentially in effect in 1777. The Articles of Confederation were a disaster! They essentially created a crippled central government that could not tax, but only ask for money. They basically created 13 small countries, allied in name only. Different currencies, different trade laws made them all unstable, and ripe for the picking of any major European power that wanted to conquer them. Benjamin Franklin made several cries for unification, as evidenced by his famous political cartoon of the snake cut up in 13 pieces saying unite or die.
Finally, in 1787 the Constitutional Convention was held. In it, the States would give up several of their rights, and be subject to a more powerful, but still limited National Government. The idea of Federalism was born. Their would be certain aspects that would belong strictly in the domain of the National Government, and restrictions placed on what States could and could not do, as well as the National Government. The National Government could tax, could create a military and regulate commerce between the several States. Power would be split among three different branches of government, so no one person or entity could abuse power.
During the ratification campaign across the country, a series of papers were written, primarily by written by Alexander Hamilton and secondly James Madison. In Federalist 10, James Madison discusses factions. He moves forward the idea that the democracies of Greece failed because they were too small. Factions would eventually develop, a faction being a political party who is driven by one narrow purpose. This purpose could be something as small as "We are against people leaving their porch light on past 3 am". This faction, if unchecked would gain followers and soon develop unlimited power. He argued that a large democracy would work. Where this "We hate porch lights" faction could be popular in Maine, with the geography and population of the United States, would be countered by another faction in Delaware that would claim "Porch lights must be on all the time." And this would prevent one idea, or group from dominating all others.
Where am I going with this? If too much power is vested in the State, it will lead to factions much easier than if the power is given at the National level. In a real world example, the political power of the LDS Church is very strong in Utah, nearly 60% of the State claims membership, but on a National level it is much weaker because the population in the Northeast has very different ideas about how things should run, and the South has different points of view that are different from both. All of these seek to balance each other out. Now I am not saying the LDS Church having political influence is good, or bad, nor that they are seeking it (they are generally apolitical, but this is all a different discussion for a different day) but when 60% of the State's population belongs to any one cause (church, or poker club even) they will have some political power. Because of this, people who do not belong to said organization run the risk of having their rights impeded. So unless a higher authority than that of the State is their to protect their rights, mob rule will result.
Another extreme example of States rights was that of slavery. Left unchecked, and for years, it was perfectly legal in some states to own another human being. We later fought a war over whether or not the National Government could intervene of the issue. I, for one, am glad the States lost this battle.
Let me use the organization of the Church as an example. I would call them a Central form of government, but locally ran. All of the policies, laws, regulations all come from one source, Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah. However, it is up to the local wards, branches and stakes to put them into effect. The church has policies in place to help the poor and needy, but it is the local bishop, using that guidance that dispenses and authorizes that funding. The result is One Doctrine, One Faith and a very personal application of that.
Wouldn't that be more effective than having different rules and regulations in different regions? Take the idea of marriage. Under the Constitution, Article IV we find the good faith and credit clause. All States must recognize the actions of other States. I am married by Utah law, but if I move to California, they must recognize that Utah marriage. Under the 10th Amendment, marriage is a purview of the States. Today, in some states it is legal for two people of the same gender to marry. In others, those marriages are illegal. So what happens if a same gender couple from Massachusetts moves to Utah that prohibits the recognition of that marriage? Are they married or not? If there was a stronger Central government that set one national standard, there would be no question.
Am I advocating the National Government have the power to regulate anything and everything and strip the States and local governments of all power? No. However, in cases that effect all Americans (like marriage) they should be able to. Local issues, that affect only that State or city should be left up to that level of government. Issues like, at what time will the street lights come on? How are the citizens of city A going to be able to travel to City B to conduct business? What types of business do we want to foster and encourage here locally? Those are great issues that should be left completely out of the National Government.
Ever since the last presidential election, I have seen an overwhelming amount of letters stating that the Founding Fathers and Framers never meant to have a strong national government and that is why the Constitution was written. I am going to say nothing could be further from the truth.
Let us go back and examine a little history. During the American Revolution, the American people fought against the tyranny of the Crown and Parliament. They drafted the Declaration of Independence, and shortly afterward drafted the Articles of Confederation, although not officially ratified until 1781, they were essentially in effect in 1777. The Articles of Confederation were a disaster! They essentially created a crippled central government that could not tax, but only ask for money. They basically created 13 small countries, allied in name only. Different currencies, different trade laws made them all unstable, and ripe for the picking of any major European power that wanted to conquer them. Benjamin Franklin made several cries for unification, as evidenced by his famous political cartoon of the snake cut up in 13 pieces saying unite or die.
Finally, in 1787 the Constitutional Convention was held. In it, the States would give up several of their rights, and be subject to a more powerful, but still limited National Government. The idea of Federalism was born. Their would be certain aspects that would belong strictly in the domain of the National Government, and restrictions placed on what States could and could not do, as well as the National Government. The National Government could tax, could create a military and regulate commerce between the several States. Power would be split among three different branches of government, so no one person or entity could abuse power.
During the ratification campaign across the country, a series of papers were written, primarily by written by Alexander Hamilton and secondly James Madison. In Federalist 10, James Madison discusses factions. He moves forward the idea that the democracies of Greece failed because they were too small. Factions would eventually develop, a faction being a political party who is driven by one narrow purpose. This purpose could be something as small as "We are against people leaving their porch light on past 3 am". This faction, if unchecked would gain followers and soon develop unlimited power. He argued that a large democracy would work. Where this "We hate porch lights" faction could be popular in Maine, with the geography and population of the United States, would be countered by another faction in Delaware that would claim "Porch lights must be on all the time." And this would prevent one idea, or group from dominating all others.
Where am I going with this? If too much power is vested in the State, it will lead to factions much easier than if the power is given at the National level. In a real world example, the political power of the LDS Church is very strong in Utah, nearly 60% of the State claims membership, but on a National level it is much weaker because the population in the Northeast has very different ideas about how things should run, and the South has different points of view that are different from both. All of these seek to balance each other out. Now I am not saying the LDS Church having political influence is good, or bad, nor that they are seeking it (they are generally apolitical, but this is all a different discussion for a different day) but when 60% of the State's population belongs to any one cause (church, or poker club even) they will have some political power. Because of this, people who do not belong to said organization run the risk of having their rights impeded. So unless a higher authority than that of the State is their to protect their rights, mob rule will result.
Another extreme example of States rights was that of slavery. Left unchecked, and for years, it was perfectly legal in some states to own another human being. We later fought a war over whether or not the National Government could intervene of the issue. I, for one, am glad the States lost this battle.
Let me use the organization of the Church as an example. I would call them a Central form of government, but locally ran. All of the policies, laws, regulations all come from one source, Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah. However, it is up to the local wards, branches and stakes to put them into effect. The church has policies in place to help the poor and needy, but it is the local bishop, using that guidance that dispenses and authorizes that funding. The result is One Doctrine, One Faith and a very personal application of that.
Wouldn't that be more effective than having different rules and regulations in different regions? Take the idea of marriage. Under the Constitution, Article IV we find the good faith and credit clause. All States must recognize the actions of other States. I am married by Utah law, but if I move to California, they must recognize that Utah marriage. Under the 10th Amendment, marriage is a purview of the States. Today, in some states it is legal for two people of the same gender to marry. In others, those marriages are illegal. So what happens if a same gender couple from Massachusetts moves to Utah that prohibits the recognition of that marriage? Are they married or not? If there was a stronger Central government that set one national standard, there would be no question.
Am I advocating the National Government have the power to regulate anything and everything and strip the States and local governments of all power? No. However, in cases that effect all Americans (like marriage) they should be able to. Local issues, that affect only that State or city should be left up to that level of government. Issues like, at what time will the street lights come on? How are the citizens of city A going to be able to travel to City B to conduct business? What types of business do we want to foster and encourage here locally? Those are great issues that should be left completely out of the National Government.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
How Politics and Government Should Operate
Here we go, I am going to solve all of the worlds problems in this posting. The solution is so easy that many will think I am over simplifying or over generalizing. Rest assured I am not. If everyone will abide by these two simple rules, all of our problems will go away.
1) First and foremost, Love one another as Jesus loves you.
2) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Loving one another with the love that Jesus has for them is often called Charity in the scriptures. It is to love our fellow man without condition. It is to love them without expectation that said love be returned.
Think about it. If everyone had this love would we see homeless? No, we would make a priority that they be sheltered and taken care of. Would we need to see those sad commercials on TV of starving and sick children in Africa? No, we would see that they have the same blessings of food and medical attention we enjoy.
Would we seek to call the man who has less then us lazy? No, but find ways in which we can share that which we have with him. A classic verse in the Bible reads "If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled: notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit?" Are we not all beggars in the end to the same God?
This leads me into the second point. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is often referred to as the Golden Rule. If we would stop trying to take advantage of others, but treat them with the same respect we would hope they would treat us, the world would be rid of all ill will. We would help others in need, with the hope that if the tables were turned, they would do the same to us.
If followed, think about it, what evil would still exist? War would be gone, for you cannot go to war with someone you love, and mutually respect. Greed would disappear, for we would share our excess with our brethren, and with the disappearance of Greed, covetousness would go away. We would not have idleness, since they would have the self respect to earn their wage. Neighbor would not quarrel with neighbor. The court system and prison system would no longer be of need. In short we would have Zion.
The problem is, not everyone is willing to live these two simple rules. But why should that stop me from living them?
1) First and foremost, Love one another as Jesus loves you.
2) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Loving one another with the love that Jesus has for them is often called Charity in the scriptures. It is to love our fellow man without condition. It is to love them without expectation that said love be returned.
Think about it. If everyone had this love would we see homeless? No, we would make a priority that they be sheltered and taken care of. Would we need to see those sad commercials on TV of starving and sick children in Africa? No, we would see that they have the same blessings of food and medical attention we enjoy.
Would we seek to call the man who has less then us lazy? No, but find ways in which we can share that which we have with him. A classic verse in the Bible reads "If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled: notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit?" Are we not all beggars in the end to the same God?
This leads me into the second point. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is often referred to as the Golden Rule. If we would stop trying to take advantage of others, but treat them with the same respect we would hope they would treat us, the world would be rid of all ill will. We would help others in need, with the hope that if the tables were turned, they would do the same to us.
If followed, think about it, what evil would still exist? War would be gone, for you cannot go to war with someone you love, and mutually respect. Greed would disappear, for we would share our excess with our brethren, and with the disappearance of Greed, covetousness would go away. We would not have idleness, since they would have the self respect to earn their wage. Neighbor would not quarrel with neighbor. The court system and prison system would no longer be of need. In short we would have Zion.
The problem is, not everyone is willing to live these two simple rules. But why should that stop me from living them?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Some Thoughts on Justice and Mercy
In 1835 Joseph Smith Jr. gathered several of the elders of the newly organized Church of Christ (which in a few years would later be named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) with the intent of instructing them in basic gospel principles to help strengthen the Church. During this instruction, he gave a series of lectures that would later become known as the Lectures of Faith. For anyone who has not read them, I highly recommend them, they are a relatively short read, and greatly expound on the subject of faith.
In the third lecture he teaches that in order to have faith in God with enough power to produce salvation they must first “First, the idea that he actually exists; Second, a correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes; Third, an actual knowledge the course of life which he is pursuing is according to [H]is will. “ In the fourth lecture he expounds on his attributes: knowledge; faith or power; justice; judgment; mercy; truth. It is on justice, judgment and mercy that I want to primarily deal with in this entry.
At their very core, Justice and Mercy seem to oppose each other and cannot exist at the same time in the same person. Let me elaborate a little.
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Romans 3:23. There it is, in black and white, the very problem that plagues all of mankind. Whatever economic depression we may or may not be in, whatever be the unemployment rate is, whatever Glen Beck’s latest rant is, whatever your neighbor down the street may have, or may not have said about you all pale in comparison to the above statement. God has decreed a law, or several laws (the Law of Moses contained around 613 commandments) and nobody has been able to live all of them all of the time. This shortcoming of man has placed us at odds against our creator. We have violated His Law and therefore we DESERVE whatever punishment is affixed to that law. Once we have paid the price for that punishment we are still guilty, and as such cannot live in the presence of that Holy Being.
But doesn’t God love us? Of course he does, that is one of his perfections. How could a loving God do that His children? After all, I love my children, but I have never banished them from my presence, never to return; nor do I foresee any circumstance where I would do so (I will actually address this a little later on). How could a loving God do that to me?
Now Mercy enters the picture, it complicates the scene. The moment God shows me mercy, he stops being Just. For example, let’s say I incur a debt that later on I cannot repay. Justice would demand that I pay my debtor the amount I borrowed plus whatever the agreed upon interest was. The debtor has every right to demand payment. It is his right to imprison me if I cannot pay back my debt. Mercy would be forgiving the debt. Something I cannot demand. God being Just would have to imprison me until I am able to pay back my debt. God being merciful would act as if the debt had been paid back in whole as agreed upon originally. Both conditions cannot exist at the same time. It cannot work that I pay back half the debt and the other is forgiven, then Justice will have been robbed.
So, how can God be both Just and Merciful? It requires a third party. If someone pays back the debt for me (assumes the debt and becomes the one indebted even if just momentarily), then Justice will have been satisfied (the debtor has his money) and Mercy can work out a new arrangement with me to pay back the debt to Him, or forgive the debt altogether.
In our case, that third party is our Savior, Jesus Christ. In a very literal way He has paid my debt and satisfied the demands of Justice, so that Mercy can now be given. And because he has satisfied the demands of Justice, it is done in a way that I am no longer guilty. It is as if I have never taken on the debt. Because I am no longer guilty, I am then allowed back into the presence of my God.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16) More than I want to be His presence, He wants me in His presence. So much, he gave the life of His Son to allow that to happen.
I remember sitting in Church one day when that was put in perspective for me in a way that I will never forget. The Sunday School instructor asked the class to think of their favorite possession (I would have to say my computer). He asked if I would give that up for the Church. I answered I would. He asked if I would give my life, I said I would, honestly. He then asked if I would give up the life of my child for it. I could not say yes. That makes me admire the faith of Abraham even more, and I believe our Heavenly Father wanted someone, even if it was just one person, to fully understand what He was going to do.
Mercy is an interesting idea. By its very definition it can only be given to those who do not deserve it, otherwise it then becomes justice. I am no position to demand Mercy. I have violated God’s law, I am guilty as charged. I am fully at the whims of justice. But God in His grace has given me a way be saved, in a very literal way.
Will everyone be saved then? No, only those that want to be saved will. God will not force himself upon anyone. We are free to choose if we will place our faith in Him and follow His law. Why would someone choose to not be saved? Because we will worse in the presence of that Holy Man in a guilty state, not having accepted the terms of the New Covenant given by Jesus Christ, then we will out of His presence. It is God’s will we ALL be saved, but at some point, in the words of C.S. Lewis, God will say to us, “Thy will be done.”
I think I have a pretty unique perspective on the concept of Heaven and Hell. The Lord has revealed through Joseph Smith that Eternal and Everlasting punishment are not necessarily punishments without end. They are called Eternal and Everlasting because they are names ascribed to Him, and they are his punishments. Everlasting Punishment can very well be written as God’s Punishment. David the Psalmist even rejoiced in the fact that his soul will not be forever left in Hell. So then I ask, if this punishment at some point has an end, what is its purpose? And this is where I go unique, and please feel free to disagree with me, and even feel free to vocalize it in the comments. I have not heard this taught as doctrine in any official capacity anywhere, I alone assume full responsibility if I am wrong. That being said, I believe Hell in this sense is a school. It is a place for us to better ourselves, to learn and improve. God being a Being of Love, does not want us to suffer for the sole purpose of suffering. Suffering is often the only way we will learn. Think of all the good people in the scriptures, did anything EVER come easy to them? No. God, in His love, designed this place to cleanse us, teach us and prepare us eventually for some kind of salvation in a kingdom of Glory. Not everyone will be able to enter into his presence, but they will inherit glory and have an end to their suffering, minus the almost negligible number of those who elect to become a Son of Perdition.
Those that are not able to accept Christ in this life are still sent to “Spiritual Prison” (another word for Hell but remember I am trying to say it is not necessarily a bad thing) to await the chance to be taught and accept God’s good news. When they have accepted the gospel, for every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ, or when those that have a price to pay have paid their price, Mercy can then come and end their suffering.
It is only through this grace and mercy do we have any hope. There is no work I can do, no deed I can perform to earn salvation. I will still need his grace, (in my case, I will need a very judicious and liberal amount). Growing up I often interpreted the verse in 2nd Nephi “it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do” as meaning I have to do everything I can, and then I can receive his grace. I believe this puts too much emphasis on my works. Maybe a better interpretation would be despite of all I can do. A doctor may say “After all I did, I still lost the patient.” Or a child “After searching the whole house, I still could not find my toy.” Does this negate the need to live a Christ like life? No, not at all, for my works will reflect in whom or what my faith lies. If my faith lies in Christ, I will seek to emulate Him. If my faith lies in man, I will emulate man. But no matter how I try, without His grace, I will fall short of the glory of God, after all I can do.
God be thanked for this matchless gift.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Freedom of Speech
Contrary to the title, I do not wish to write today about our Constitution's first amendment. Rather, our right to speak and enjoy our language of preference.
As a country, we do not have an official language. I think that is great, and that is how it should remain. Over the course of history, this land has seen several prominent languages. The Native Americans had their several tongues. The Spanish at one point had the majority of North and South America owned and Spanish was, and still is prominent in many places. The French for a while had a large stake in North America. England was one of the last to arrive on the scene, and were not for a series of wars with several European powers, we very well could be speaking Danish, German, Spanish, Portuguese or any other language. Never at any point has North America really been dominated by one language.
At the end of the 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th century there was a huge influx of immigration to this country. It was during this time we became known as the melting pot of the world. Large communities of one ethnicity would start, and several continue to thrive to this day. Chinatown, anyone? In fact, there was even debate in the 1880's about what to do with the Chinese Immigration problem and wide spread fear that we would all be speaking Chinese one day. One a completely different issue that I do not wish to delve into here, they even wanted to change the Constitution so the baby of a Chinese immigrant would not be granted citizenship here. Any modern parallels?
It was about this time we started to emerge as a Super power. Teddy Roosevelt ordered the entire US Navy to sail around the world as a show of power to other nations, we entered and won two world wars. We developed nuclear technology (with the help of a German immigrant). Was this timing a coincidence to the immigration influx? No. This influx of culture allowed us to see different sides of the same coin, understand concepts in new ways.
This heritage is often consummated in language. After all, it is how we communicate our thoughts to one another. Currently, English is the dominate language spoken here. Should it be the only? No. Should it continue as the dominate language? Maybe. Does my neighbor have just as much right to speak Korean as I do English? Yes, and I will defend that right. Does he have the right to receive government help in a language he understands? Yes! At the expense of my tax dollars? Yes! I have the same right, who am I to deny that to another? Why is my language right, and his wrong? Will this weaken society? No, look at San Fransisco with Chinatown...last time I checked they were not in the throws of oblivion. New York has several ethnic neighborhood, and it is the largest city in the Country.
Several years ago the National Anthem was translated in Spanish. I was shocked at the uproar! What reasonable person would want to deny another person the beautiful message of that song only because they do not understand English? The greatest message ever given to humanity, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was originally written in Hebrew, and Greek. The last time I went Church, everyone there had an English translation of that message, and there was certainly no uproar there. My Book of Mormon happens to be a translation of the original.
Last year, in this very State there was a controversy about a pastor who offered a prayer at a city function on the 4th of July in Spanish. It's an American holiday, and should be celebrated in English some would say? Why? I ask back. The great fathers of our country fought for our freedom, not our freedom to speak English. Our Heavenly Father certainly understood that prayer, and it was to Him the prayer was directed, not the members of the audience.
In closing, we are the land of the free. I should be free to speak the language I want without fear of reprisal or bigotry.
As a country, we do not have an official language. I think that is great, and that is how it should remain. Over the course of history, this land has seen several prominent languages. The Native Americans had their several tongues. The Spanish at one point had the majority of North and South America owned and Spanish was, and still is prominent in many places. The French for a while had a large stake in North America. England was one of the last to arrive on the scene, and were not for a series of wars with several European powers, we very well could be speaking Danish, German, Spanish, Portuguese or any other language. Never at any point has North America really been dominated by one language.
At the end of the 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th century there was a huge influx of immigration to this country. It was during this time we became known as the melting pot of the world. Large communities of one ethnicity would start, and several continue to thrive to this day. Chinatown, anyone? In fact, there was even debate in the 1880's about what to do with the Chinese Immigration problem and wide spread fear that we would all be speaking Chinese one day. One a completely different issue that I do not wish to delve into here, they even wanted to change the Constitution so the baby of a Chinese immigrant would not be granted citizenship here. Any modern parallels?
It was about this time we started to emerge as a Super power. Teddy Roosevelt ordered the entire US Navy to sail around the world as a show of power to other nations, we entered and won two world wars. We developed nuclear technology (with the help of a German immigrant). Was this timing a coincidence to the immigration influx? No. This influx of culture allowed us to see different sides of the same coin, understand concepts in new ways.
This heritage is often consummated in language. After all, it is how we communicate our thoughts to one another. Currently, English is the dominate language spoken here. Should it be the only? No. Should it continue as the dominate language? Maybe. Does my neighbor have just as much right to speak Korean as I do English? Yes, and I will defend that right. Does he have the right to receive government help in a language he understands? Yes! At the expense of my tax dollars? Yes! I have the same right, who am I to deny that to another? Why is my language right, and his wrong? Will this weaken society? No, look at San Fransisco with Chinatown...last time I checked they were not in the throws of oblivion. New York has several ethnic neighborhood, and it is the largest city in the Country.
Several years ago the National Anthem was translated in Spanish. I was shocked at the uproar! What reasonable person would want to deny another person the beautiful message of that song only because they do not understand English? The greatest message ever given to humanity, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was originally written in Hebrew, and Greek. The last time I went Church, everyone there had an English translation of that message, and there was certainly no uproar there. My Book of Mormon happens to be a translation of the original.
Last year, in this very State there was a controversy about a pastor who offered a prayer at a city function on the 4th of July in Spanish. It's an American holiday, and should be celebrated in English some would say? Why? I ask back. The great fathers of our country fought for our freedom, not our freedom to speak English. Our Heavenly Father certainly understood that prayer, and it was to Him the prayer was directed, not the members of the audience.
In closing, we are the land of the free. I should be free to speak the language I want without fear of reprisal or bigotry.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Need To Label
One of my favorite things to do is read forums. They are a great way to gain insight on what people think on almost any topic. It is a phenomenon I call the "Jerkwad Theorem" , others have called it different, more colorful names. Anonymity+ Audience= Lowered inhibitions to speak ones mind.
I will often read forums for video games (Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft in particular), but the ones I often enjoy most are the ones that follow news stories, in particular opinion stories, especially those in the Deseret News. Maybe it is because I am in the political minority hear in Utah that I like being irked by what I often perceive as "wrong". Maybe it is the part of me that likes cheering for the underdog.
One thing I have noticed, I don't know if this is a general humanity thing, a local Utah thing but there is this desire to label a person as something, and then ascribe to them EVERYTHING that belongs to that label. For example, the idea that one needs to be a conservative, OR a liberal. One cannot be in the middle. If one is a conservative, he is immediately lumped as a Republican, loves guns, loves God and believes economic prosperity = utopia. If one is a liberal, he is immediately a Democrat, godless, loves abortion and believes the government is to provide everything from cradle to grave. Know I am not saying these are entirely accurate, and in fact that, these gross generalizations are the heart of what I want to address.
In the end, does the label matter as much as what is in the heart? Would a Democrat who was pro choice be any less of a Democrat, or a conservative that didn't believe in God be any less of a conservative? By no means! Being able to think means I can subscribe to ideas from all walks of life. I am allowed to be a Democrat that loves my God! I can be a Republican that is Pro Choice. I can be a Latter-Day Saint and only have one wife! (One of those was pure sarcasm, can you guess which one?)
Another common one I hear is that Mormon's aren't Christians. I really don't think that matters. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe He is God's Son, and the Savior of the world. I believe that only through Him will I be saved. If that makes me a Christian, great. If others have issue with my Mormonism, great. I know who I am, what I believe and so does He. Ultimately it will be my faith that matters, and not the label affixed by man.
I hope that someday we can evolve beyond labels and see only people. See that each is a son or daughter of our Heavenly Father. Free to think and form their own opinions and not have to subscribe completely to one ideology or another. Free to make mistakes, for all children do. Free to learn. Free to be different. We need to worry less about what they think, and worry more about what is in my heart. For it is by that we will be judged, not what club we ultimately belong to.
I will often read forums for video games (Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft in particular), but the ones I often enjoy most are the ones that follow news stories, in particular opinion stories, especially those in the Deseret News. Maybe it is because I am in the political minority hear in Utah that I like being irked by what I often perceive as "wrong". Maybe it is the part of me that likes cheering for the underdog.
One thing I have noticed, I don't know if this is a general humanity thing, a local Utah thing but there is this desire to label a person as something, and then ascribe to them EVERYTHING that belongs to that label. For example, the idea that one needs to be a conservative, OR a liberal. One cannot be in the middle. If one is a conservative, he is immediately lumped as a Republican, loves guns, loves God and believes economic prosperity = utopia. If one is a liberal, he is immediately a Democrat, godless, loves abortion and believes the government is to provide everything from cradle to grave. Know I am not saying these are entirely accurate, and in fact that, these gross generalizations are the heart of what I want to address.
In the end, does the label matter as much as what is in the heart? Would a Democrat who was pro choice be any less of a Democrat, or a conservative that didn't believe in God be any less of a conservative? By no means! Being able to think means I can subscribe to ideas from all walks of life. I am allowed to be a Democrat that loves my God! I can be a Republican that is Pro Choice. I can be a Latter-Day Saint and only have one wife! (One of those was pure sarcasm, can you guess which one?)
Another common one I hear is that Mormon's aren't Christians. I really don't think that matters. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe He is God's Son, and the Savior of the world. I believe that only through Him will I be saved. If that makes me a Christian, great. If others have issue with my Mormonism, great. I know who I am, what I believe and so does He. Ultimately it will be my faith that matters, and not the label affixed by man.
I hope that someday we can evolve beyond labels and see only people. See that each is a son or daughter of our Heavenly Father. Free to think and form their own opinions and not have to subscribe completely to one ideology or another. Free to make mistakes, for all children do. Free to learn. Free to be different. We need to worry less about what they think, and worry more about what is in my heart. For it is by that we will be judged, not what club we ultimately belong to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)