Tag: government

Prosecuting Religious Beliefs

Post author By David
Post date September 16, 2007
6 Comments on Prosecuting Religious Beliefs

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

On Friday I saw the news from the first day of the Warren Jeffs trial. Connected to the particular story that I read was audio of Jeffs teaching youth classes in his polygamous community. I was curious to hear the words and voice of a man as twisted as Jeffs has been portrayed in the media. I was surprised to find a man whose voice and tone were so mild an unpretentious. I had expected someone more commanding and authoritative, but I found someone who was earnest and soft-spoken. (This should not be taken as an endorsement for any of the doctrines of his church.)

As I learned more of the details of the case being prosecuted I was surprised to learn that polygamy was not even an issue in this case. The bride was 14 at the time she married her 19 year old cousin as his first wife. One of my brothers is almost that much older than his wife, so the age difference is of little concern. Nor have I seen any indications that the husband took a second wife at any point. I started to wonder if the prosecution is wasting time on a case that they expect to lose.

This realization got me thinking about the slippery slope we get on the moment that we start legislating against belief and not actions. I am convinced that Warren Jeffs honestly believes in the doctrines of his church – after all, he grew up with that belief system. I think of Alma 1: 17-18

. . . now the law could have no power on any man because of his belief. And they durst not steal for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death.

We can’t try to stamp out a belief in the practice of polygamy. We can enforce the laws against the practice of polygamy, but this trial is set up as an attempt to dampen the beliefs of those who engage in polygamy – that is not something that the law is equipped to do, nor is it something that the law should attempt to do.

Tags belief, government, media

culture

Ahead of the Curve

Yeasterday I wrote about my apprehension with Mitt Romney’s approach to health care reform in Massachusetts and the social direction of this country that our current health care reform discussion implies. Today I was surprised to find articles on both topics. Lessons from Massachusetts highlights the kinds of reasons to be uneasy with Mitt’s Massachusetts approach. E Pluribus Unum goes into more depth on where this country is headed and why it’s not as good as advertised.

I look forward to the details of the proposal that Mitt is supposed to make today on health care, because it is supposed to be different than his Massachusetts approach. Maybe it will be better. I also hope that we can become aware of the dangers we face if we do not turn our cities and states around and get the country back on the path of greatness. Don’t get me wrong, we live in a great country, but being in a country built on great principles does not guarantee that the choices we are making now will lead to future greatness. We still have to be careful.

Tags government, heal, media, Romney

culture

Growing Discomfort

I said before that I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with my favorite major candidates over one issue. That issue is the issue of health care reform. Obama seems firmly in the camp of having the federal government provide health insurance for many or all Americans. I think this is a very bad idea. It looks easy on the surface, but I think it is a step towards making our government financially insolvent.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney has experience implementing health care reform as governor. On the surface his approach sounds more like the kind of thing that I could accept. That means I am more comfortable with Romney than Obama on this issue.

What this country really needs is for the federal government to scale back in many areas where it was not meant to be. We are working towards a homogeneous society where there are no substantive differences between Idaho and Florida. The strength of this country is our freedom to make choices. Unfortunately we are working to create a society where there are no meaningful choices that have not already been made for us through our laws. This is not a recipe for stability. We need the challenge of meaningful choices if we are to hope to build the kind of strong character in our citizens which drives us to do the things that make this country great.

Tags citizenship, government, health care, issues, Romney

General

Compulsory Education

I recognize that it is meant to address more extreme cases, but the idea of fining parents and charging them with a misdemeanor just strikes me as wrong. I know we have compulsory education in the United States, but I wonder if we are really helping anything by making it compulsory. If my kid skips school all the time I am guilty of a misdemeanor – even if my kid isn’t causing trouble.

The saddest part of it for me is this quote from Dan Linford – the assistant principle at Viewmont High School:

For the most part, it will help keep the goods kids honest, and for the 1 percent of students who habitually skip school it may not affect them too much.”

Remind me why we need fines for parents to keep the good kids honest?

Tags Education, government, State

culture National

Glancing at Immigration

I picked up my car from the shop and happened to catch part of RadioWest. Doug was talking to a writer about immigration and the contradictions in our human nature, wanting to help people in need and trying to secure our borders. I didn’t catch the whole show so I don’t know if that perspective is representative of the entire hour, but it got me thinking about my views on immigration which eventually boil down to this – I think we’re asking the wrong question.

Our political discussion of the issue is how to deal with illegal immigrants. I don’t think we can approach that question until we have taken the time to ask – how did we get in our current position? That includes the role of immigration in our history and the history of our immigration laws. It also includes the reasons that people cross our borders illegally. Until we have that background I think that any grand compromise (which seems to be the only kind of laws we have been getting lately) is like trying to catch a fish for dinner by shooting a slingshot into a stream in the dark.

As a start, our legal limits on immigration basically stem from the Immigration Act of 1924. Though some adjustments have been made in the 83 years since, nothing has fundamentally changed in our law. Prior to 1924 we never had a comprehensive immigration restriction except that we tried to prevent people with significant criminal records or contagious disease enter the country. Now I ask the question – are we better off since we decided to stem the flow of immigration? I don’t think we are. Not only that, but I am a bit suspicious of why we chose to enact that law in 1924. None of the great advances of the past century can be even remotely tied to limiting the flow of immigrants. If we were to open our borders completely (except for cases of contagious disease or criminal record) would we be any worse off than we are now? I doubt it since we have a tidal wave of people coming in despite our laws.

I’m not arguing for amnesty, I am arguing that we need to start making an informed decision on where we stand on the issue of immigration. If we decide that it is necessary to limit immigration then we need to close the door. Until we decide what we believe about immigration there’s really no point in discussing amnesty (or lack of amnesty).

Tags elevate, government, immigration, issues, NPR

General

Civic Communication 101

I went to a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last night and learned a whole lot about communication between government and citizens. I also found it interesting this morning to see that some similar lessons were learned by a Tyler who attended a Truth in Taxation hearing in Davis County last night. The lessons that Tyler talks about are good for citizens and officials. I would like to list some other lessons that I learned – which may be a result of the fact that the meeting I attended was really a different type of meeting than the hearing he attended.

Citizens: Take yourself seriously

There was a group of neighborhood residents who came to present their concerns with elements of a specific development near them. Unfortunately many of those residents were attired in shorts, sandals, and baseball hats. While I accept the fact that we live in a very laid-back society these residents combined their casual dress with with a casual and subtly belligerent attitude which left them looking sophomoric when contrasted with the professionalism of the developer as he addressed their concerns. His professionalism is almost certainly the kind of professionalism that most of them display in their places of work. I don’t know if they really did not expect to accomplish anything or if they really did not understand that their cocksure demeanor would make it less likely that their concerns would be fairly considered.

Officials: Make meeting format flexible

The basic meeting format was to have an overview of the issue, any comments by the proposing party, and then public comment followed by response by the proposing party concluding with committee action. This format was adequate for most items, but there were two items where I noticed myself and others of the public who might have comments come to mind based on the response of the proposing party or the committee after the committee or proposing party responds to the initial public comments. The format of the meeting should be flexible enough to allow the committee to open up a second period of brief public comment as appropriate prior to committee action.

Citizens: Come prepared

The same group of residents who had been too casual had appointed a spokesperson (who was more appropriately attired) and had done their homework before the meeting. They knew their concerns and made sure that they got a say. Others who came for various issues were not so well prepared. When questioned by the committee they were left saying “I think . . .” or “I’ll have to get back to you on that” which could only result in their requests being tabled or else ignored. Certainly you cannot be prepared for every contingency that might arise, but doing your homework will make a big difference.

Officials: Make it possible for us to prepare

I think that officials do a lot of work to make this happen most of the time but on an issue of a new zoning category being proposed there was a resident who had concerns but who was unable to prepare adequately for the meeting because the committee had not made the text of the proposed ordinance available for review. Citizens do not need to have everything available to them that the committee members have to prepare for a meeting, but on a proposed ordinance they should have access to the proposed content of the ordinance even if it will undergo revision before it is passed. A one sentence description on the agenda is not usually sufficient for that kind of issue.

I sincerely believe that most involved citizens and most public officials are trying to work together in a positive way. This is not meant to be a criticizm against those efforts, but merely an effort to add my insights into the process.

Tags communication, community, government, Lehi

culture

Heights of Public Discourse

Post author By David
Post date July 23, 2007
No Comments on Heights of Public Discourse

I posted in June about the voucher debate exemplifying the worst of political discourse. Apparently Frank had similar thoughts about the voucher debate while reading The Audacity of Hope. I really liked Frank’s post because it illustrates one of the root causes of our unhealthy levels of partisanship that we currently have in Washington (and around the country). It also serves as a good illustration of why I consider Obama to be a top tier candidate even though I disagree with him on a range of issues. He understands the root cause of our political problems.

Frank has also written a second post about where he, as a conservative, agrees with Barak Obama.

Tags connections, discourse, government, national candidates

culture

Sunsets for Subsidies

I have been thinking a lot lately about the many ways that government has become a provider or enabler of many economic activities. We take it for granted that government should provide for our retirement (Social Security) which is why we have a looming crisis. We hardly consider, let alone actively question, the necessity of having government subsidize the production of various foods (Farm Subsidies). The idea of having a private industry for educating our children sounds like class warfare (Public Education). We think it irresponsible that anyone should have to rely on the support of family, friends, and neighbors – instead we blindly expect them to rely on help administered by complete strangers (Food Stamps and Unemployment Insurance). We can’t imagine that anyone besides the government can fund our exploration for new energy sources and now we are sure that government needs to nationalize our health care system.

I have concluded that, if Social Security and the 1930’s was any indication, the problem that caused this mindset was that we enacted a permanent solution to solve a temporary problem. The result is that our attitudes have changed so that we are willing to preemptively create permanent government solutions to perceived potential problems. The only solution that I can see is to automatically have an expiration date for government programs (excluding the three branches of government) so that they have to be explicitly reauthorized on a regular basis (perhaps every decade as the default and shorter if the authorization specifies a shorter time period). We could then stop looking for ways to make Social Security solvent forever and look at reasonable ways to phase it out, just like Senator Lugar is trying to do with farm subsidies (and he’s a farmer by birth).

Tags government, problems, subsidies

culture

Dependence vs Liberty

I think Scott hit the nail on the head when he talked about the paradox of people distrusting the government while demanding more government services. It is natural that we chafe against intrusive authority whether that intrusion is warranted or not. It is also natural that we turn toward our source of temporal support to fill our needs and wants, especially when we rely on a single source of support. Generally speaking, greater dependence warrants greater intrusion on the part of the supplier.

The paradox here is that individual liberty cannot thrive without personal independence. If we ever hope to be free of government intrusions – and the possibility (probability) that they will be exploited – we must begin to look outside of government for the solutions to the challenges that we face. If I fear that I will get laid off and that I can’t afford that, I will not want to end the government welfare programs. If I have enough savings, or I trust friends and family to help me out in the event that I lose my job, then I am more likely to want those programs terminated so that I keep more of my own money to increase my financial independence. The same holds true for other government programs as well as non-governmental dependence.

Tags government, liberty

culture National

Right Thinking

Townhall is not a place I have linked to before because much of what I see there is more partisan than I would care to pass along. Surprisingly today there are two articles there that give me hope that there are still active Republicans who stand for something besides being not Democrats (there are also Democrats who are more than not Republican, but I discovered that a while back).

In the first column, the author rejects the most famous sound bite of the second Republican Presidential debate where the media latched on to the sound bite from Rudy Giuliani and allowed him to twist the words of Ron Paul about terrorism and 9/11 to the detriment of this less popular candidate. Ron Paul gave an insightful answer about the situation we are in but the media covered the sound bite response. Typical.

In the second column, the author reminds us what the Republican party used to be known for and what they claim to represent. By the time I was done with that I wanted to ask the current Republican party which is worse for our economy and our future generations – a spend and don’t tax leadership or a tax and spend leadership? The answer should be obvious. We need to be talking less about funding welfare and saving social security and more about helping people get off of welfare and helping them not be dependent on social security. More importantly we should be doing things to reduce the perceived need for such programs.

So my point is, it’s no wonder that things aren’t looking good for the GOP right now – their words (especially historically) and their actions are inconsistent. That is bound to inhibit people from trusting them even if they like their rhetoric. When people don’t trust them they are less likely to make an effort to vote for them.

Tags government, media, parties, Republican