Why Do We Let Political Parties Define Us?

Jesus, in the Bible, tells us, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." (Mark 2:27). Similarly, it could be said in the realm of politics: parties are made for man, and not man for the parties.

This year, the nomination of Donald Trump presents an interesting conundrum to many of my fellow Mormons and other conservative Christians. This block of voters tends to vote Republican, but what does one do when the chosen candidate seems so much against their deeply held beliefs? Some are choosing to hold their noses and vote for Trump, because "well ... he is the Republican nominee, so I need to support him."

That last statement gives me pause, and causes me to wonder: where does that even come from? Why do so many of us believe in that unwritten rule: I'm a Republican, so I need to vote Republican no matter what? Why do many act as if it's a betrayal if you ever vote outside of the party?

The answer is simple: because we allow ourselves to have our chosen parties dictate what we believe (that is, man is made for the party). Let's see if we can analyze this.

Why do political parties exist in the first place? They help to facilitate elections. (Parties are made for man.) If we didn't have parties, then many individual persons would run for president, and no one would gain the required 50.01% to win. In other words, the US Constitution practically guarantees the existence of political parties. Further, Duverger's Law shows that our constitution nearly guarantees that we can have at most two viable parties, and perhaps three in times of transition.

So, when each of us are born, there are two big parties already in existence. Most of us end up affiliating ourselves with the party that most closely matches our personal beliefs. When we register to vote, we choose a party, and then something strange happens. Many of us let the party dictate and mold our belief system. We're supposed to fall into step with every platform of the party and condemn every single platform of the opposing party.

Growing up in Atlanta, Georgia, I was raised to be a Democrat. I remember back in 1976 when my father woke me up in the middle of the night to announce that my candidate Jimmy Carter had won the election, and I remember how well I slept after he had told me. Republicans were evil with their predisposition to boost up the rich at the expense of the poor.

In 1987, I went out to BYU, where a Democrat Mormon, such as me, was a novelty. For some reason, during the 1996 election, this came to a head. With the impending reelection of Clinton coming, I had the following discussion with many of my Republican friends.

R: "I don't understand how you can be a Mormon and a Democrat. Do you really believe in abortion?"

D: "I think abortion is terrible."

R: "Then you can't be a Democrat. They believe in abortions."

D: "But I can't be a Republican, since they support the rich and stomp all over poor people like you and me."

R: "I think you really need to pray about it."

Then starting in 1998, something funny happened. I became an actuary and took a series of economics courses. I watched how an insurance company operated, and my eyes were opened to how capitalism really works. I came to understand the Republican economic policies, and they made sense. I suddenly had a party that supported both my conservative beliefs as well as my newly formed economic beliefs. By 2000, the transition was complete, and I found myself voting for Bush and condemning Gore for trying to steal the election.

I then began fielding attacks on the Republican Party. I explained to many Democrat friends how the party wasn't racist, and how they actually helped poor people. Income inequality wasn't a problem, but rather evidence that the American Dream was real. Rush Limbaugh was a sincere person after all. Republicans weren't blocking Obama because he was black, and so on.

But then Donald Trump happened. Along came someone who said so many bone-headed racist and xenophobic comments that I felt that no party would support him. When it came time for the Republican Party to condemn Trump on his comments on Islam last December, the unthinkable happened. Most of the party either remained silent (for fear of disrupting the election) or fell right in line with Trump.

It opened my eyes. Trump was a candidate who seemed to legitimize racism, violence, and intolerance, and many Republicans were eating it up. I was so disillusioned, that I wasn't sure what to do. I didn't want my name associated with the "Racist" Party, and I couldn't call myself a Democrat with my beliefs that their economic policies would destroy our economy.

There now exists no party that matches my belief system. I ultimately decided back in February to register as an Independent.

Then came the epiphany I share with you today. I am not a member of any party; I am a free man!

Each of us is an individual with unique beliefs. None of us should be beholden to any specific party. We should all be able to think on our own, and realize it's okay to believe in some platform points of one party and other platform points of another party. None of us signed a pledge saying we need to support the party we signed up with, and there is absolutely no reason for any of us to choose one party over another.

I'd like to reiterate what the LDS Church announces to all the units every election cycle:

Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.

Therefore, in this election year, we urge you to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government.

For years, the Church has encouraged us to think independently and choose leaders according to our conscience. There is no call to support a specific party.

In conclusion, I strongly encourage you to be your own person. If you want to believe abortion is bad AND that global warming exists, then knock yourself out. You may consider registering as an independent. In many states this would mean not being able to vote in primaries, but it may be a choice to consider for some of you. I strongly suggest against the concept of "I need to vote for the person nominated in my party." Be a free man (or woman)!

Just remember: parties are made for man, and not man for the parties.

Movie Review: Risen (2016)

This past week, I decided to try out the movie Risen. Just in time for Easter, this movie explores the experiences of the fictitious Clavius, a Roman soldier placed in charge of finding the missing body of Jesus. At first, Clavius has no idea who Jesus is, but as events transpire, he finds himself enthralled by the stories and his followers.

Doctrinally, the movie tries its best to stay generically Christian. Most denominations would not have many qualms with wrong facts. Viewing as a Mormon, the only thing I picked out was one point where Jesus is called the "Son of Jehovah," but that's not even worth arguing over. Many other nitpicky things are correct, such as having the nails go through the wrist instead of the hand, and Jesus being called "Yeshua."

The plot centers entirely around Clavius, which is both good and bad at the same time. In order to have Clavius attend most of the important post-death events in the New Testament, the story of Jesus and his followers is forced to bend around Clavius, so much so that some parts come across as being a little funnier than they should be. For example, Pontius Pilate is turned into some super bad guy who won't rest until Jesus's body is found. When in actuality, Pilate (who is portrayed in all four gospels as not wanting to crucify Jesus) most likely left the matter alone after the crucifixion.

But on the other hand, it is Clavius's story. Joseph Fiennes (brother of everyone's favorite evil guy Ralph Fiennes) plays his role well. Clavius is good at what he does. He executes his orders with precision. All he wants to do is retire in the country and live out a good life with his future family.

As he comes across Jesus and witnesses several miracles, he at first holds to more scientific explanations. For example when the walls crack at Jesus's death, it was only an earthquake. While everyone speaks of miracles and adoration, Clavius strives to stick with his cold logic and his desire to get down to the real story.

Along the way, Clavius asks one of the disciples, "Before he died and he said he was going to rise again, did you believe him?" The disciple answers, "To tell you the truth, we doubted." To which, Clavius asks, "Then why do you follow him?" Eventually, he gets his answer, and this is where the movie excels.

The writers cleverly turn Clavius's story into our own personal stories. As Christians, why do we follow him today? This movie gives us plenty to think about, and leaves it up to us to decide.

Do You Believe In Religious Tolerance?

More and more in the news, we hear about religious freedoms being under attack.

As we fight this figurative but real war, I'd like to invite you to take a quick inventory to see where you stand.  Do you believe in religious freedoms?  And what exactly does that mean?

Take for example, prayers at public meetings.  Most Mormons and Christians would agree with me.  If I'm on the city council making tough decisions that would affect thousands of constituents, I would like God's inspiration and guidance.  Thus, I believe a prayer offered by someone in the room would be more than appropriate.

Atheists don't like these prayers because it makes them uncomfortable.  They are also concerned about the appearance of establishing an official government religion.  If you say a Christian prayer at a city council meeting, it's like the city saying that Christianity is our religion.

I understand the atheists concerns, but I don't think a prayer establishes a religion.  I also believe that when the Constitution spells out the separation of church and state, it's talking about the independence of church and state, and not the removal of church from state.  If the government were to deny us the right to pray in public, I believe it would be infringing on my religious freedoms.

Let me switch gears here.  How would you feel if a Jew gave the prayer instead of a Christian?  Would you feel uncomfortable?  Jews make up about 2% of the US population, so if prayers are allowed, we should expect on average more than 1 out of 50 of these prayers to be Jewish.

But then again, would a Jewish prayer really be that bad?  Their perspective on life is different and beautiful, and their doctrines are so similar to what we Christians believe.

Okay, before I continue on, I'll come out and say that I expect that most of my readers would already be comfortable with a Jewish prayer.  I just wanted to give y'all a moment to pat yourselves on the back for believing in religious freedoms before we take this up a notch.

What if it were a Muslim giving the prayer?  Would that be okay with you?  Most Christians I know would pause here.  A lot of them would be uncomfortable.  But could we deny the Muslims their turn to pray?  They do make up 1% of the US population.

If we were to deny the Muslim, how would that make us any different than the atheist wanting to deny all prayers?  Then we would might as well be saying, "I believe in religious freedoms, but only for Christians (and sure, the Jews, too)."

And this is exactly what I hear when political candidates go around talking about how we need to preserve the "Judeo-Christian values" our Founding Fathers instilled into our nation, and even going so far as to propose or entertain the ideas of removing, tagging, or carpet-bombing Muslims.  It makes me want to yell, "No, we're not a Judeo-Christian nation!  We're an All Religions nation!"

It's very important to maintain that distinction, as it is the only way to ensure religious freedoms, not only for Jews and Christians, but also for Muslims, other religions, and even atheists and agnostics.  The Founding Fathers instilled into our Constitution certain protections that are meant to help each one of us be able to believe according to what we wish to believe.

It is true that practically all of the "Founding Fathers" had a Christian upbringing, but many of them were friendly to other non-Christian religions.  Some even clarified straight out that Muslims were meant to be included under the umbrella of religious freedoms.  I recommend this Washington Post article for an expose of several quotes from several of our early leaders.

In response to recent anti-Muslim sentiment, the LDS Church came out on 12/8/2015 and offered this official announcement clarifying their stance on religious freedoms, pointing out how Joseph Smith specifically mentioned Muslims as being equal to others.

Finally, this discussion would not be complete without a recitation of the eleventh Article of Faith.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Now at the end of this blog post, I ask once more.  Do you believe in religious freedoms?  Is it just for Christians?  Or will you fight to protect the freedoms of Muslims and other religions, and even atheists and agnostics?  Will you endeavor not to infringe on the freedoms of others?

I think that as we properly align ourselves in our understanding of religious freedoms, we will be much more prepared to fight the ongoing war.