Tea Party at the Pulpit

Yesterday was fast and testimony meeting, and I had an interesting experience. One member of the congregation stepped up to bear his testimony, talked about going to a "tea party" meeting the day before, and discussed some of the things he learned there. There was actually very little in his remarks that most LDS church members would find offensive, but I was troubled by it nonetheless. I guess I think asking conservative church members whether his comments were offensive is kind of like asking white people whether the Florida State Seminoles mascot is offensive.

I admit that I am extremely sensitive on this issue. I carry around a huge chip on my shoulder, because throughout my adult life I have been treated by many LDS church members as though my political views make me an apostate. Church leaders have repeatedly expressed the Church's official neutrality on political matters. Here is their official statement on the issue:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality

Before every general election in the US, the Church reiterates its neutral stand, and reminds us, as they did in 2008, that, "Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties."

Nevertheless, many LDS Church members seem to completely disregard this official view. They believe Glenn Beck is a worthy Latter-day Saint, but Harry Reid is not. They believe that they, not the appropriate bishop or stake president, have the right to determine Brother Reid's worthiness to hold a temple recommend or call himself a Latter-day Saint. Such attitudes are not restricted to elected officials. I have repeatedly been asked by well-meaning church members how I can possibly be a good Latter-day Saint and a democrat. My commitment both to my religion and to my political views has been questioned by those who think they know what I should believe better than I do. I have several friends who have actually left the Church because they were falsely made to feel that their political views were inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

After church yesterday, I had a conversation with a good friend who happens to be a John Bircher. Despite my considerable disagreement with him on many political issues, I have great respect for him. He pointed out to me that LDS Birchers are even more rare than LDS liberals, at least everywhere except Appleton, Wisconsin. He has taken the approach to just let things like this roll off his back, and not say anything about it. I wish I could adopt that approach. I know I should. But I just have a really hard time figuring out why it is that when someone else thinks it's ok to espouse their political views in church, and I challenge them on it, I'm the bad guy. I'm the one who is being confrontational and not following the principles of the gospel, while the person who started it is excused. I don't get that. Maybe someday, when I develop greater humility, I will understand, but right now I don't.

I should also say that I consider the man who bore his testimony yesterday to be a friend. I like him, respect him, and enjoy working with him in my church calling. I believe him to be a very good person, far better than I am, who is true to his convictions. He also makes no secret of his political views. It is not uncommon for him to find opportunities to insert references to his politics into conversations or comments during priesthood and Sunday School lessons. As a result, my guard was already up when he went to the pulpit yesterday. It shouldn't have been, but it was.

I am not going to go through the entire testimony word for word to discuss what I found offensive. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to dissect my comments from the pulpit that way. The essential message in his comments, as I understood it, was that our right to practice Christianity should be defended and that we should vote for candidates who will uphold this right. This is not at all inconsistent with the principles of the gospel. However, I think the point could have been made just fine without referring to the discussion of this issue at a tea party meeting or the implication that tea party candidates are the only ones who believe in protecting Christian values. I also found comments about "our stimulus dollars at work" and the political correctness of showing respect to other religions but not Christianity to be unnecessary and distracting.

One final thought. After the meeting, I had a pleasant conversation with my friend, where I tried to politely express my concerns. I want to reiterate here one of the things I said to him. In his testimony, he made reference to the comments of a Christian minister at the tea party meeting, who was calling for tolerance for Christian beliefs and values. I asked my friend if he had ever stopped to think that this Christian minister very likely has no respect for our religious beliefs, considers us to be members of a cult, and refuses to consider us Christians. An interesting thought to contemplate, as we decide with whom we should ally ourselves in our zeal to protect our values and beliefs.

Can't we all just get along?

Interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor today. Various groups of American Muslims are trying to combat increasing hatred and violence shown towards them by mounting public relations campaigns designed to point out that they are peaceful, ordinary Americans just like you and me. Some of them, like this one, are very touching:


The need for such responses is both increasingly apparent and frightening. Alarming accounts of violence and persecution aimed at people for the sole reason that they are Muslim are being heard throughout the country. Several examples are given in the Christian Science Monitor article. Those accounts make it clear that there is a segment of our society which views hatred and discrimination against an entire religion as an appropriate response to the violent actions of a few members of that faith. This proposition should be rejected by all who value religious freedom.

My ancestors felt this kind of hatred and discrimination at a time in our nation's history when there was virtually no one to stand up for them. The President of the United States told them their cause was just but he could do nothing for them. The sting of that persecution continues to this day to contribute to feelings of defensiveness and victimization felt by many Mormons. We, as much as anyone, should feel the pain of our Muslim brothers and sisters, and should reach out to them in love, peace, and understanding. We, as much as anyone, should realize that persecuting anyone for their religious beliefs endangers everyone's right to practice their religion. As one man puts it in this public service announcement, "If we don't have our rights, you don't have your rights." Amen.

Glenn Beck, Again!

We just can't seem to keep this guy out of the news. In an article quite relevant to the subject of this blog, the Washington Post asks today, "Is Glenn Beck's rise good for Mormonism?"

That's a pretty easy one. No. It is bad for Mormonism. Read the article. It will tell you why. Laying aside my personal disagreements with Beck, it is always bad when an entire religion is stereotyped based on the conduct and beliefs of one person. Mormon leaders have repeatedly made it clear that the Church finds good in all political parties, and the Church benefits from having prominent members in different places on the political spectrum. With Beck's emphasis on religion, the danger increases that many will see him as the sole political voice of Mormonism, particularly with the overwhelmingly conservative tenor of Utah politics. This is unfortunate.

Can someone tell me why people like Glenn Beck and Russell Pearce are seen by many as reflecting the views of all Mormons, while Harry Reid is not? With Reid so much in the public eye, wouldn't you think people would understand that Mormons come in different political flavors? But apparently it doesn't work that way. Why is that?

First Martin Luther King, Now 9/11

As if last week's rally on the anniversary and at the location of  Martin Luther King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech wasn't arrogant and dishonorable enough, it came out this week that Glenn Beck will join with Sarah Palin in another rally to be held in Anchorage on September 11, 2010. News of the event came first in Vanity Fair, buried deep in a scathing article about Sarah Palin, which is worth a read on its own merits. Then, Beck talked about it on his show, coyly dodging questions about it and failing to mention the actual date. Here's the video:


Today, several media outlets are reporting the story, including Huffington Post,  Salon, and Politico. But I believe David Weigel has hit the nail right on the head in his assessment of this event. In an article on Slate.com, Weigel says:

"I think you're going to see a sequel to Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally. Like I noted in my article on that rally, it wasn't overtly political for the same reasons that his paid speeches aren't overtly political. The people who show up for these events are already converts. The point of these events is to bolster their political anxiety by telling them they are needed to reclaim America in the name of God."

Of course Beck wasn't and won't be overtly political! Everyone knows the religious conservatives have already co-opted God, so when Beck talks of returning to God, he is inviting a new conservative crusade to rid the country of the infidel liberals into whose hands we foolishly entrusted the government. He never has to use the words "conservative" or "liberal," "Republican" or "Democrat," because everyone, especially his millions of bleating disciples, already know the code. I have already talked about who the God is that Beck is talking about, but the point is quite clear. Beck has placed himself in the enviable position of being able to talk politics without talking politics, to seek converts and still be able to deny that he is proselyting.

Beck has already desecrated the memory of Martin Luther King, and now he will dishonor the memory of the thousands who died on September 11th, taking what is an American tragedy that belongs to all of us, and claiming it for his own personal and political gain. If this isn't a window into his soul, what is?