These bright young students were highly engaged. We had fruitful discussions about the concept of equal justice in the abstract, as well as its potential applications to modern issues in law. In those discussions, a recurring problem arose: What, if anything, does equal justice demand once rights protections are in place? Is it enough that government refrain from infringing rights, or does the pursuit of equal justice call for citizens to defend and facilitate the rights of others as well?  

These questions lie at the intersection of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. What follows is a brief exploration of these questions. Considering the Constitution in light of the Declaration of Independence, these documents suggest that equal justice might involve more than formal legal equality. It requires not only the protection of rights through the rule of law, but also a continuing commitment to the conditions that make liberty genuinely available to all.

A Divinely Inspired Constitution 

In his April 2021 general conference address, Oaks identified at least five “divinely inspired principles” in the Constitution. Two of these principles are strongly tied to equal justice. One is the “vital guarantees of individual rights and specific limits on government authority in the Bill of Rights.” Another is that “We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder. In this way, all persons are to be equal before the law.” This principle can be summarized as the rule of law.

A few months later, Oaks published an article in the Deseret News in which he noted that “America has been blessed by an inspired Constitution that aims at equal justice and the advancement of all on the basis of merit.” He then followed this statement with a reiteration of the five divinely inspired principles from his talk, including the two previously mentioned (protection of individual rights and the rule of law). 

Oaks’s Deseret News article suggests that the Constitution contains additional divinely inspired principles beyond those he expressly identified. It also confirms that justice is a central theme in the Constitution’s divinely inspired nature. This might be deduced from careful consideration of equal justice’s relation to the earlier stated principles of protection of individual rights and the rule of law. The protection of each person’s rights and the equal application of the law are at the forefront of the Constitution’s aims. Together, these principles aspire to justice for all.

The Connection Between the Constitution and the Declaration

Oaks’s article also brings into consideration the Declaration of Independence. He mentions the Declaration and the “lofty principles” it espoused before expounding on equal justice.

Suppose the Constitution rests on a theory of justice grounded in natural rights. Although contested, this view is at least plausible given the context of the Constitution’s adoption. 

We are now coming up on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. As I have argued elsewhere, the Declaration defends the legitimacy of the colonists’ separation from the Crown based on a claim to natural rights and human equality. The claim, at its most essential, is that all human beings are created equal in that they have certain inalienable natural rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government, the Declaration argues, is not legitimate unless it acknowledges and preserves these basic truths and protects these rights. 

The Declaration connects to the Constitution on this point. The Constitution was drafted, at least in part, to secure liberty and establish institutions capable of protecting natural rights. This is evident in its Preamble, which states that its aims are to, among other things,  “establish Justice . . . promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” 

Bringing these claims full circle to Oaks’s divinely inspired principles, it would make sense that they include “vital guarantees of individual rights” and governance by the rule of law such that “all persons are to be equal before the law.” The core of the Declaration’s bold claim of human equality and inalienable rights is central to what animates the inspired aspects of the Constitution.

Seeking Equal Justice

If we consider equal justice as an inspired principle, what does this add to Oaks’s previously established list of principles? It reinforces the notion that the Constitution protects the rights of all persons on an equal basis, thereby guaranteeing human equality. Equal justice, then, can be understood as the union of rights protection and the rule of law.

Notably, the combined words “equal justice” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. In one sense, this is of little concern. There are ample rights-protecting provisions enumerated in the document. And with the adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments, which “completed” the Constitution’s commitment to equal justice, it is clear that, at least as a matter of law, all are to be protected equally before the law and all citizens are guaranteed protection in their rights.

In another sense, there remains a deep, ongoing ambiguity in the law. Though discernible in the text, equal justice remains notoriously difficult to apply in the broader scheme of American governance. 

Take this example from Oaks’s article. He recounted a story of his law firm declining to hire a young lawyer merely because the lawyer was Jewish. After Oaks and his colleague protested, the young attorney was hired and went on to become a managing partner. From this example, it is clear that Oaks had in mind, at a minimum, the idea that equal justice allows all to participate equally in civil life and proceed—whether they rise or fall—based on merit alone. (As noted below, equal justice was not compelled by law in this instance, yet the principle was operative nonetheless.)

In theory, equal justice seems straightforward. Whoever performs best ought to receive the best rewards. (For the moment we will bracket the question of who decides and by what metric.) The idea is that those who are naturally more talented or who work harder will simply rise to the top. After all, the Declaration’s—and, by extension, the Constitution’s—promise is that all will receive the blessings of liberty so long as they are governed by law and their rights are protected. 

But practical reality very soon gets in the way. Often in this nation’s past, those promises went not only unfulfilled but were actively frustrated, particularly for this nation’s black population. From slavery to Jim Crow, rights were perpetually violated and equal justice was a sham. The sort of rights deprivation that took place was certainly more than enough to justify revolution, at least by the Declaration’s standards.

Eventually, these wrongs were removed through the Reconstruction Amendments and later civil rights legislation. But were the wrongs ever fully remedied? Was there proper restitution? There remained the practical reality that a certain segment of the population had been deprived of every right imaginable and now had to find their way in America. The ever-present question, then, is whether the Constitution’s conception of justice would be sufficient to guarantee basic human equality.

The Reconstruction Amendments guaranteed equal protection of rights. They did not necessarily guarantee equal access to the conditions required to exercise those rights. If generations of injustice deprived some citizens of property, education, or opportunity, would the mere cessation of discrimination be sufficient to secure the Constitution’s promise of equal justice? Or does equal justice require more than noninterference? Or, alternatively, does the Constitution merely settle for the idea that, moving forward, rights would not be infringed? Is that equal justice?

Perhaps the answer lies in some other divinely inspired principle, as Oaks left open the possibility that there were others not listed. And, of course, even the ones identified are not self-executing. Are mercy, grace, or restitution divinely inspired principles conceivably within the bounds of the Constitution?

Oaks and his colleague did not need to stand up for the young Jewish lawyer; nothing in the Constitution required it. After all, equal justice does not demand that an individual be able to force another to employ him or her. But this shows the gravity of Oaks’s actions. He acted even though the law imposed no obligation to do so. He saw that justice required the firm to adhere to a higher principle in its hiring practices. This might suggest that maintaining equal justice is more than simply refraining from violating the rights of others. It might include actively ensuring that fellow citizens are treated with equal dignity and respect, as Oaks did in his example.

It is beyond the scope of this essay to delineate a carefully orchestrated political program to achieve equal justice in our political moment. But if equal justice means the protection of natural rights through the rule of law for the end of securing the blessings of liberty, there is much more that must be done than apathetically standing on the sidelines. Oaks provided one vision of that end as “the advancement of all on the basis of merit.” 

Whatever it might look like, it will require active assessment of our moment and whether equal justice demands more. It will take careful analysis and prudent action to determine whether prior rights deprivations have been remedied or whether current rights deprivations appear as the same old snake but in new skin. This nation has come a long way in seeking equal justice for all, and there is surely more that can and ought to be done. But the pursuit is just as critical as the end. If we diligently seek to realize the Constitution’s promise of equal justice, the Declaration can continue to serve as a standard for American self-government for the next 250 years.

The post Equal Justice and the Blessings of Liberty appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

“Surreal.” That’s all my mind could conjure on the morning of September 11, 2001. I was sitting in the waiting area of the old Moran Eye Center on Salt Lake City’s east bench. The entire wall across from me was a window, giving me a majestic view of the entire valley below. I was watching plane after plane glide from left to right and land at the Salt Lake International Airport. “So many planes.” Each one’s descent caused me to descend into greater anxiety and fear.

When I arrived to have the stitches removed from the corneal transplant in my right eye, everything already felt surreal. I had already heard the news of the second plane striking the World Trade Center and knew our nation was under attack. Just as I sat down in the waiting room, news broke of yet another plane hitting the Pentagon. “Surreal.” Then, the South Tower collapsed. I remember watching the inverse mushroom cloud engulf Lower Manhattan and thinking, “How is that even possible? There must be tens of thousands dead.”

While all civilian flights were being forced to land, reports continued of other hijacked aircraft. My eyes kept switching from the television to the endless parade of planes crossing the valley. From my vantage point, each one seemed headed straight for the Church Office Building of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with its eerily similar architecture to the Twin Towers. “Is one hijacked?” Fear overwhelmed me. “This can’t be happening. Surreal.” Suddenly, loud gasps, including mine, filled the room as the North Tower collapsed. Everyone reflexively looked at one another, confusion, shock, almost desperation, in our eyes. “What’s next? Surreal.”

“Dr. Lundergan,” I said, “I can wait or come back another day.” This stoic professional broke down, dropping the tweezers as her hands sought unsuccessfully to hide her tears. I stood up and weakly offered, “It’s OK. We’re all having a really bad day.”

“No, no. My husband is still on a plane,” she blurted out between deep sobs. His flight had departed from Boston, the same airport as the first hijacked airliner. My heart filled with sympathy and sorrow. I embraced her, a relative stranger, and tried my best to reassure her. After a few moments, she excused herself.

Sometime later, Dr. Lundergan returned relieved, even joyful. Her husband had called her from Chicago, where his flight had landed. Her expert hand steadily removed the stitches on my eye. I thanked her, and she, embracing me this time, replied, “And thank you.”

As I returned to work, that tender moment gave me some momentary hope. It was soon dashed by fear and anxiety as I listened to the news and worried about the world my young sons would inherit. I drove past the World-Trade-Center-look-alike Church Office Building, with hundreds of evacuated employees fleeing to safety. As my anxiety deepened, I saw the Salt Lake Temple. At that moment, I felt the words, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” That intense feeling of “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding” filled my heart and mind. It was, well, surreal—beyond reality.

Surrealism’s greatest advocate, André Breton, described the movement as a way “to resolve the previously contradictory conditions of dream and reality.” The tragedy of 9/11 was a surreal nightmare, yet what followed in the days, weeks, and even months was a surreal sense of national unity. It seemed the “resolving” of raw reality with the elusive dream of a people “of one heart and mind,” “having their hearts knit together in unity,” with “no contention one with another” who “mourn with those that mourn; who “are willing to bear one another’s burdens,” and who “[dwell] in righteousness.” 

America experienced a strong trauma bond, from the tens of thousands directly affected by the attacks to the hundreds of millions who experienced it through media coverage. In Pew’s survey just days after the attacks, 92% of Americans responded they felt sad, 77% felt frightened, and 71% felt depressed. Yet, three weeks later, the rates had already halved. As a nation, we “mourned with” and “comforted” one another.

Much of this healing came from a nation turning to God with “hearts knit in prayer,” greater religious observance, and most importantly, an increase in character “righteousness.” Before the attacks, Pew found that only 37% felt religion’s role in American life was increasing. A month after 9/11, that number was 78%, the highest ever recorded. Furthermore, in a survey following the attacks, 69% responded that they prayed more, and 16% that they attended religious services more. 

Most importantly, the character of the nation improved. As one study showed, people exhibited sharply increased “gratitude, hope, kindness, leadership, love, spirituality, and teamwork” in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Diminished, yet still elevated levels persisted even 10 months later. The authors wrote, “The theological virtues allowed people to enhance their sense of belonging in ways that could be self-perpetuating. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, people behaved differently by turning to others, which in turn changed their social worlds so that the relevant behaviors were rewarded and thus maintained.”

Politically, the nation was of “one mind.” George W. Bush, the winner of a controversial election, saw his approval rating go from 50% to an astounding 90%, again, the highest ever recorded. Patriotism soared. Eighty percent of citizens displayed an American flag outside their residence. Levels of trust in the federal government hit 60%, a number not seen since 1968. News organizations received a record 70% approval. 

That unity even spread to other nations. It was most palpable when Salt Lake City hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics just five months after 9/11. On the evenings my wife and I attended the medal ceremonies downtown, I remember the strong feeling of solidarity between people from all across the world. The intense unity in the opening and closing ceremonies was unforgettable. I remember thinking, “This is how Zion will be; this is how the Millennium will feel.”

On the one-year anniversary of 9/11, while the intensity of the unity had faded, its afterglow was still vibrant. In a devotional that night, then-church president Gordon B. Hinckley noted, “We know that much good has come of these dreadful circumstances. From the smoke and ashes of New York, Washington, D.C., [and] Pennsylvania…has arisen a greater sense of unity and purpose.” In that same meeting, James E. Faust noted, “These ignoble acts of terrorism reawakened in all of us an appreciation for our blessed land. Out of this disaster have come hundreds of stories of courageous acts of unselfishness and heroism.”

September 11 is officially Patriot Day and a Day of Service and Remembrance. We who lived through that time surely remember the surreal nightmare of 9/11, the stories of the courageous, patriotic men and women of that time, and especially the memories of the victims. The National September 11 Memorial Museum’s motto, taken from the Aeneid, declares in large letters of recovered World Trade Center steel, “No Day Shall Erase You From the Memory of Time.”

Tragically, however, the surreal national unity was erased, or as another society once proclaimed, “ZION IS FLED.” The chart below demonstrates just how far we are from those precious months of national unity, patriotism, and loving service.

There are many reasons that our surreal unity evaporated. Chief among them was how short-lived the post-9/11 religious revival was. A study on young adults’ responses to 9/11 put it best. The attacks “exerted only modest and short-lived effects” on religiosity and spirituality. What it said of young adults was true for most of the populace. “[T]urning toward religion simply helped them get through the aftermath of the event, but was not something that resulted in any considerable religious or spiritual change.” Later polling demonstrated that it was “largely those already highly religious” whose increased religiosity and spirituality endured.

In the Book of Mormon, the Nephite civilization repeatedly went through similar experiences. After a period of prosperity, peace, unity, and righteousness, pride led society into “ranks” or “classes” based on wealth, education, and political power. As a result, internal discord brought civil wars and/or societal weakness that enemies exploited with war. Following those societal traumas, the humbled people generally repented and found a new season of peace and unity—only to fall again. This seems the reality of not just Nephite history, but history in general. An enduring period of unity and peace for a people or a nation is truly surreal—“beyond reality.” 

And yet, many of us experienced it, if only briefly, after 9/11. While we were “compelled to be humble,” most Americans chose “repentance,” and chose to change. We passed, again, if only briefly, what Elder Dale G. Renlund in 2021 likened to a cardiac stress test. However, our society has transformed greatly since 2001. Many cultural, religious, political, technological, and institutional changes have left us fractured like the late 1960s and early 1970s, if not the late 1850s.

As a nation, we generally failed the 2020 pandemic and presidential election stress test. Divisiveness, distrust, and anger have all increased dramatically. The results were mixed and certainly not good enough within the Church. As Elder Renlund put it, “The spiritual stress test [of the pandemic/political environment] has shown tendencies toward contention and divisiveness. This suggests that we have work to do to change our hearts and to become unified as the Savior’s true disciples.”

There will continue to be societal stress tests until He comes whose right it is to reign. Along with many others, I believe the next six months will be one of those tests. Regardless of how the nation performs, the Church of Jesus Christ, the covenant people of the Lord, need to pass the test!

I encourage us on this year’s Patriots’ Day and Day of Service and Remembrance to solemnly remember those we lost and to remember the lost, surreal post-9/11 national unity. We must do the hard work of unity in the Church, in our communities, and in the nation. We can serve one another, particularly those we disagree with. We can ask the questions Elder Renlund posed. “What can I do to foster unity? How can I respond to help this person draw closer to Christ? What can I do to lessen contention and to build a compassionate and caring Church community?”

And we can be patriots. As President James E. Faust said at the September 11, 2002 devotional:

We, as [American] citizens, are among the most favored of any of God’s children ever to live under any government on the earth. This is still true despite our country’s many challenges and difficulties. With all of these favored circumstances come the responsibilities and duties of citizenship. We should be participants, not merely bystanders, in the processes of democracy to ‘preserve us as a nation.’

We must choose to be the surreality that, to paraphrase Breton, resolves the contradictory conditions of the dream of Zion and the reality of human society. Let us choose to be surreal.

The post Reflections on 9/11: Why America’s Unity Didn’t Last appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Some of the most influential organizations working today saw their birth during these time periods, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Many of these organizations came about to help rectify historic injustices faced by members of their community. But this is far from the only purpose of civil rights organizations.

The mechanisms of legal change are often benefited by civil rights organizations. By having organizations dedicated to these issues, they can raise awareness of certain trends that affect the people their organization represents, they can raise funds to pursue legal cases important to their cause, they can engage in lobbying for laws that will disproportionately affect their community, or litigate laws that do. In many real ways, identity groups without their own civil rights organization are at a disadvantage in the United States’ political and cultural arena. 

One of the earliest groups with this kind of focus is the National Grange. While it started more as a fraternal organization, it soon recognized it could play an important role in advocating for the needs, interests and rights of farmers and rural communities—a group that required distinct advocacy but that had not experienced historic discrimination.

Today, there are many civil rights organizations. Some represent the needs of historically disadvantaged groups, such as the NAACP or the ADL. But many represent other groups, such as the NRA, AARP, or the Home School Legal Defense Association.

After Protestants and Catholics, Latter-day Saints represent the third largest religious identification in the United States, with a very similar population to American Jews.

There are many civil rights organizations that focus on the Jewish population or issues of importance to them. These include the Anti-Defamation League, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and what is widely believed to be the earliest civil rights organization for a religious group, the American Jewish Committee.

There is no comparable organization among Latter-day Saints.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself has often acted as the primary focus for efforts to advocate for Latter-day Saints. But it’s a religious, not a civil rights organization. And its public affairs arm is by its nature suited for response, not advocacy.

There are a few other groups that seek to advance Latter-day Saint interests such as FAIR Latter-day Saints, The Widtsoe Foundation, Faith Matters, and the Elizabeth McCune Institute, but they do so through educational, devotional, and apologetic work rather than legal advocacy or media relations. A gap remains in dedicated Latter-day Saint civil rights advocacy.

On the political side, the most notable movement has been Mormon Women for Ethical Government, an organization of left-wing Latter-day Saint women that arose to oppose Donald Trump and the politicians who supported him. But their focus was on a specific political issue, not on representing the needs of Latter-day Saint women. Similarly, Brigham Young University has an International Center for Law and Religious Society that does important advocacy work on a topic of importance to Latter-day Saints, international religious freedom, but has not paid any sustained specific attention to Latter-day Saints beyond their own identification with the faith. 

There are a handful of individual voices that note civil rights issues related to Latter-day Saints, who have drawn notable if moderate followings on social media, but even these individuals tend to be more focused on devotional and cultural issues. And their efforts lack the kind of structure and planning that a single organization can provide.

The lack of a Latter-day Saint civil rights organization has had a negative effect in many arenas of public life.

Even those who are dismissive of complaints about the mistreatment of Latter-day Saints as being not that important can recognize that many groups who are substantially successful in the United States still benefit from legal organizations that are dedicated to supporting their civil rights. In fact, the lack of such an organization could play a notable role in allowing the mistreatment of certain groups to fester or remain. Effective advocacy can build cultural cachet—the kind Latter-day Saints continue to lack.

Given this environment, we believe it is time for a civil rights organization to be founded specifically to advocate for the rights of Latter-day Saints in political, legal, and cultural spaces.

The post It’s Time for Latter-day Saints to Have a Civil Rights Organization appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Exactly 246 years after Congress voted to declare independence (July 2, 1776), I pressed the send button on my computer screen and submitted my application to become a U. S. Citizen (July 2, 2022). When I moved to the United States, from Canada, in 1991, I was an immature young man, recently married to a most wonderful American woman (I am still married to her 30-plus years later, and she is still most wonderful), and what I found most exciting was watching American college sports. I did not know much about American history or the Constitution, but I was excited to attend University of Utah football and basketball games. Thirty-one years later, I became an American citizen and would like to share with my fellow Americans what I find remarkable about American democracy and the U.S. Constitution.

First, democratic freedom is exercising control over how communities and societies are governed and NOT being left alone by the state, so you can do whatever you want. The latter is individualism, where the self takes precedence over the group and is a misguided notion of democratic freedom. Democratic freedom is a collective, and many voices must be blended together. Stated another way, a free state allows people to control how it is governed; it is not a state where government interference is limited as much as possible. In its extreme, a limited government is anti-democratic. I believe too many Americans do not understand the difference between democratic freedom and individualism and that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain the capacity to implement control over how communities and societies are governed, not to create radical individualism.

Second, too many Americans focus too much on the American Revolutionary War or “1776” and not enough on America’s Constitutional Conversation from 1760-1840. They focus more on George Washington as commander of the Continental Army and not enough on Washington, the listener and the person who had the strength to be open-minded and change his mind on the nature of government and slavery. Dr. Amar’s extensive research tells us that during America’s Constitutional Conversation, Washington was

“… an outstanding listener. He absorbed information well …  Adams loved to talk, but often failed to listen. Jefferson wore ideological blinders, and routinely took in only what he wanted to take in. Washington excelled at soliciting and processing advice and information from a broad range of sources. At the Philadelphia Convention, he was indeed the listener in chief” (p. 303).

There is no doubt that Washington demonstrated military prowess and courage, but what is often overlooked, he also had auditory proficiency and an open mind. Washington was a voracious reader, “scourging every piece of printed information he could find” and “pondering speeches and writing on both sides of the [ratification] question. Washington himself had been emphatically on one side—the yes side—but he understood there was another side, and further understood that there were many honorable people and many honorable arguments on that side” (p. 307). Unlike King George III, who was not listening to “the people,” George Washington was listening to “the people.” Dr. Amar is clear that Washington understood that in the early days of the republic, his most paramount role was to keep the Union together by “showing skeptics and critics that their voices had indeed been heard, that the promises made in ratification conventions … would be redeemed, not ignored (p. 309). Washington had the cognitive flexibility to compromise. Washington (and almost all of the other Philadelphia signers) had rejected George Mason’s proposal to create a Bill of Rights but was then open-minded enough to reflect and change his view and agree with the Anti-Federalists. If Washington were alive today, he would not, like many Americans and political leaders on both sides, become tribal in his political views. I believe Washington would be greatly disappointed with the inability of so many politicians to find a middle ground.

A compromise is a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. The U.S. Constitution and Congress are places of compromise. The House of Representatives comprises 435 elected members, divided among the 50 states in proportion to their total population, and their values and beliefs differ. The Senate is composed of 100 Senators, two for each state. Healthy final decisions in Congress are compromises. What is way too familiar today and also dysfunctional are politicians and political parties who lack the psychological skill set of cognitive elasticity and instead display cognitive rigidity, which is the inability to adapt or change mentally. Cognitive rigidity is supported by confirmation bias, which drives us to seek information that supports our established positions and is at the core of many mental health problems. American democracy needs to start with listening and finding where opposing ideas link, such as what Washington did, so that we can see “the other” as someone who cares, not as the demon standing in our way.

To this end, American democracy is messy; it requires good-faith negotiations, permanently settling for something in the middle. The Bill of Rights, for example, took shape over years in a cluttered process. Rather than weaving these rights into the original documents, as James Madison originally wanted, the House proposed to add amendments/rights to the end of the Constitution. But the Senate then rejected some of the provisions and reorganized others. Compromise won out, and today we have an excellent Bill of Rights. Although questionable, the Founding Fathers preserved the immoral institution of slavery as a needed compromise to ensure the passage of the Constitution.

Fourth, and connected to the third axiom stated above, democracy and the U.S. Constitution were designed to move slowly and are not undergirded by instant gratification. In writing in the Atlantic (May 2022) regarding why American life has become uniquely stupid, linked to the influence of social media, psychologist Jonathan Haidt captured this so very well:

It was just this kind of twitchy and explosive spread of anger that James Madison had tried to protect us from as he was drafting the U.S. Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution were excellent social psychologists. They knew that democracy had an Achilles’ heel because it depended on the collective judgment of the people, and democratic communities are subject to “the turbulence and weakness of unruly passions.” The key to designing a sustainable republic, therefore, was to build in mechanisms to slow things down, cool passions, require compromise, and give leaders some insulation from the mania of the moment while still holding them accountable to the people periodically, on Election Day.

American democracy is not like social media, smartphones, or 24-hour live cable news networks that are all based on a foundation of instant gratification. The greatness of American democracy is the mechanisms to slow things down, think, ponder, reflect, move slowly, and calm passions.

Fifth, the full force of the freedoms of the Bill of Rights did not occur in the early creation of America; instead, it was Lincoln and the result of the Fourteenth Amendment that allowed the Federal government (not State governments) to become the trustworthy guardians of the First Amendment’s freedoms—speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Passed on June 8, 1866, after Lincoln’s assassination, and ratified on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States,” including formerly enslaved people. It provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment recognized a federal right to be free from state action. In addition, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments transformed the constitution, and too many Americas are still rooted in the pre-civil war constitution. Today, too many Americans see the Federal government as a problem in trampling on State rights, but historically the Federal government of the Lincoln and post-Lincoln years is the authentic guardian of the First Amendment’s freedoms.

Repeating Dr. Amar, historians use words such as extraordinary military and moral courage, organizational discipline, tactual cleverness, and strategic vision to describe Washington. He believed in popular self-government, civilian hegemony, rights protection, and the rule of law. But he still was not perfect. In his early years, Washington was known to work his slaves hard, and if they avoided work, he had them flogged, and if they ran and he caught them, Washington then sold them. This is the not-so-good young man Washington. This past should not be lost, overlooked, or hidden. Young Washington supported slavery. 

But what made Washington outstanding was his ability to listen and change his mind. Over many years Washington bonded with his manservant, William Lee, and over time changed his views on slavery. It took time, but his new ideas toward equality changed, first by resolving not to break up slave families. Then, as an older man, Washington freed his slaves, his private actions advocated for slavery to end, and in his will, he made substantial financial provisions for his freed slaves. The real-life of Washington needs to be learned by Americans, not just the cherry-picked good parts. Likewise, Abraham Lincoln was another truly great man, but he was not perfect either (as no one is perfect). Early in his Presidency, Lincoln felt he could assuage white concerns about abolition by making it clear Whites and free Blacks could not live side by side and suggested free Blacks could be colonized to different places and have a choice in where they were transported.

Another example is Thomas Jefferson, unquestionably, one of America’s most important founders who championed freedom, achieved the paramount Louisiana Purchase, and was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. But Jefferson had journalist James Callender, known as a “scandalmonger,” on a secret payroll, and Jefferson wanted Callender to break the story of Alexander Hamilton’s marital affair. Alexander Hamilton became a leading voice of the Federalists, who believed the federal government needed to be strong. In contrast, Jefferson argued that too much power in the hands of the federal government would lead to tyranny. Jefferson wanted to shame Hamilton publicly. When Jefferson distanced himself from Callender and stopped paying him, Callender then broke the story that Jefferson had a slave mistress, and Jefferson had paid him to share Hamilton’s infidelity with the American people. Thomas Jefferson did so many good things but was far from perfect.

After I pledged my allegiance to the Flag—a sacred promise of loyalty to the United States—everyone in that room was given a wonderful short letter by President Biden that stated, “We are forever a Nation of possibilities.” America is a Nation of possibilities undergirded by an amazing Democracy and Constitution, but what makes it so unique are leaders like Washington and Lincoln, who demonstrated cognitive elasticity and were committed to compromise. I wish more Americans and political leaders understood this part of America.

The post What I Learned About The Constitution Studying to Become a US Citizen appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Students of the philosophical foundations of the American Revolution will be familiar with the English philosopher John Locke’s “Second Treatise on Government,” one of the classic formulations of the doctrine, echoed by the Declaration of Independence and Barbie in “Toy Story 3,” that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Locke’s First Treatise is less well-known. It consisted of a lengthy rebuttal to “Patriarcha,” a book by Locke’s rival philosopher Robert Filmer. Filmer argued that the idea that governments originated in a contract by the governed to delegate power to their governors was ahistorical and absurd and proposed instead that the power of kings originated with the patriarchal authority of the biblical Adam over his children.

Locke, and others, ridiculed that idea on the ground (among many others) that after thousands of years of tangled history, conquests, and usurpations, a claim by a king to rule as Adam’s senior descendant was absurd. Thomas Paine, in one of the sickest burns in polemical history, succinctly dispatched George III’s claim to rule as the descendant of William the Conqueror:  “A French bastard landing with an armed Banditti and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally origin[.]”

Nevertheless, the idea that we are ruled by our consent may be a more useful fiction than other, equally fictional origin stories. We consent to be ruled, if only by declining, each April, to throw tax collectors in the nearest convenient muddy pond. While the connection between our votes and the policies that come out the other end of the political sausage factory may be more or less attenuated – it’s not nothing, and it’s more than we had back when whatever kings and emperors said was the last word. 

Nevertheless, there remains a tension between “consent” and “divine right,” even today. And it manifests in sometimes unexpected contexts. 

The American constitutional system, while substantially democratic, does not accept an unlimited principle of vox Populi, vox Dei. From the beginning, we have recognized that certain human rights are “unalienable,” “endowed by [our] Creator”—even when a majority of the people might want to alienate them. Under this understanding, we, the people, do not so much invent law out of whole cloth or codify our mere whims into legal rules. Rather, our obligation as citizens is to attempt to discern what justice requires and conform our formal laws to what that is. 

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s monumental “Letter from Birmingham Jail” expounded on this understanding of what law is:

“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” 

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”       

The reference to St. Thomas Aquinas referred to this passage from his Summa Theologica:  “A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason, it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence”

That is simultaneously a radical notion and an extraordinarily conservative one. Radical, in the sense that no matter how powerful and pedigreed a king might be, or however strong a popular consensus—if a thing is objectively unjust, laws enforcing it have no more claim on people’s obedience than nightsticks and prisons and bullets can compel. It has no more moral weight than the gunpoint demand of a robber. And conservative, in the sense that if there exists an objective moral law, it is something that existed before we happened to be born, which we cannot change simply by exercising our individual or collective will.

If that is true, then “consent,” and consent alone, cannot be the sole foundation of the obligations we are subject to. And an ethic that makes an idol out of solus consensus will wind up exalting nothing more substantial than the sovereign individual will. Which is as “paltry [and] rascally” a foundation as George III’s claim of descent from an illegitimate Frenchman. Because the truth is that no human being goes through life as a Nietzschean superman, subject only to his own almighty will. His will itself—what he thinks of as his deepest self—is a grab-bag of influences from his biological inheritance and his environment. “Practical men,” wrote the economist John Maynard Keynes, “who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slave of some defunct economist.”  Sometimes, briefly, we notice that and have flashes of real original, independent thought. But even the best of us would probably estimate their batting average in that department to be roughly on a level with a decent American League designated hitter’s. In other words, in this natural world, there’s an awful lot of what we call our “will” that we can’t even properly call our own. Being too eager to reject any authority but our own—to strangle the kings with the guts of the priests or anyone else with the temerity to suggest that our individual will is not supreme—tends to just make new kings out of the most enthusiastic stranglers.     

The truth is that we all enter the world subject to obligations we have no memory of having ever chosen. The most immediately obvious of these are the obligations members of a family owe to each other.

We recognize as childish a childish resistance to a parent’s direction to make one’s bed on the ground that “I didn’t ask to be born!”  Well, you were born. Here you are. You landed on this earth, born to parents who have obligations to you, and you have reciprocal obligations to them. (You also, you’ll discover in good time, have obligations to your siblings, to your neighbors, and to the rest of the world, just by virtue of existing among them. But we’ll start with making your bed.)

People are messy and often annoying. Abstractions are as clean and comfortable as our imaginations can make them. The reason the human family is such an unsurpassed laboratory of virtue is because, unlike “humanity” or other abstractions, its members are tangible, visible, and present in all their flesh and blood reality. “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”  (1 John 4:20).  As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “The family is the original cell of social life … The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into [the] life of society.”  

In its extended discussion of the Fifth Commandment (counted as the Fourth in the Catholic tradition), the Catechism asserts that the commandment “illuminates other relationships in society. In our brothers and sisters, we see the children of our parents; in our cousins, the descendants of our ancestors; in our fellow citizens, the children of our country … in every human person, a son or daughter of the One who wants to be called ‘our Father.’”  Expanding further, it is declared that “the love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity.”

In a law school class, I once echoed the point, often made by others, that America is fundamentally an “idea,” referring to our founding traditions of equality and liberty. My professor (a prominent figure who will go unnamed) answered with a smile that it was nice to think so, but America’s truest foundations were really oppression, conquest, and slavery. I remember actually blinking in surprise: I suppose I had figured such naked and evidently gleeful contempt for my country was mostly an exaggerated figure of right-wing talk-show imagination. 

In retrospect, though, I think we were both wrong, at least in part. The United States is blessed that so much of its distinctive identity is bound up with its founding principles: that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is further blessed by the long and continuing story of our efforts to live up to those principles. 

But that is not all that America is. When Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, referred to the “mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land,” he was not drawing only on abstract principles of liberty and equality. Yes, we love, or ought to love, our country in due recognition of its good qualities. But we also love and honor our country simply because it is ours. 

That does not mean that we love our country irresponsibly or uncritically, any more than is the case with our families. If the Fifth Commandment and patriotic honor of one’s country are indeed cousins, then “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37) applies to our native lands as well. “In the film ‘Lawrence of Arabia,’ which is based on a screenplay by playwright Robert Bolt, the titular character answers, when asked if he is loyal, that a patriot’s loyalty is “to England, and to other things.” 

“My country, right or wrong” has been ridiculed as making as much sense as “My wife, drunk or sober.”  But that quip may obscure the differences in our particular obligation to a drunk family member as distinct from a random drunk. Whether my wife is drunk or sober (she is, for the record, very thoroughly the latter), she is first and foremost my wife. And while it would be uncharitable enough of me to laugh at an alcoholic stranger, it would be a much graver disloyalty for me to take pleasure in condemning the weakness of a person to whom I owe special obligations. 

Likewise, there is a difference between the striving of a “loyal opposition” to better conform one’s country’s laws and institutions to justice versus a mindset that appears to actually relish accusing one’s country of the worst evils. 

C.S. Lewis, in a lesser-known essay entitled “The Dangers of National Repentance,” observed that the call for “repentance” often contained more accusation of others than contrition for one’s own failings. “A group of such … penitents will say, ‘Let us repent our national sins’; what they mean is, ‘Let us attribute to our neighbor … whenever we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy.”  Comparing loyalty to one’s country, and its limits, to filial loyalty, Lewis continued:  “The sight of a Christian rebuking his mother, though tragic, may be edifying; but only if we are quite sure that he has been a good son and that, in his rebuke, spiritual zeal is triumphing, not without agony, over strong natural affection. The moment there is reason to suspect that he enjoys rebuking her … the spectacle becomes merely disgusting.”  

It is possible for criticism to be loyal, constructive, and loving. It is also possible for it to be otherwise. 

Of course, the dividing line can sometimes be less than clear or even actively obscured. Because we are human, the line between “healthy communication to bring about necessary change,” on the one hand, versus “petty, self-serving accusation” will often be perceived differently depending on which side of the criticism we’re on—in our families or our larger community life. As if that didn’t make it hard enough, our respective favored “stationary bandits” have powerful incentives to seek political and financial advantage (there is substantial overlap between the two) by branding the opposition as seditious—as fundamentally disloyal to the core of the American identity.

So in practice, how do we counter these dynamics?  

We start, first and foremost, by simply wanting to counter them. By acknowledging that whether we find ourselves in the majority or minority on any particular issue, we owe each other basic obligations as members of the human family and of our communities. If there is one common thread in all of the toxic governmental philosophies of the last century, it is the Big Lie that some of us are exempt from those obligations because only our interests matter.

Finally, a sense of proportion, a sense of gratitude, and a sense of justice. Our zeal to further refine our country’s gold should not cause us to dismiss the achievements of our fathers and mothers nor equate gross past evils, defeated by great cost and sacrifice, with incremental reforms that we think still ought to be made. If, in every political contest, we are certain our opponents compare with the monstrous twentieth-century tyrants on their worst day, it is certain that we’ve lost the plot. 

The love and honor we owe to our country, like that we owe to our family, is not our highest obligation. Yet pursuing and cultivating those natural loves of our earthly home helps prepare us to love our true home and recognize it when we see it.

The post Star-Spangled Morality: Fidelity in American Patriotism appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Poverty is on the increase in the United States this spring.  Just putting food on the table has become more expensive for low-income people in the past months as SNAP (food stamp) benefits, which had been increased during the pandemic, have been cut back by about one-third just as inflation is reaching record highs, and grocery, rent, and fuel prices have increased. This reduction in benefits not only affects people who must juggle paying for food versus paying for rent or utilities, or medicine but also increases the need for food banks and similar charitable organizations to find greater resources to help the needy.

Low-income people may also suffer health setbacks in the coming months. Millions who were allowed to keep Medicaid coverage without renewing it each year during the pandemic will lose it as states once again begin to check for eligibility. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 6.8 million of the 15 million people who will lose coverage are actually eligible to keep Medicaid but will lose it anyway due to ineffective coverage reviews by state governments. The effects of these cuts will be especially bleak in the eleven states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and so have no safety net of medical care for poor adults without dependents.

The expanded Child Tax Credit was allowed to expire because many congressional representatives feared that continuing it would discourage poor parents from seeking employment outside the home. However, a real-life experiment showed that this reasoning is faulty: When enhanced unemployment benefits were withdrawn in 26 states in 2022 after their governors speculated that the benefits were “keeping the unemployed from looking for work and fueling a labor shortage,” the withdrawal of benefits led to a slight uptick in jobs—but most affected people were not able to find work. Further, the cuts to benefits led affected individuals and families to reduce their spending by $2 billion, negatively affecting the economies in those states and significantly lowering the quality of life in those households.

The idea that parents must be required to work leaves families in desperate straits, as the government does almost nothing to enable parents to find jobs and also does little or nothing to help workers to be good parents, while high-quality childcare is distressingly expensive and vanishingly difficult to find. Even able adults without dependents are not necessarily able to find work when decreased unemployment benefits or additional work requirements supply incentives to do so.

One of the chief characteristics of Enoch’s City of Zion, which Latter-day Saints are hoping to build and become part of in these last days, was the absence of the poor (Moses 7:18). This was also a characteristic of the Zion society in 4 Nephi (4 Nephi 1:3). Consider that if in the Lord’s ideal city, there will be no poor, then it follows that there will be no rich, either. We will meet our brothers and sisters on a joyful equal ground where we can engage in the Lord’s work without worrying about money or who has what—we will all have sufficient for our needs. Or, more likely, we will all have “enough and to spare” (Doctrine and Covenants 104:17). In the meantime, we can work to bring that aspect of Zion into our lives as much as possible as we do what we can to alleviate poverty in this less-than-ideal world.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has taught of the damage wrought by poverty and the need to care for the poor:

When I see the staggering economic inequality in the world, I feel guilty singing with Mrs. Hewitt of “blessings which [God] gives me now [and] joys ‘laid up’ above.” That chorus cannot be fully, faithfully sung until we have honorably cared for the poor. Economic deprivation is a curse that keeps on cursing, year after year and generation after generation. It damages bodies, maims spirits, harms families, and destroys dreams. If we could do more to alleviate poverty, as Jesus repeatedly commands us to do, maybe some of the less fortunate in the world could hum a few notes of “There Is Sunshine in My Soul Today,” perhaps for the first time in their lives.

I almost despair that governments at the federal, state, or local levels will put aside the self-interests of wealthy and better-off Americans to consistently and effectively provide help to the poor and needy. There are things that governments have done and could do, but only if the hearts and minds of many of their constituents recognize that peace and prosperity for us all depend on recognizing the need to share our resources to the point where we all have “enough and to spare.” So the question becomes, what can an individual do? What can we, as Latter-day Saints, do to help the poor and needy? We might first consider the ways we have been taught to think about those less fortunate.

The post The Vanishing City of Zion: Poverty’s Resurgence in America appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

And the consequences of white Christian nationalism are predicted to be catastrophic. President Biden suggested it “threatens the very foundations of our Republic.” Time Magazine called it “the greatest threat to democracy in America today.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post quotes a professor predicting that white Christian nationalists will “become more radical, more militant,” and the author of a New York Times bestselling book on the subject suggests the movement could lead to “an autocrat who delivered on its Christian nationalist dreams.”

It’s a lot to take in. And the pace does not seem to be slowing down. Both the Washington Post and New York Times have written treatments on the subject just between writing and publishing this article. And a book set to be released this January predicts that white Christian nationalism will lead to a civil war.

There is a real threat, including among people of faith. Many on the right have become quick to dismiss any talk about “white Christian nationalism.” But that’s a mistake.   

Although white Christian nationalism has been defined in many ways, and expanded in troubling ways (see below), there’s still something at its root that might be widely appreciated as concerning. That includes an uncomfortable fusion of religion and politics, wherein “The church is supposed to direct the government,” in the words of Congressional Representative Lauren Boebert—and where political enemies begin to be associated with outright evil. 

Perhaps the most concerning element of what is being called “white Christian nationalism,” however, is an impulse towards aggression—both rhetorically, and in the threat of overt violence. What happened at the capitol on January 6 is the most prominent example, but there are other indications of percolating willingness to consider violence against the government.  

This includes a willingness to enforce Christian doctrine in the government—no matter what it takes. This can include violently overturning elections, installing authoritarian leaders, and removing constitutional rights. It’s not that white Christian nationalists don’t care about these things. It’s that in their conception, the rule of law and majority rule are not what define being American, but religious and racial identity. So if throwing away the rule of law and majority rule is necessary to secure a white Christian nation, they will do it. 

Any such aggression, of course, is incompatible with religious teaching in many faiths, including Latter-day Saint doctrine. Dallin H. Oaks, the second-most senior leader in the Church, said three months before the January 6th riots, “We obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome. In a democratic society, we always have the opportunity and the duty to persist peacefully until the next election.”

Russell Ballard, the acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has also said, “We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism” (emphasis added).

Religious freedom is baked into Latter-day Saint doctrine and history. Our articles of faith claim our own religious freedom and allows that same privilege to all others. And both Nauvoo and early Utah, which were run by Latter-day Saint leaders, had robust religious freedom protections, allowing the free exercise of religion for both Christians and non-Christians alike. 

Definitional creep. While there is something at the root of legitimate white Christian nationalism that is of real concern, the scope of the problem is frequently overstated. And the direst predictions are premature and overhyped.

In too many cases, the definition of white Christian nationalism has been significantly diluted in order to present it as a much broader problem than it is, in fact. The CNN article, for example, doesn’t define white Christian nationalism by its anti-democratic or violent possibilities but rather believing that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, believing in a warrior Christ, and the belief that there is such a thing as a “real American person.”

These beliefs can possibly lead to or reflect white Christian nationalist beliefs. But they are not white Christian nationalist beliefs in and of themselves. For example, you could believe that a real American exists, and is defined as a white Christian, but you could also believe a real American exists because you are making a tautological argument about illegal immigration.  This is a pattern—measuring beliefs that could but don’t necessarily represent white Christian nationalism—that is found in much research on this subject. 

Because people are unlikely to say to a pollster that they believe in violently overthrowing the government, researchers have attempted to find related beliefs that might somehow correspond with white Christian nationalism. But all too often, in public discourse, these downstream corresponding beliefs are then being used to define white Christian nationalism itself, such as in the CNN article.

But CNN is hardly the only perpetrator.

NPR recently published an interview that claimed, “Christian nationalists often rally under a call for religious freedom or religious liberty.” That’s right, NPR cites a researcher who claims that we can discern who belongs to a group that explicitly rejects religious freedom by looking for those who deeply believe in religious freedom. 

And while it’s true that white Christian nationalists also co-opt the term religious freedom, assuming that all who believe in the principle are doing so deceitfully is problematic. Are those who call for religious freedom for both Uyghur Muslims and American Jews white Christian nationalists? Only half the time? 

Many of these talking points come from research presented in the influential book Taking America Back for God. They defined Christian nationalism by asking six questions:

1. The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation
2. The federal government should advocate Christian values
3. The federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state
4. The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public places
5. The success of the United States is part of God’s plan
6. The federal government should allow prayer in public school 

The authors ultimately used these questions to group together everyone who even slightly supported Christian nationalism. It’s easy to see how these questions would identify many people as Christian nationalists who don’t share the ideology. If you are someone who believes students should be able to pray quietly to themselves in school, everything is part of God’s plan, abortion should be illegal, and decorating public spaces should be allowed for all local organizations, you would be identified as a Christian nationalist. This could be true even if you strongly opposed the idea that the United States should be a Christian nation and strongly supported enforcing the separation of church and state. 

What the authors of this book recognize that other commentators do not is that these overbroad surveys are good for tracking changes in sentiment over time, not determining accurate numbers at any given time. In fact (and contrary to much of the hype around us), the big-picture takeaway in the book is that white Christian nationalism has been on a slow decline over the last thirty years.

And it’s not just researchers expanding this definition. While President Biden may not have explicitly called out Christianity in his recent speech, he uses rhetoric to conflate those who deny elections and perpetrate violence with the 65% of Americans who believe abortion should be restricted and those that hold traditional views of marriage—both of which he himself believed during much of his political career. Both of these, of course, are common positions of mainstream Christians and other religious believers. They’re hardly exclusive to extremists.

Another way commentators seek to overstate the problem is to claim that Supreme Court decisions are facilitating white Christian nationalism. In fact, a paper with this title found its way into a major law review. Earlier this year NPR stoked fears that “Christian nationalism is getting legal legitimacy through the Supreme Court.” But this is a rather odd conclusion to come to given the unanimity behind many of the Supreme Court’s recent religious freedom cases. This argument requires believing that the Jewish Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Puerto Rican Sonia Sotomayer, and the Black Clarence Thomas are all facilitating white Christian nationalism when they decide—for example—that the TSA can be held financially liable for discriminating against two Muslim men. 

The idea would be farcical if it weren’t being taken so seriously by so many. 

Of course, some claim that it’s not merely laws about religion that are being influenced by white Christian nationalists. Recent changes in abortion law were frequently cited as a result of this ideology—with critics arguing that this was yet another reflection of an insidious attempt to make religious belief—in this case, that abortion was morally wrong—the law of the land.

But this metric is used with remarkable selectivity. 

Would it be fair, for example, to accuse Taylor Petrey, the editor of Dialogue, of being a white Christian nationalist merely because he tweeted Bible verses to support President Biden’s recent loan forgiveness? Of course not. 

Would it make any sense to accuse Stacey Abrams, the black gubernatorial candidate from Georgia, of being a white Christian nationalist because she says that her advocacy for legalized abortion comes from her “faith in God?”  Obviously not, which is why no one does that. Yet, it has become rather popular to claim that if religion motivates a different policy conclusion on abortion you are a Christian nationalist. 

As bizarre as it would be to accuse Stacey Abrams of white Christian nationalism, many of these surveys that seek to define it have rather interesting racial breakdowns. According to the influential Taking America Back for God survey, the racial group most likely to be a white Christian nationalist was black Americans, at 65%. It also found 21% of Jews were Christian nationalists.

You know something is crooked when your metric to measure attitudes that seek to place white Christians at the top of the social order is most supported by black Americans, and by 1 in 5 Jewish Americans. Clearly, these surveys are not measuring what they intend to. 

Neil Shenvi, a frequent critic of Christian nationalism, summarized the research around this issue, the “approach and methodology is too imprecise, and they’re catching a lot of people in this category that don’t belong there.”

All this has particular relevance for my own faith community. While more than half of all Latter-day Saints have lived outside of the United States for more than a generation, it is still frequently described as “the most American religion.” And because God restored the Church here, we believe that God cared about the founding of this nation and inspired some of the freedoms that allowed that to happen. 

Under the broad creeping definitions above, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to see more and more people talk about all Latter-day Saints as falling under this damning label. 

Political strategy at work. If the failings of the research in this area are so clear, why are concerns still repeated so breathlessly?

It should come as little surprise that white Christian nationalism is trending just as a midterm election is coming up.

Magnifying the hysteria is certainly an intriguing political ploy. Tying a threat to American democracy to your political opponents, magnifying the threat as big as possible and presenting yourself as the solution is an easy-to-understand political motivation—even if the effect is not inventing the problem, merely exaggerating it.

Much of the focus also likely comes from the recent newsworthy violence perpetrated by white Christian nationalists, such as the Charlotte demonstrations or the January 6th riots. And since the consequences of the success of this ideology could be so dire, it makes sense to be especially sensitive to it.

Many core Christian practices are increasingly portrayed as extremist in and of themselves. According to a 2016 Barna survey, missionary work, protesting based on religious beliefs, and believing in the traditional definition of marriage were each “extremist” positions according to more than half of Americans. In fact, nearly a quarter of Americans in the surveys believed abstinence until marriage is an “extremist” position.  

However politically advantageous they may be, moral panics are extraordinarily divisive. Not only do they harm targeted groups, but they also create anxiety and bad risk assessment decision-making in those who believe in them. The condition was first described fifty years ago:

A group emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnosis and solutions. 

It would be hard to find a more succinct explanation of what is happening with white Christian nationalism today. The author of this definition went on to make the point that the issues are real, but the claims are exaggerated about how serious or inevitable the harm is. All this fear has real-life consequences. I am familiar with people who have had to seek mental health treatment because they are so worried about the effects of white Christian nationalism. 

By claiming that those who hold mainstream Christian views are, in reality, extremist or white Christian nationalists, voices like Stewart or those in the survey also seem to hope to fundamentally alter the nature of Christian belief and practice. 

The ultimate effect of claiming that believing the government should pass policies in line with Christian values is white Christian nationalism or that protesting policies because of your faith is extremist is to scare Christians out of the public square. And the more moderate Christian positions you can tie to extremism through rhetoric or overly broad surveys, the more Christians you can exclude. In this way, the motivation may be political, but not only in the expedient near-term way we’re seeing today. It’s fair also to wonder about a longer-term attempt to push back on Christian efforts to oppose another insidious but often unnamed ideology, secular nationalism. 

Let’s talk about secular nationalism too. In much the same way that white Christian nationalism can reflect a distorted story about the nature of America that can lead to exclusion and violence, secular nationalism starts with a similar story. Namely, this story is that the United States was founded as an irreligious nation. Rather than being neutral to faith in the public square, this story is referenced to underscore an underlying antagonism to faith in civic spaces. 

These individuals believe religion should be allowed to exist within the United States, but only if it is kept tightly within the walls of churches and the home. They increasingly use extra-constitutional phrases like “separation of church and state” to describe the state of religious freedom in the country to obscure the actual constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion.

By some measures, secular nationalism is much more ascendant today than white Christian nationalism. In my view, while they have not shown the same willingness to undermine the democratic process, they use rhetoric that is no less exclusionary. And these secular nationalists show extreme willingness to use the power of government to coerce believers to violate their faith and use rhetoric that suggests that the religious should not use their religious principles to participate in the public square. This often happens alongside legal maneuvers to isolate and punish believers. For example, major national publishers have advocated financially punishing non-profit organizations which are religious. Missouri and Montana have recently had policies that punished organizations that were religious (playgrounds and schools, respectively). And support for these policies, which discriminated against people of faith, was widespread. 

Others states have also passed laws holding that people of faith cannot work in entire industries unless they are willing to blaspheme their faith by redefining important religious concepts according to government fiat.

These efforts to establish the United States as an explicitly secular nation, rather than, as intended, a religiously neutral nation have had substantial success in state houses—certainly more than white Christian nationalism. Yet they have received virtually none of the attention or criticism.

What we can do. None of this should be construed to suggest that white Christian nationalism is not a real and present danger to the United States. It is. And it should be treated as such. Fusions of politics and faith that place racial and religious identity as more important to national identity than peace and democratic norms should be identified and rooted out. And we can each do our part following the lead of Dallin H. Oaks and M. Russell Ballard.

Amanda Tyler, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty wrote this summer, “I think Christians, who continue to make up a majority of Americans, have a special responsibility to step up at this critical moment to reject Christian nationalism.” She has also started an organization, Christians Against Christian Nationalism which takes measured steps to address Christian nationalism without slipping into secular nationalism.

If those of us who are Christians stand up for our Christian values and decry Christian nationalism, it can be particularly effective because it makes it clear that the problem is limited and extreme while also pushing back against efforts to broaden the phenomenon into a moral panic. We have the unique ability to fight the problem on both sides. 

And we should work on developing a better approach to American identity. What ties each of us together is the onward pursuit of “liberty and justice for all.” Our founding set forward the audacious vision that we are all “created equal, that [we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This is a conception of the United States that is defined not by excluding people along racial or religious lines but by uniting all people who share that ambitious vision. That approach to our identity has the power to heal our divides and move us forward.

The post White. Christian. Nationalism. appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Of course, many people in America today do not share this perspective about the Constitution. Some believe that the Constitution is outdated and should be radically changed. Others want to go even farther and discard the Constitution altogether. For example, The New York Times recently published an essay titled “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” written by law professors Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn. These authors aspire to “reclaim America from constitutionalism—calling the Constitution “inadequate” and dismissing it as merely “a document written by largely affluent men.” Doerfler and Moyn believe it would be better if legislators could pass laws “without having to bother with the Constitution” and suggest “radically alter[ing] the basic rules of the game” and “openly defying the Constitution.” 

Constitutional constraints: Barrier or blessing? Similar to other progressive thinkers, Doerfler and Moyn characterize the Constitution as subverting the will of the majority while raising concerns that it “demands extraordinary consensus for meaningful progress.” While it is certainly true that the Constitution demands more than a simple majority for certain types of changes to occur, many Americans continue to appreciate this as a valuable feature instead of a bug. After all, changes don’t always represent progress and can sometimes be detrimental. The strict requirements in our Constitution for substantial shifts in our system, then, act as a safeguard against hasty and harmful changes.

In this way, our Constitution prevents today’s simple majority from overturning yesterday’s supermajority (the one that ratified the Constitution). Yet this idea offends many today, who are persuaded that what today’s majority wants must be clearly better than past views—reflecting what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery,” which he defined as “the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate of our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that count discredited.” 

Doerfler and Moyn’s essay is replete with chronological snobbery. In Doerfler and Moyn’s view, one of the Constitution’s alleged flaws is that it “orient[s] us to the past and misdirect[s] the present into a dispute over what people agreed on once upon a time.” They want Americans to carry out “the constant reinvention of our society under our own power, without the illusion that the past stands in the way.”

While it is possible to focus too much on the past, Doerfler and Moyn have gone too far in the other direction. There are many reasons to believe it’s foolish to dismiss the past as a mere obstacle standing in the way of “the constant reinvention of our society.” We need the wisdom of past generations to help us navigate our own times more effectively. 

The Constitution was certainly not perfect when it was ratified, and it is still not perfect today. There should be—and there is—a way to change the Constitution. But the Constitution is responsible for many of the successes that the United States has experienced throughout its relatively brief history. And we should all be cautious about changing the Constitution. 

Inspired and ancient wisdom. I am reminded of the debate that took place between Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke around the time of the American and French Revolutions. Like Doerfler and Moyn, Paine saw little reason to look to the past for guidance. As Paine famously said, “we have it in our power to begin the world over again.” Burke, however, understood that Paine’s approach would cut us off from the wisdom of our ancestors and prevent us from learning the lessons of the past. Rather than revolutionary shifts, Burke argued for slow, incremental reforms that build on the successes of the past. He valued a “disposition to preserve” coupled with “an ability to improve.”

As Burke cautioned, “Men little think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they do not understand,” while adding, “Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption.” The English statesman went on to warn against those who “think it amongst their rights to … commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society; hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin instead of a habitation.” We would do well to heed Burke’s wisdom when it comes to the Constitution.

My religious beliefs also caution against making hasty changes to the Constitution based on the whims of contemporary opinion. Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that God “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [God] raised up unto this very purpose.” This suggests to me that the founding generation had a great deal of wisdom from which we can learn. And requiring significant consensus for changes to occur shows respect for that wisdom. 

The principle of Chesterton’s fence is highly relevant to Doerfler and Moyn’s essay. Before going about to destroy the metaphorical “fences” erected by the Constitution, do you see any evidence they really understand their original and intended purposes? 

The Constitution is an important safeguard of natural rights. The fact that this may sometimes prevent the majority from getting its way should be celebrated, not lamented. James Madison acknowledged that “the sovereignty of the society” is “vested in and exercisable by the majority,” which “may do any thing that could be rightfully done.” However, “the reserved rights of individuals (of conscience, for example)” are “beyond the legitimate reach of sovereignty.” The Constitution is a critical mechanism through which these “reserved rights” are protected. Latter-day Saint scripture again affirms that the Constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” 

The source of our rights. Of course, not everyone shares this perspective about rights. While nearly everyone agrees that human beings have rights, there is considerable disagreement about what those rights are and—even more importantly—about the source of those rights. Are a person’s rights granted by the government? Or are there natural rights that pre-exist government?

This is directly contrary to what the Founders believed. According to the Declaration of Independence, the purpose of government is to secure “certain unalienable rights,” which all individuals possess in accord with “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” From this perspective, natural rights are not conferred by the government but by mankind’s Creator.

Protecting individual rights.  Doerfler and Moyn say that in a democracy, “majority rule always must matter most.” This makes sense only if you believe that rights come from the government. However, if you agree with the Founders and believe that there are natural rights that pre-exist government (as I do), then a really important reason to have a constitution is to protect those natural rights from being infringed upon by the majority. As Jonah Goldberg has said, “the fact that the Constitution is hard to change … provides assurance that we will not sacrifice some fundamental liberty in the heat of a given moment.” Majority rule is an important part, but not the only part, of the overall system of ordered liberty that the Constitution sets forth.

Doerfler and Moyn may very well be correct that the Constitution is “inadequate” for today’s challenges. After all, as John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

However, instead of blaming the Constitution for the very real problems that exist in America today, perhaps we should look inwardly instead. Instead of trying to reclaim America from constitutionalism, perhaps we should focus our efforts on reclaiming a sense of gratitude for the rich heritage that has been bequeathed to us.

The post The Constitution Should Be Defended, Not Discarded appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In sharp contrast, there is a dispiriting malaise that increasingly characterizes our lived experience of the state of our American Union. With many readers of Public Square Magazine, I find myself reflecting with increasing frequency of late on:

• The frightening unfreedom and the deepening division, mutual suspicion, and rancor in which we have become ensnared as a nation.
• And the flagging hope that God will yet work the miracle in our minds and hearts that he once wrought in the minds and hearts of our fathers (Note #1). That is, that he will prod us to discover, believe, espouse, and live the truths of the Declaration of Independence and, by so prodding, teach us to become Americans, unite us in self-government, and redeem the American Project.

With mounting anxiety for our country, I’ve been reflecting more deeply in this vein this year than in any previous year. My own conviction is that all hope for renewal lies in “re-knowal”—in being led to consciously and deliberately re-embrace that syllogism of five self-evident Truths articulated in the second paragraph of the Declaration:

(1) “That all men are created equal”

(2) “That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

(3) “That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

(4) “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

(5) “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It was only the discovery and belief of these truths, followed up by the humble faithful, and courageous espousal and living of them, that once transformed Englishmen into Americans, empowering them to bring forth the only truly free country of which secular history bears record. Nothing short of an analogous conversion can make Americans of us today or bring forth a purer and more permanent instantiation of that Blessed Free Country now slipping our grasp.

Some have questioned how distinctly, unreservedly, and unanimously our first American fathers really did once hold those saving civic truths. Others, not doubting the fathers’ clarity, sincerity, or unanimity, have asked: Were they wrong? Are those truths really true?

Thankfully, there are unambiguous answers to such questions. More importantly, the more thoroughly we explore both questions and answers, the more we will be brought to confront consciously and deliberately the question of our own, personal civic faith. Do we still hold these truths? And what might the practical consequences be of holding them to be true today?

In the howling tempest of our present civic discontent, as the cold civil war that embroils us becomes increasingly hot, George Mason’s admonishment to “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” (Note #2) beams like a lighthouse in the dark. If we should so recur now, might we not find those truths of the Declaration as relevant today, even essential to the success of the American Project, as ever?

My own conviction is that the miraculous historic phenomenon of Americans and America was possible only to a nation of truth-tellers. With many of our greatest presidents, I believe in the intrinsic connection between individual and national probity, on the one hand, and liberty and self-government, on the other.

All of which begs the question today: Has a nation of truth-tellers become a nation of liars? If so, how has this come about, and what have been the consequences for the American Project?

All such questions deserve deep exploration and attention, but perhaps none more than the essential question of conciliation. Why, in the mutual estrangement that threatens a national divorce, should we still insist upon seeking together this mutual conciliation? What is the difference between conciliation and appeasement? For a nation so peculiarly conceived and dedicated as ours, can there be, ultimately, any other ground for genuine conciliation than those same five truths asserted in the Declaration?

I invite you, in the weeks and months ahead, to join me in reflecting more deeply on questions such as these—not as idle philosophical speculations, but as the locus of enduring solutions to what is most urgently confronting us as an American people. As we do so, may God shine some light on our examinations, and coax forth some wholesome fruit therefrom.

Notes: 

1. I employ the term fathers in the special American sense so aptly described by Lincoln, in which he who understands, believes, and subscribes to those same truths becomes—by the same process of spiritual and civic rebirth, which had once transformed the fathers—blood of the blood, flesh of the flesh, of those first Americans. (See his speech at Chicago, IL, 10 JUL 1858, in reply to that of Judge Stephen A. Douglas of the previous day.)

2. George Mason, original draft (20 – 26 May 1776) of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, “That no free Government, or the Blessings of Liberty can be preserved to any People, but by a firm adherence to Justice, Moderation, Temperance, Frugality, and Virtue and by frequent Recurrence to fundamental Principles.”

The post Americans Once More? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Once upon a time, there was a country founded by a bunch of farmers and blacksmiths and silversmiths and bakers who got way too big for their britches and thought they ought to tell the fancy pants king to put his taxes where the sun don’t shine. They tossed tea in the harbor in case the king wasn’t clear they were right seriously peeved and declared themselves independent. 

At the heart of their audacity was a big idea about regular people with no crowns on their heads at all. They believed that when common folk can talk to each other and think for themselves, they come up with some pretty good ideas and can be their own bosses.

As so often is the case with folks who’ve had to shut up for way too long and listen to a fancy pants king, these people became real chatterboxes. They talked to each other while they milled flour, hunted turkey, milked cows, dipped candles, carded wool, made wigs, built wagon wheels, hammered metal, shoed horses … well, you get the point. They were very tired people. Nonetheless, these blabbermouths talked and talked. They even talked on paper as printing presses made it so farmers and blacksmiths and silversmiths and bakers could talk to more and more people at the same time.

The Marketplace of Ideas

This was the birthplace of the village square or public square.  It wasn’t always exactly a “square” in the “village,” although sometimes it was. It was the spirit of all this talking. All of a sudden good ideas were coming from a bazillion different brains, not just the king’s one brain. As you might imagine, the hotsy-totsy wrinkled old King, who liked ideas to come from his brain because he usually agreed with himself, didn’t like this new idea one bit and he got pretty snippy and tried to make them shut up.

It didn’t work.

He got so mad that he put his people in some spiffy looking bright red coats and the kickin-est powdery wigs that were ever to dude up an army, he gave them bayonets and stood’em in a real straight line in front of the farmers and blacksmiths and silversmiths and bakers and asked them to march. Well, that didn’t work out so well for the king, but that’s a story for another day.

Agreeing to disagree

These regular old folks without crowns on their heads found out soon enough that it’s a lot easier to make decisions if you’re the king and you’ve only got to convince yourself. Not only did they often disagree when they talked, they sometimes made each other really mad. They fussed and fought among themselves about this and that, but in the end, they decided to agree on what they could agree on and agree to disagree about the rest. And they decided to keep right on talking. They eventually agreed on a lot of important things so they wrote them down on paper. They even put in a lot of words to make it safe to keep disagreeing. You might have read it, it begins “We the People.”

While these men in tights were going about the business of making a new country, some of them even thought about making a brand new church they called “Episcopal,” never mind it was pretty much exactly the same as the King’s old Church of England. But just to make their point that this brand spanking new country was all about agreeing to disagree, they made rules that no one had to join this new old church of theirs. In this country, people could make their own churches about worshiping bricks if they wanted to and even though most everyone would probably think that worshiping bricks was really really stupid, they’d die to defend their right to do it. In this country of talkers—unlike the countries that came before— people would be truly free to follow their conscience.

Big idea heard far and wide

Soon enough with all this talking going on, word got out about this big idea and people from all over came to the place where regular people with no crowns on their heads could talk to each other, think for themselves, and be their own bosses. Truth be told, lots of the people who showed up didn’t look much like guests you’d be inviting for dinner, much less to stay over. They were shabby and dirty and smelly and tired and had eaten a lot of potatoes or maybe not eaten much at all. There were probably even 3 or 4 of them who worshiped bricks. But this country kept saying to these tired, poor, and hungry people “welcome, have a seat at our table to talk,” and they even put up a statue that welcomed them and invited them to “breathe free.” 

It wasn’t long before pretty much everyone knew this was a special country indeed.

A few wrinkles to iron out

Now don’t get me wrong, things didn’t always go smoothly for this country of chit-chatters. Despite all this talking and thinking and reading there was still more than just a little lunk-headedness going on. Apparently forgetting altogether about all that talking they were doing about being created equally, they actually refused to let whole big groups of people talk and think and be their own bosses—at catastrophic cost to their fellow human beings across centuries of time. 

Once this talking, thinking country disagreed so much that they started killing each other and kept on killing each other. But in the end, even though their hearts were broken from all the arguing and killing they had done, they stayed together, bound up their wounds, and agreed to keep on disagreeing.

This and that happened. These people had a lot of good ideas along the way, and more than a few really bad ones, but because so many different voices were heard, wonderful things happened. Before long so many great ideas were heard that life became pretty easy. They spent a lot of time inside because there was a refrigerator with lots of good food in it, and there was an air conditioner and a comfy couch to sit on. Soon enough there was a box that pretty much everyone could buy that had people inside it who talked. It wasn’t long before the people in the box talked every single minute of every single day.

Watching the box got to be more fun than a barrel o’ monkeys and that country of non-stop talkers, sort of just stopped talking. Neighbors didn’t talk to neighbors so much anymore, husbands stopped talking to wives (especially during the playoffs), kids stopped listening to their parents. (OK, so maybe the kids never did listen.) All these chatty farmers and blacksmiths and silversmiths and bakers were all so comfortable now that sometimes they didn’t feel like working so hard at agreeing to disagree.

Remembering and forgetting

Then something happened one day in September hundreds of years after these uppity colonists built this country on talking and it happened right about where that statue was put up about welcoming people, talking, and breathing free. What happened broke all of their hearts into a million tiny pieces. But on that day an amazing thing happened as well. The people all looked up from the box long enough that they saw each other again. They talked to people in their village they had never talked to. On that day, and some days that followed, they felt what had connected them all that time, even through yelling and fighting and killing, even with people they disagreed with.

On that day they remembered that there were things more important than agreeing. They remembered that square they used to gather in.  And, for that moment as they remembered who they really were deep down, there was a chance to share with the whole world—many of whom were still having very bad problems with bossy kings, many of whom lived in places where people would sooner kill each other than find something to agree about—the beauty of this country they had built on regular people agreeing to disagree.

And then, just as suddenly as they remembered who they were, they forgot everything they had just remembered. They went back to their air conditioning and the good food in the refrigerator and the comfortable couch and turned the box back on, and listened to only the people they agree with because their hearts were broken and they just wanted to feel better, to feel sure. Their broken hearts made them all confused and they began thinking that to stay a special place, everyone must begin agreeing, and fast. They forgot that what had always made this country they loved a very special country indeed was that they had agreed about disagreeing. This is what they had agreed on, this is what they had in common, and it was profound.

That wouldn’t be the last chance to stop and remember—and find each other again.  In the years ahead, there would be other moments that shook these same People of the Republic and broke their hearts: Economic disruptions. Pandemics. January 6.  Ukraine.  

Each dropping moment provided another opportunity.  

To stop. Think again. And see again. 

Especially each other.  

Yet each and every time, more and more of these descendants of farmers and blacksmiths and silversmiths and bakers with their hearts broken into a million tiny pieces sadly kept going back to forgetting that big idea that had started it all.  

But not everyone.  Not everyone forgot it.  

Some remembered.

The post The Big and Beautiful Idea Behind America That We’re Forgetting appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe that the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were inspired by God while this country was being conceived. Today, too many people do not believe this.

In 1969 I was drafted into the Army. I was worried. I knew I would be going to Vietnam, a war where young men were dying every day. I was sworn into the Army on September 9, 1969, at the induction center in Los Angeles, California. A few weeks later, while in Basic Training, a not-so-tall soldier wearing a Green Beret and spit-shined jump boots stood in front of our formation. He had medals all over his chest. He addressed us in a gruff voice saying, “If you want to be a war hero come talk to me.”

At that moment my world changed. I wanted to look just like him. I wanted medals on my chest. I wanted to be a war hero. I took the Special Forces test and passed. After Infantry training, I was off to paratrooper school at Fort Benning, Georgia, where I learned to jump out of airplanes. I was then off to Special Forces (Green Beret) training at Fort Bragg, N.C. After training to be a Green Beret medic I was sent to the Republic of South Vietnam where young men were still dying every day.

I spent a total of eight years in the Regular Army and 6 years in the Army Reserves. I believe that the men and women in the U.S. military are some of the best in the world. They are the best trained, the best equipped, and make up some of our most loyal citizens. I loved serving in the Army with men who were like-minded. I was with men who volunteered to serve in one of the most dangerous assignments, as a Ranger, because they believed in the cause of freedom and bringing freedom to the Vietnamese people.

After my time in the military, I served with and retired from the Long Beach Police Department. I have served in many leadership positions in my Church, and in both local and district leadership with the Boy Scouts of America. These life experiences reinforced my love for the United States of America and my deep-seated belief that it is an exceptional land.

Saying that the United States is exceptional is not the same as saying the country is better than other countries or that the people here are better than the people in other countries. You could say that this country is unique, and it is, but that doesn’t describe it either. It means our Constitution and founding principles are exceptional.

The principles of individual liberty, equal justice to all, and private property rights created a nation united not by creed or ethnicity but by ideals, principles, and vision. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are enlightened documents that give all who live here, both native-born and immigrant, the opportunity to choose, to dream, to work, to succeed or fail, and to direct their own lives and destiny.

George Washington expressed why he believed the new nation to be the most exceptional in human existence when he wrote, “The citizens of the United States of America have the right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. … happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should [act] themselves as good citizens.”

America was built on the eternal principle that all men are created equal and they have certain rights given to them by God. Because these rights are God-given, they cannot be taken away by man. This was a completely new concept in the world at that time.

Another new concept was the idea of limited government. The founders had a genuine suspicion of government because of what they had experienced while being governed by Great Britain’s monarchy. They knew for the government to be “for the people” it had to have an outline of rules and laws that allowed people to construct their own moral and civil code. James Madison once said: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary… In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

Another concept unique to America at the time of its founding is the idea of equal justice under the law. They did not expect that everyone should be equal in wealth or social status for they knew that everyone had different talents and opportunities in life. Nothing was guaranteed except your right to pursue your desires and your happiness, to develop your talents, and to enjoy the fruit of your own labor.

Some will say that equal protection was not the case at the country’s founding, and they would be correct. However, the beauty of our Constitution is the addition of the Bill of Rights and the ability to add amendments that rectified these wrongs over time. This is evidenced by the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865, which abolished slavery, the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 which gives equal protection under the law to all who live here, and the 19th Amendment passed in 1920 which gave women the right to vote. It’s important to recognize that the seeds of that growth existed in the ideals and principles that existed at this nation’s founding.

Growing up, I always knew there were problems in America, but it wasn’t until I became a police officer that I began seeing it up close and personal. I began to live, while on duty, in a land of turmoil and commotion. I saw too many people, from all walks of life, having no direction, no reason to live, except to satisfy their base desires. I saw Vietnam veterans being maligned because they answered their country’s call and went off to war instead of Canada as many others did in those days.

Although this government was designed to encourage greatness in its citizens, it has not always lived up to its own ideal. It imposed injustices such as legalized slavery, indentured servitude, denying the right to vote to some, forced segregation, and cronyism. These things were perpetrated by flawed and dishonest men because they were mere mortals.

Our founders did not claim the country would be perfect, only that through freedom it may encourage greatness among its citizens. If one looks at history honestly, we see that the great men of our founding succeeded in creating a nation in which individual freedom became the pathway for unparalleled levels of achievement by its citizens.

Those who don’t recognize America as exceptional appear to have no idea where our freedoms come from, how hard it was to get them, and how easily they can be lost.

America is the land of promise and destiny and is still an exceptional place in which to live and raise a family. But today, many people fail to recognize this, believing the falsehoods that are repeated by commentators on the news and on social media every day.

There is a war on truth going on in America, not unlike the war in heaven so long ago. In that war, Satan wanted to take away our agency, our freedom. There are men today who want to do the same, take away our freedom. They try to tell us what to do and even what to think. I am more than ever convinced that Satan, the father of lies, is raging in the hearts of men.

Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said, “You can fool all of the people some of the time; you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”  It seems that today that group of “some people” is so much larger! As I see it, more and more people are being fooled “all of the time.” They can be fooled because they are not being taught why America is exceptional. The American Revolutionary Era businessman, Timothy Dexter said, “an ungrateful man is like a hog under a tree eating acorns, but never looking up to see where they come from.”

When we teach today’s schoolchildren to first look critically at our nation, judging its flaws before they are given the foundation of gratitude and understanding for the work the founders did, they never learn to appreciate the courage and fortitude that it took to create this nation.

We have a whole population that needs to be reminded of Thomas Paine’s words from his pamphlet, The American Crisis, written in 1776. “What we obtain too cheaply we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” Our youth need to be taught the cost of freedom. They need to understand that freedom is never free. It has a very high cost.

Without knowing and understanding our history the Pledge of Allegiance becomes nothing more than words we say at the beginning of our school day or a government meeting. Might I suggest that in addition to the pledge we would benefit from learning The American Creed? The American Creed was written in 1917 by William Tyler Page, a clerk in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House formally accepted it on April 3, 1918. It states:

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon the principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

For those who do not know our history, this creed teaches history. It reminds others of their responsibilities as citizens of this great country.

The saying that freedom is not free is so well known that it has become a cliché. But like many clichés, its true meaning is lost. Ronald Reagan summed this up when he said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” These powerful words help us understand not only the promise of this land but the responsibilities of those who live here.

American exceptionalism is not only true, but it’s a useful principle in helping people build the gratitude, passion, and fortitude needed to help the United States continue to live up to its promise.

You may be asking yourself, what can I do? Thomas Jefferson said, “Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people.”  We need to be interested, we need to be informed, we need to be involved.

Today, more than ever, we need leaders who want to build America into a power that other nations can look up to and be counted on to fight tyranny wherever it exposes its ugly head. How can we help in this effort?  By letting our elected officials know how we feel. By writing letters to the editors of our newspapers. Speaking out in social media. Speaking up in town halls and other public meetings. Studying the issues and voting for the person who most agrees with our personal beliefs and ideals and running for public office. America needs good men and women who are not afraid of being bullied by special interest groups who do not have America’s interest at heart. We need men and women who will stand up and salute the flag as the symbol of everything that is good about America and will work to fix all that is not, without condemning all who have worked and died for us.

Today is the day for every man and woman, young and old, to lift up their voices against the evil that is going on around us. It’s time to be bold. This is not the time to be afraid. Do not faint from the fight. The stakes are too high. We need warriors who will fight for freedom, who will not give up the good fight.  It’s the warriors who become heroes. I urge us all to be warriors in the cause of freedom and just maybe you’ll become a hero too.

The post America, Land of Promise and Destiny appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

I come from a long line of family who have served in just such a manner—my grandfather and both of my parents served in World War II.  My late husband also served for nearly 30 years and went overseas for 2 tours of duty during the Vietnam War. All 3 of our sons served in the various branches of the military and today I have 2 grandsons serving. One daughter-in-law also served 2 tours in Iraq.  

“A thoroughfare of freedom beat,” it states in the great national hymn, America the Beautiful—a hymn that says a lot about our responsibilities as citizens. 

During the time my husband was in Vietnam, I remained at home. I admit, saying goodbye and watching him leave to go to war was the hardest thing I have had to do in my life. 

But I had to keep moving forward, doing all of the mundane duties required to maintain our home.     

So, I prayed. And I wrote him a letter every single day. Even when nothing new was really happening, I thought of something to write so he would get mail. (We did not have cell phones or FaceTime or Skype! We had pen and paper and those beautiful envelopes with red, white, and blue stripes around the edge. (And when I say beautiful, I truly mean it. I loved seeing those in the mail! True, the news in them was old news, usually 2 weeks but sometimes more,  but each of those letters was a gift).

I watched the news every night to see what had happened during the day because that was the best way at that time to get current updates. Like others waiting at home, I dreaded the possibility of seeing someone in uniform come to my door.   

So, I prayed more.   

My husband went to Vietnam twice. On the first tour, we were newly married and had no children. I continued going to college.  When he left on the second tour, we had our first child who was 7 months old.  I attended to her needs and the many things that seemed to go awry each day.    

And, I kept praying. During that year, I continued to learn and live the teachings of the Gospel. We had been baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ about 4 weeks before he left, so I was learning a lot. And I had to face the opposition and criticism of our families who felt very strongly we had made a very poor and foolish decision, as they tried their best to convince me.

Holding my own was no easy task.  So, I PRAYED harder.  I’ve learned that praying is the very best work we can do, and it leads us to know the next step!

After getting through the long months of separation, I truly felt that I had also served my Country, even though I’d remained at home.  I had just served in a different way.

“Patriot dream that sees beyond the years” (America The Beautiful).           

Several years ago in a Freedom festival address,  Elder Neal A. Maxwell said:

Whatever the dimension of patriotism, it requires that America have and maintain a spiritual core in order that our hopes are not in vain.  Without this spiritual core, our liberties will fail. The way to improve the quality of life in America is to improve the quality of our own individual lives and our own neighborhoods.

I believe that to improve our own individual life we MUST look beyond our own selves and reach out in love and kindness to help lift others.

“More than self their country love and mercy more than life” (America The Beautiful). 

In Second Nephi, chapter 1,  Lehi prophesied of this American continent:

But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. 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.

“Crown thy good with brotherhood” (America The Beautiful)

Abraham Lincoln said “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Our Constitution was established by the Lord. And in Section 101 of the same sacred book, we read the Lord’s declaration —”And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”

A divine constitution demands more. It calls for people who will receive and respect that constitution and function within the parameters it establishes. 

“Confirm thy soul in self-control” (America The Beautiful).

President Dallin H. Oaks taught earlier this year in April general conference:

Our belief in divine inspiration gives Latter-day Saints a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and principles of constitutionalism wherever we live. We should trust in the Lord and be positive about this nation’s future. What else are faithful Latter-day Saints to do? We must pray for the Lord to guide and bless all nations and their leaders. This is part of our article of faith. 

Here again, prayer is some of the best work we can do. 

It’s worth repeating a list of “8 requirements for accountable citizenship” that were given in a 1998 devotional by BYU professor Stan Taylor:

• Appreciation and respect for the concept of government.
• A well-established and orderly government to prevent anarchy, terror, and dictatorship.
• A willingness to participate in political affairs and to be accountable for one’s political actions.
• A willingness to withhold judgment and to honor and respect those involved in civic affairs whether elected, appointed, or volunteers.
• A willingness to obey, honor, and sustain the law.
• Considerable self-sacrifice and respect for the needs of others and for the common good.
• A good dose of community spirit animated by healthy volunteerism.
• And a respect for the distinction between church and state.

Yes, patriotism is “love of country.”  But the word “country” doesn’t mean just the ground we walk on and the beautiful natural wonders within its borders.  It means we love the people who live in the country and all of our neighbors throughout the world. America is a beacon—a hope to all the world—when we, her citizens, live up to our individual responsibilities.

As patriots and as disciples of Christ, each of us is responsible to strive each day: 

• To do a little better than the day before,
• To be a little more patient,
• To be a little more kind,
• To be a little more loving,
• To be a little more selfless,
• To be more merciful, more forgiving,
• To keep on the covenant path,
• To be more like our Savior, Jesus Christ
• To serve others, and to make the world better, by making our lives, our homes, and our community better. 

“God mend thine every flaw” (America The Beautiful). 

These are my prayers, and my testimony as well—wishing a happy weekend of celebration to all the many others, from so many different backgrounds, who love this great nation.

The post What Does it Mean to Love America? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.