This is not a metaphor.

This is the lived reality for millions of Iranians during periods of nationwide internet shutdowns. These blackouts are not technical failures or temporary security measures. They are deliberate instruments of control, designed to suppress coordination, erase evidence, and delay international response. Repression combined with enforced invisibility has become a defining feature of modern authoritarian governance.

Confronted with this reality, many observers turn instinctively to international law. Surely there must be institutions, treaties, or legal mechanisms capable of protecting civilians when their own government becomes the threat. The post–World War II order was built precisely to prevent such abuses.

Yet that expectation misunderstands how international law actually functions.

International law is largely declarative rather than coercive. Its enforcement depends on state consent, diplomatic pressure, reputational costs, and political will. These mechanisms fail precisely when a regime is willing to use violence against its own population and absorb international condemnation. This is not an anomaly in the system; it is the system.

The UN Security Council institutionalized this contradiction. Designed to preserve stability among major powers, it granted veto authority to states whose cooperation was deemed essential, even when those states later became enablers or perpetrators of repression. Today, Russia and China routinely block meaningful action against internal atrocities. Their support for regimes such as Iran’s is not ideological sympathy alone; it is strategic. Iran provides energy access, sanctions-evasion networks, regional leverage, and a partner in balancing U.S. influence. Venezuela plays a comparable role in the Western Hemisphere.

These cases illustrate a broader reality: the rules-based order has limited capacity to act against well-protected sovereign violators.

This raises a question that policymakers often avoid confronting directly. In a system where rules lack enforcement, and where power is frequently the only effective constraint on actors who violate those rules, how should the use of power itself be evaluated?

Debates about foreign intervention are often framed through the lens of Iraq or Afghanistan, as though the primary lesson of the past two decades was that intervention is inherently illegitimate. That framing obscures a more uncomfortable truth. Intervention is often not the cause of systemic failure, it is the consequence of it.

Power restrains power. When enforcement collapses, restraint does not emerge organically; it is imposed, or it does not exist at all. The relevant question, therefore, is not whether foreign intervention is dangerous—it always is—but why the international system repeatedly produces conditions in which intervention becomes the only remaining option.

From this perspective, U.S. efforts to limit Nicolás Maduro’s hold on power or to support the Iranian people’s aspirations for transition reflect a tacit recognition that vacuums are not filled by law, but by rival powers. We must be intellectually honest about the nature of these rivals. While no global power is beyond reproach, there is a fundamental difference in the architecture of influence. The Western model, led by the United States, operates within a framework—however flawed—that views the state as a servant to the people. In contrast, the strategic partnership between Russia, China, and Iran views the people as a resource to be managed, silenced, or erased to ensure the survival of the state.

As an Iranian, I see the support for a peaceful political transition not as an “infringement” on a nation, but as the enforcement of a higher law: the right to exist visibly and safely. If the 20th-century order was built to protect states from one another, the 21st-century order must be built to protect people from the state when that state turns predator. Accepting this is not cynicism; it is realism. The question is no longer whether the rules-based order will be tested—but how many times it must fail before we realize that a law that cannot be enforced is not a law at all, but a license for the powerful to be cruel.

The post When Law Lacks Teeth: The Question of Foreign Intervention appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

For the Christian, freedom has a dimension that is much more deep and consequential. There is a hint of this fact in the words of Jesus: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Much of our discourse around freedom is centered on bodily freedoms, and comparatively little of our discourse addresses freedom of the soul. Edmund Burke famously spoke to the interrelatedness of these dimensions of freedom:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

The intemperate mind referred to by Burke is only a reflection of the state of our soul, the degree of our alignment with God’s understanding of reality. When Christ brought this understanding to humanity in person, His message was one of profound freedom, of a kind that most people never fully know. Like most societies throughout history, Judeans in the time of Christ were concerned with physical freedom from oppressive political enemies. The violent oppression of Rome in that time was very real, and Judeans’ hopes for physical deliverance are very understandable.

Years ago, amid the mockery and slander of the Book of Mormon musical, theatergoers opened their playbills to find an ad placed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which read, “You’ve seen the musical; now read the book.” This ad was a declaration of inner freedom: we, as a church, are free to choose our response to mockery and slander. When you attempt to provoke our outrage, we are free to not become consumed with outrage.

Inner freedom is the hardest kind to obtain and, I confess, it is not my usual state. I only sometimes experience it. I am as prone as anyone to reactive states of mind, to wrapping myself tightly in the unfreedom of grievance narratives. I believe that in the West, inner freedom can be difficult to accept because our approach to spirituality is often achievement-oriented. We tend to think of the gospel in terms of getting, obtaining, and achieving. Inner freedom requires subtraction spirituality, with different terms like letting go, surrender, and allowing. These approaches to spirituality are not mutually exclusive; they are both vitally important. In achievement spirituality, we demonstrate to God what we desire, and in subtraction spirituality, we demonstrate to God whom we trust.

The Anna Option

A core question in both spirituality and mental health is the locus of control: where do we perceive our well-being to be located? Do we believe that we are empowered to develop wellness, or do we believe that our ability to be well exists outside of ourselves, depending upon the actions of “powerful others?” Numerous studies in psychology have shown that an internal locus of control results in more life satisfaction and well-being, while an external locus of control creates in people the opposite: turmoil, conflict, and despair.

In the Gospel of Luke, the story of Anna is a lesson in the power of internal locus of control. We are told that Anna was a “prophetess” and was one of two people who received revelation when the infant Jesus was brought to the temple. Anna was a widow who “departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.” We know of no formal explanation in Jewish law for the prophetic role that Anna developed. We only know of her extensive fasting (a core discipline in subtraction spirituality) and service in the temple, with the result that she had developed prophetic gifts. Her sense of empowerment to do these things was an outgrowth of her internal locus of control.

Recently, Amanda Freebairn published an article interestingly titled “Living my faith more, instead of just thinking about it more.” She told her story of faith development:

As I began questioning my faith, as so many young adults do, I thought answers could be better found in the work of scholars than from my ward members bearing their personal testimonies of God…

I haven’t “figured it all out.” But I love going to church. I love my ward and I no longer feel different or isolated in my church community. I look forward to general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ and try to listen to a talk every day. They are no longer a source of frustration or angst for me.

I also love President Russell M. Nelson, and I fully sustain him as a prophet of God, not just a nice older man.

What changed? The major turning point was when I had the impression that I needed to ease up on the “research” and instead give something else a chance: really living my faith.

This is the Anna option, the internal locus of control. There is no narrative of “as soon as other people and institutions do x, y, and z, I can thrive.”

By contrast, an activist posture toward the Church insists otherwise. It promotes an external locus of control, the notion that our experience of God in the Church depends upon people or institutions changing in some way. Refuting this falsehood, the story of Anna the prophetess is echoed by her spiritual descendants, including Mary Whitmer, Eliza R. Snow, Emmeline B. Wells, and other great women of the restoration into the present day.

Victor Frankl taught that “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” This freedom is sometimes easier to imagine in theory than to embrace in practice, as we are pulled into any number of difficult situations on any given day. Inner freedom requires inner resources. To maintain inner freedom to not be angry, for example, requires emotional resources that we are more likely to have if we are getting adequate sleep and physical exercise.

Similarly, there are some inner resources that can only come with a healthy spirituality. President James E. Faust taught that

Each of us, regardless of our nationality, needs to reach down into the innermost recesses of our souls to find the divinity that is deep within us and to earnestly petition the Lord for an endowment of special wisdom and inspiration. Only when we so profoundly reach the depths of our beings can we discover our true identity, our self-worth, and our purpose in life…

Teaching the spirituality of subtraction, President Faust continued:

Only as we seek to be purged of selfishness and of concern for recognition and wealth can we find some sweet relief from the anxieties, hurts, pains, miseries, and concerns of this world…

This is really the recovery of the sacred within us. We have the authority in our beings to respond to challenges of life any way we choose. Thus, we gain mastery in any circumstance.

Here, President Faust taught a concept that is beautiful, but is it true?

Any circumstance?

Can I be well if my career aspirations don’t come to fruition and I end up needing to forge a new path? Can I be well if my children make choices that reduce their own wellness and joy? Can I be well if my political candidate does not win an election? Can I be well if I am released from a church calling I love? Can I be well if there are people around me at church who see the world in different ways than I do or who sometimes act offensively? Can I be well in an experience of tragedy? Can I be well if I am misunderstood or falsely accused?

Do I have the inner freedom to respond to each of these scenarios with poise instead of falling to pieces and becoming bitter? Do I have the inner freedom to not be angry, or the inner freedom to forgive, or to patiently trust? Do I have the inner freedom to not take offense?

According to President Faust, the resources for this kind of inner freedom are already within us. But if my own experience is a guide, it is only the work of subtraction spirituality that enables us to perceive those inner spiritual resources.

The Liberating Power of Adversity

For many, experiences of subtraction spirituality are found in situations of deprivation. This is why, for many Latter-day Saints, the mission experience catalyzes a profound spiritual awakening. In a recent devotional talk on the True Millennial YouTube Channel, Lexi Walbeck told of her mission,

I tried with considerable effort and divine assistance to see beyond my own pain, loneliness, and frustration. Immediately, something magical began to happen. I started to fall in love with the Filipino people. Their success, progression, and fulfillment became more important than my own… Fast forward to the end of my mission when home was just weeks away, I wore the same torn and ragged clothes I had hand scrubbed since I started, complimented by my rubber muddy Crocs. A balding bun held what was left of my hair and my rice diet had settled plumply in my cheeks and belly.

I was riding home in a tricycle, holding our groceries for the week on my lap. Raw fish dripped blood and other liquid down my legs, and I physically looked and smelled probably the worst I ever had in my life. But as I was bouncing home, I looked up and caught a glimpse of myself in the cab mirror. I couldn’t look away. I was glowing. My countenance shone so bright it actually shocked me. The light was so radiant and brilliant that, for the first time in my entire life, I said to myself, “I am so beautiful. I am so beautiful.” In that moment I saw my true identity. Christ’s power, light, and intelligence was in my reflection, and it was the most beautiful thing I’d ever seen, the most beautiful me.

Walbeck’s account reflects similar stories told by numerous great souls throughout history, of how irony and illness and tragedy often lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of God and of ourselves. The great Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously wrote of his spiritual awakening amid the deprivation of being unjustly imprisoned under Stalin:

In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.

…All the writers who wrote about prison but who did not themselves serve time there considered it their duty to express sympathy for prisoners and to curse prison. I…have served enough time there. I nourished my soul there, and I say without hesitation:

“Bless you, prison, for having been in my life!”

Adversity can be a great teacher of subtraction spirituality if we will allow it to.

In a world without subtraction spirituality, inner unfreedom is the norm and it manifests in areas like politics and culture. Our daily emotional temperature becomes determined by the actions of political and social media commentators. In popular culture, people manifest inward unfreedom as they participate in events like pride parades, which really only parade the unfree human psyche ruled by cravings for sensation and for society’s affirmation. In political discussions, freedom is usually understood in these terms as the absence of prohibiting forces. But presently, much of American politics is a contest between people who are inwardly unfree. We are an electorate controlled by impulses and resentments and fears, and from a national security perspective, this makes us vulnerable to our adversaries’ strategies of divide and conquer.

Freedom to be Different

Following a recent football game against Kansas State University, BYU fans surprised the sports world by donating to help a cancer-stricken friend of the opposing team’s quarterback. A colleague of mine at work is a fan of another Big 12 school, and after hearing of this, he told me he cannot wait to go to a game in Provo, even if his team loses. He said that he knows how differently visitors are treated there in Provo.

Presently our Latter-day Saint capacity for subtraction spirituality and our love of the resulting inner freedom are being tested. For some of us, renovations to our beloved temples have become a severe test in this area. For others of us, our ability to subtract is tested in our career ambitions or our willingness to live within our means. Among some Latter-day Saint influencers and commentators, there is a fixation on grievances of the past that leads to demands for institutional apologies. These individuals spread the inner unfreedom of an external locus of control to their followers, who then forsake the Christian covenant path for a new covenant path of grievance-oriented activism.

And again, politics is presently an area that is testing many church members’ love of inner freedom, particularly in the United States. This political season, I have personally found value in a specific decision around politics: I decided that however my fellow church members decide to vote, I will fully respect their decisions without looking down upon anyone for whatever they decide and however they arrive at their views. Having subtracted from my own heart and mind an imaginary responsibility to judge the people around me, I now have inner freedom from feelings of contempt and disappointment that usually attend those outward judgments. I relish the freedom that I feel as a result of this decision.

I wonder if, in the coming days, our capacity for subtraction spirituality will be tested in more pronounced ways. I wonder if inner freedom and an internal locus of control will increasingly define us as a people, not just in our treatment of guests at sporting events but in other contentious areas like politics. Maybe we will recalibrate the intensity of our political and other debates in light of Brigham Young’s insight that “There is no freedom anywhere outside the Gospel of salvation.”

I sincerely hope for this to be the case.

The post Beyond the Ballot Box: Our True Christian Freedom appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

To this end, what I found profound when I studied the history of this great country is that few Americans understood how the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments radically changed the Constitution, augmented the need for compromise, and safeguarded the Bill of Rights. Iowa, where I have lived for 20-plus years, like the state of Utah (where I lived from 1991 – 1998), is politically conservative and are both advocates of state rights over Federal rights. Many people in Utah and Iowa believe in originalism that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood at its adoption—written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It is a belief in the original Constitution that State rights eclipse federal rights.

In the past year, I have spent more time learning about the social context that gave birth to these three amendments by reading Eric Foner’s books The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution and Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877.  Dr. Foner is DeWitt Clinton Professor Emeritus of History affiliated with Columbia University, whose academic work specializes in the Civil War and Reconstruction, slavery, and 19th-century America.

Learning more about the historical context of these three amendments made me realize that compromise is the psychological soul of the Constitution and how vital it is for healthy interactions, including healthy disagreements, between the Federal government and State governments. As Dr. Foner explains, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments lessened state rights and gave prominence to Federal rights.

After the Civil War, the Wade-Davis Bill (1864) created a framework for Reconstruction and the re-admittance of the Confederate States to the Union, and most Confederate leaders were able to return home. Lincoln, his cabinet, and Congress knew that if states still held greater power than the federal government, Confederate states would go back to having black slaves. The creation of these three amendments allowed black people to have rights and allowed the Bill of Rights to flourish, thus making democracy genuinely blossom. Dr. Forner, in The Second Founding, states 

. . . the application of the Bill of Rights to the States has come via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause . . . Thanks to incorporation, the states are now required to act in accordance with the fundamental liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, tremendously expanding the ability for all Americans to protect their civil liberties against abridgment by state and local authorities. 

Akhil Amar, one of the most cited constitutional scholars from Yale Law School, clearly pinpoints in his 2021 book The Words That Made Us, and perhaps more so in his 1998 book The Bill of Rights, that the federal government became more trustworthy guardians of the first amendment freedoms than state government during the reconstruction period in American history. As Dr. Amar adds, immediately after ratifying the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the federal government initiated civil rights legislation banning segregation in public places, including within state governments, that still perpetuated the beliefs that African Americans were less-than-human slaves.

While there are many examples of the federal government doing harm, the creation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments exemplify some of the good work it has done in protecting civil liberties. Certainly, in preventing Confederate states from continuing slavery, the federal government protected fundamental rights much better than certain States. 

What makes the U.S. Constitution so amazing is that it permits freedom of viewpoint, negotiation, and cognitive elasticity, which gives breath to creativity. This includes the interplay between state and federal governments, and good public policy can emerge when a middle ground is found. Our mentality judging between state and federal governments does not have to be an “us” versus “them” mentality. Just as there can be harm in both, there can also be good in both the federal and state governments, and good things can happen when they set aside differences and work together.

The post States’ Rights, Federal Powers, and The Struggle for Liberty appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Public Square Magazine: I would really love to hear a bit about your backstory and how you came to form this organization as well as its mission and purpose. 

Brian Grim: I was working at the PEW research center and developed measures for religious freedom for countries around the world. PEW has carried that on for the last few years since I started it in 2006 or something like that. Once I measured religious freedom or restrictions on religious freedom coming from either governments or social constructs, then I could see how it relates to other things like sustainable development, global competitiveness, and GDP growth. What I found was that where you have more religious freedom, you have more of the good things. You have more of other kinds of freedoms, fewer conflicts, more peace, more economic progress, sustainable development, and so forth. As a person of faith, I looked at that and thought, “This is a good argument for religious freedom.” Not just for people of faith, but people without a religion or faith. Religious freedom covers everyone’s right to believe, change their belief, or have no belief at all. I thought that someone should be working on this and I felt like it was a call from God for me to leave PEW and start the foundation to start making that case. We look for ways for businesses to be an ally in a culture where everyone is respected, everyone belongs, and their beliefs and faiths are included just like other identities. 

PSM: It seems like you are noticing that there is a lot of talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion, specifically within business. What I’m hearing you say is, “Yes, diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and religion is included in that, and if so, how can we create an environment for all of these things to coexist, which promotes better business? Do I have that right? 

Brian: Yeah, that’s right. Diversity is just a fact. You are either diverse or not diverse. Equity is something that you work towards. Inclusion you have to work towards. All of those things are aimed so people belong. Many people call it DEIB—diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. That’s really the objective. It’s not just a ‘tick-box’ phenomenon and saying, “Okay, we have this many of that kind of person,” or “Make sure we have that group covered.” It’s nothing like that; it’s making sure everyone belongs. Religion is one of those protected categories by law that needs to be accommodated.

However, many companies for many years said that they would not do religion or politics. There are things that you don’t talk about at the dinner table. They thought that the separation of church and state also applied at a business level. That does not actually make sense, though, if you are trying to create an environment where people feel like they can bring their whole ‘self’ to work. It used to be that you had to leave your faith and your belief at the door, but you come in and feel like you don’t belong. That is a business cost. If you have an environment where people of faith feel like they can’t be themselves, they are going to look for a workplace where they can. 

Companies are realizing they are losing people because there are some companies that have embraced faith as part of their diversity. There are companies that have excluded religion from their DEI initiatives, and they only have to lose a few important people before they realize this is a business cost. But it can actually be a business benefit. It’s attractive; you can recruit people because they want to work in a space where they can belong. It’s good, not only for recruitment but for retention as well. If you are in a place where you feel valued, you are going to want to stay. It not only increases motivation and commitment but it creates an understanding and networks which the business can benefit from. If you have a company that is in India and you have no idea what Hinduism is about, you are at a business disadvantage. Or if you are going to work in Utah, but you know nothing about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you will be at a business disadvantage because that is a big part of the culture. It is hard to do if you are denying that religion has any importance or anything to do with what it means to bring your whole self to work. 

PSM: Yeah, I really appreciate that perspective. Could you tell me a bit about what that looks like on your end of things? How do you approach businesses? What are they looking for from you? How do you help educate them on this? 

Brian: Really our goal at the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation is to shine a light on the work that has already been done in best practices. I don’t view myself as the person coming up with the ideas or creating this. There has been real pioneering work done by companies around this concept, like American Airlines, Intel, Ford, American Express, Texas Instruments, and a number of other companies. They have been including religion as a part of their diversity for over 20 years. 

So, really, what we are trying to do is to start recognizing this and sharing their stories and what they are doing. Additionally, we also have a benchmarking index we created called the religious, equity, diversity, and inclusion index or the REDI index, which allows companies to benchmark their progress. Here, we give awards to companies that are on that journey, and it gives voice and visibility to what is going on within the companies. Of course, when I work with these companies, I learn a lot, and I can see what best practices are so that I get a good knowledge base. But the knowledge base that is the most important is the people in these companies and connecting them. It’s really a movement now. That’s how it spreads from one company to another. American Express has helped more than 50 other companies to start including religion as a part of their diversity. 

You wouldn’t think that companies would share it with other companies, but the people who are involved in the inner workings of the company believe so much in this concept that they want to spread this knowledge around. So that is what our foundation does, it provides a venue for people to meet and get to know one another from different companies, share best practices, recognize them through awards, and collect information to share and make that available to as wide an audience as possible. 

PSM: That is cool. I didn’t know that American Express and some of these other companies have been doing that for so long. It’s so cool that you are trying to bring this in. My other question is, a lot of companies now have seen some negative side effects of DEIs, and some companies have stepped away from that, have you noticed that as well? Or how has it impacted your work? 

Brian: I have seen the exact opposite in the category of faith. So, in addition to the REDI index, we also do the REDI monitor, where we monitor Fortune 500 companies’ diversity web pages. Every year for the past five years, we have gone in and coded up their web pages in terms of mentioning or illustrating religion, and if so, do they give additional details of what they are doing to include religion as part of diversity and can you click down and find more information. The more things they disclose on their diversity web page in the area of religion then the more points they get. What we have found in the last 2 years is that the number of companies that do this in the Fortune 500 companies has increased from 202 to more than 400. So it has doubled in the number of companies that are including religion as part of their diversity inclusion. Now, the majority of Fortune 500 companies are including this. 

Your next question should be, “Well, why is that?” I can’t say exactly, but there are two things. One, not only those companies that have been doing it for more than 20 years, but other companies like Google, PayPal, and Salesforce, have really stepped in and been really active in the last 5-7 years, and other companies are noticing. Once you have name-brand companies, then these newer companies are coming in and it creates a movement. Now, it’s not impossible to implement. Some have thought that it would be illegal or impossible to include religious diversity because they have assumed that diversity is about making sure that you have X amount of women, people of color, and so on. Saying that you need X number of Christians or Muslims or people of other religions does not make any sense and is actually discrimination. Religious inclusion is about making people feel that their faith and identity are welcome. 

PSM: What I’m hearing you say is that instead of stepping away from DEI, it is becoming even more all-encompassing. Like how can we broaden our horizons even more? My follow-up question is that many of these different groups that a person can identify with have differing beliefs and ways of living life. How have you noticed that within a work setting? Do you find that with more acceptance and more inclusion, they are able to navigate those different beliefs within a company? Or does it feel more difficult in different ways to manage? 

Brian: What happens inside a company is a beautiful model for what could happen to our society. What happens is that they talk about making space so that we can celebrate the uniqueness of each of our identities without having to water down what we believe. So they provide some guardrails. One is that it is not about proselytizing, this is not about dogma, but it is about celebrating the holidays and the religious events or commemorating other events that are important. It is about helping people understand what a Muslim believes, what Zoroastrians believe and practice, and what’s the difference between a Seventh-day Adventist and a Jehovah’s Witness, they are very different. It’s about understanding these differences and providing community so people can feel like they belong and then working together in ways that make sense. 

For example, Dell has an interfaith employee resource group, but they have faith pillars like Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and so forth that are like chapters. But, they had an idea to do a global freedom initiative to combat human trafficking. As they had that idea as an interfaith group, they realized it was not just for people of faith. Every community is affected by human trafficking. So they reached out to the black group, the LGBT+ group, the veterans group, the abilities group, and all the different groups in Dell to collaborate, and they did a global initiative to train all Dell employees where they learned how to spot human trafficking and what to do. So right there is an example of how when you bring faith in, it’s like living the golden rule, “do unto others what they should do unto you,” is being put to practice. We should do something about human trafficking and global hunger; these issues unite groups. We don’t see this resulting in conflict; we see it resulting in collaboration and joint service. 

PSM: That seems to be a beautiful thing. 

Brian: It is! It’s very encouraging. I, of course, go around and speak about this in different settings. Especially when you get to religious freedom, people are so surprised because they are so used to hearing about all the problems in the world. There are, but this is a very bright light because it is opening a space where faith is welcome, and then these companies engage and people in the companies are set free to do good. Really, that’s religious freedom in practice.

The post Rethinking DEI: The Crucial Role of Religion in Workplace Belonging 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.

Harper’s columnist Rebecca Solnit wrote, “Our privacy is being strip-mined and hoarded. … [The young] are disappearing down the rabbit hole of total immersion in the networked world and struggling to get out of it.”

This scandal was a wake-up call for many, revealing just how vulnerable our personal information has become in the age of big data and targeted advertising. This, alongside ongoing data breaches, has made clear that we’re living in a world where privacy is increasingly under attack. Even so, it’s all too easy to trade our privacy for a little more convenience or transparency. 

But this trade-off has a moral component. Frank Karlitschek, a German software developer turned activist, has coined the motto “privacy is the foundation of democracy.”  As the Cambridge Analytica scandal demonstrated, when our privacy is violated, analytical tools that can work millions of times faster than the human mind can develop approaches to prey on our weaknesses and manipulate our thinking, weakening our ability to act as independent moral agents. 

For all these reasons, we can appreciate that privacy is inherently valuable, and protecting privacy can, in meaningful ways, intersect with our expressions of faith. 

Privacy as a sacred priority

When Jesus went about healing, He often instructed those He healed not to tell anyone about it. In the Gospel of Mark, for example, Jesus heals a man with leprosy and commands him, “See that you say nothing to anyone.” 

It is worth noting that Jesus did not always reveal His plans or intentions to His followers. In the Gospel of John, for example, Jesus tells His disciples that He is going away to prepare a place for them and will return to take them with Him. However, when one of his disciples, Thomas, asks where Jesus is going, Jesus simply responds, “You know the way to where I am going.” When pressed, He simply explained that “I am the way.” Rather than letting them in on a detailed strategic plan, Christ asked His followers to simply trust Him. 

Perhaps the most notable example of Christ’s appreciation of privacy occurred when Jairus came to Jesus, begging Him to heal his daughter. Jairus asked that they go to his house immediately. But on the way, messengers arrived to tell Jairus that his daughter had died, and there was no longer any need for Jesus to come. However, Jesus told Jairus, “Do not fear, only believe.” When they arrived at Jairus’ house, Jesus allowed only Peter, James, and John to enter with Him, along with the girl’s parents. He then took the girl by the hand and said to her, “Arise!” The girl arose, and Jesus instructed her parents not to tell anyone what had happened. 

Many scholars have since suggested that Jesus wanted to avoid transparency about raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead because He wanted to avoid drawing attention to Himself to prevent a premature persecution of his ministry. Christ’s ministry required that information be given to the right people at the right time.

Christ is far from the only scriptural figure to demonstrate the importance of privacy. Esther is able to save her people because of her decision to hide her nationality, while Samson ruins his ability to fulfill his mission by revealing the secret of his strength.

The purposes of privacy

These stories teach several important purposes for privacy. It allows us to have intimate encounters with God without the distractions and intrusions of the outside world. Second, privacy allows us to be vulnerable with God and with each other. Jairus was desperate for Jesus to heal his daughter, and he was willing to go to great lengths to make it happen. He trusted Jesus with his daughter’s life. This kind of trust and vulnerability requires a certain degree of privacy so that we can be free to express ourselves without fear of judgment or ridicule.

Shoshana Zuboff, a professor at Harvard Business School and the author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” has written extensively about the dangers of the new digital economy and the ways in which our personal data is being exploited for profit. She argues that privacy is essential for protecting our autonomy and our ability to make choices that are not predetermined by algorithms and artificial intelligence.

Despite the many voices speaking out in favor of privacy, there are still those who argue that it is an outdated and unnecessary concept. They argue that in a world where everything is connected and everything is shared, privacy is no longer possible or desirable. However, we must resist this line of thinking and instead recognize that privacy is essential for maintaining our dignity and our autonomy as individuals. Zuboff’s arguments seem to suggest that a society that preserves a sphere for spirituality and conscience requires a society that preserves privacy. 

Organizational privacy

This goes doubly for the institutions we empower to act on our behalf. We could not trust a bank that would not be able to maintain the privacy of our information and deposits. We would expect the companies we invest in to maintain

Without strong privacy protections in place, these organizations may be at risk of data breaches, hacking, and other forms of cyber attacks that could compromise their operations and reputations.

Yet in the same moment many are demanding privacy protections on an individual level, some insist that larger organizations operate from a place of radical transparency, despite the harms that it could do to the individuals they serve. Out of our distrust and suspicion with any large organization, we can sometimes dismiss any such privacy as likely instruments of deception or manipulation—failing to recognize how organizations of different kinds can have many good reasons for privacy as well. 

Transparency vs. honesty

Many suggest that increased transparency equates to increased honesty. If this were true, it would certainly make the moral calculus easier. But the reality is, of course, much more complicated. Anthropologist Gabriella Colman writes, “The effectiveness of demanding transparency and truth has often been overstated, and its advocates sometimes naively attribute an almost magical faith to such a tactic while deeming the anonymous means to those same ends of truth-telling immoral.” 

There is a distinction between transparency and honesty. While they are often used interchangeably, privacy and honesty can (and in some cases must) co-exist. While Jesus did not always prioritize transparency, he clearly valued honesty—often teaching his followers to be truthful and avoid deception. Similarly, when confronted by religious authorities, Jesus does not shy away from telling them the truth, even when it puts His own safety at risk.

There may be times when it is appropriate or even necessary to keep certain information private, particularly if it could harm others or undermine important goals. In fact, scripture suggests that it’s discretion about when to conceal and when to reveal that distinguishes someone as trustworthy. “Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered.”

In conclusion, the importance of privacy cannot be overstated. The Cambridge Analytica scandal and the work of experts such as Shoshana Zuboff highlight just how vulnerable our personal information has become in the age of big data and targeted advertising. Yet, the importance of privacy goes beyond protecting our personal information; it is essential for maintaining our dignity and autonomy as individuals and for creating spaces for spirituality, conscience, and vulnerability. While transparency is important, honesty and privacy can and must coexist. We should resist the notion that privacy is outdated. By doing so, we can help preserve our autonomy and our ability to make choices that are not predetermined by algorithms and artificial intelligence.

The post Is Protecting Privacy an Act of Faith? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In this post, I will address two common arguments. First, that the Supreme Court’s decision imposes religion because the only reason one would oppose abortion is religious. Second, that bans on abortion violate the religious freedom rights of those who believe that abortion should be more widely available. 

Opposition to Abortion is not Purely Religious in Nature 

One argument that has been repeated ad nauseum is that the Supreme Court has imposed its religious beliefs on the nation. To be clear, the Supreme Court did not ban abortion but merely allowed states to do so. But at the center of this argument are two premises. First, that bans on abortion are purely religious in nature. And second, that laws and public policy should not be formed with religious and moral values in mind. Both of these arguments are wrong.

Opposition to abortion need not come from religious convictions. Instead, it can also rest on the biological reality that at the moment of conception a genetically distinct and independent human being is formed and that absent an abortion that child will likely be born and able to live his or her life. Intervening to prevent the killing of a child does not depend on religious doctrine regarding when the soul enters the body. Secular pro-life arguments may also focus on the adverse consequences of abortion on society. There are secular-pro life organizations organized to promote these secular and non-religious arguments. 

Religiously Informed Arguments about Abortion Deserve a Place in the Public Square 

It is true, however, that religious belief does inform the moral judgments made by many in the abortion debate. Our moral conviction that we are children of God informs our conclusion that fetal life is sacred and deserving of protection.

But there is nothing wrong or improper with legislative consideration of these kinds of moral judgments that are informed by religious conviction. Indeed all of our criminal code involves acts of moral judgment where we as a society evaluate what kind of behaviors are right or wrong. We determine for instance that murder is wrong, but that self-defense in certain circumstances can be justified. Doing so is an act of moral judgment that certain types of killings are blameworthy while others may be excused.

Efforts to exclude moral and religious arguments from the public square are in fact deeply contrary to America’s heritage of religious liberty. As Elder D. Todd Christofferson explained: 

[R]eligious participation in public life is not only part of American history and a constitutionally protected freedom, it is also good for our nation. All laws and government policies are based on values—religious or otherwise. Everyone has a right to be heard—’to compete’—in the marketplaces of ideas and in influencing governmental decisions. To silence one voice potentially leads to silencing all others.

Religious voices are at least as deserving of being heard as any others. In fact, churches and other religious organizations bring unique experiences and perspectives to public policy debates. They recognize corrosive social forces that threaten faith, family, and freedom. They know personally about the hardships of family breakdown, unemployment, poverty, drug abuse, and numerous other social ills. Why? Because they are on the front lines helping individuals and families work through these wrenching problems. When they speak out, they do so not for selfish reasons, like the special-interest groups that constantly lobby our public officials, but out of concern for the people they minister to, their families, and society itself. They bring a moral—often cautionary—voice to matters of social and public policy that we desperately need in this age of materialism, self-promotion, and disruptive change. The perspectives of churches and religious leaders make an irreplaceable contribution to our ongoing democratic conversation about how we should live together. Their voices are essential.

And so are yours. If you are a person of faith, you have a critical contribution to make to our country and society. Public discussions about the common good are enriched by men and women like you who routinely put duty above convenience and conscience above personal advantage. Don’t be intimidated by those who claim that you are imposing your religious beliefs on others. In a pluralistic society, promoting one’s values for the good of society is not imposing them on others—it is putting them forward for consideration along with all others. Societies will choose and decide. To argue for what we believe will best serve the needs of the people and most benefit the common good. Without you, our political and social debates will lack the richness and insights needed to make wise decisions, and our nation and communities will suffer.

 As Elder Christofferson powerfully explains, we all have a duty of “promoting one’s values for the good of society.” Taking action to defend the sanctity of life is no different. While there are a variety of secular pro-life arguments, we should be grateful for the participation and contributions of those with religious-based arguments. Religious arguments about the sanctity of life provide “richness and insights” that are sorely needed in our society.

The State’s Compelling Interest in Protecting Life Overcomes Religious Liberty Claims for Abortion Access 

Another argument that has been widely raised since Dobbs is that the Supreme Court is violating the religious liberty of those whose faith holds that abortion should be available or even that it may be required in certain circumstances. Jewish beliefs about the value of protecting life, for instance, may strongly support abortion when the health of the mother is in jeopardy in circumstances broader than those allowed by the health of the mother exceptions codified in some states. For instance, many Jews interpret Jewish law (which holds a complex view of the status of a fetus in the womb, but generally holds that the spirit enters the body at birth) to allow abortion if a pregnancy would be psychologically traumatizing to a woman, while many states post-Roe will not allow abortions absent the risk of serious physical harm. 

We all have a right to the free exercise of our religious beliefs, but not to inflict direct harm on someone else in the name of religious worship. Obviously, if someone felt that his faith compelled him to perform human sacrifice, the state could properly ban such a ritual. If you accept that an abortion is an act of direct violence on another human being, then it seems quite clear that the state could block such harm and indeed perhaps even has a moral and ethical obligation to do so.

Religious Liberty Claims for Abortion Access would Fail under both Existing and Prospective Religious Freedom Standards

Let’s look more concretely at how a religious freedom claim demanding the right to perform abortions would work in practice. In 1990, the U.S. The Supreme Court held that if a law is neutral towards religion (meaning it is not written with the intent of targeting religious exercise) and generally applicable (meaning it applies evenhandedly to religious and not religious activity), then religious freedom claims will generally fail. Thus, most abortion laws would survive unless the law was applied selectively against religious people or contained a whole bunch of exemptions except for religious convictions.  

(The larger reality is a bit more complicated. Federal law would be more closely scrutinized under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And in many states, a more religious freedom-friendly standard applies as a result of state law or state constitutions).

In any event, I have long advocated that religious freedom claims should be protected more fully under the Constitution as they were before the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in 1990. And the Supreme Court has in recent years strongly signaled that it is willing to overturn that case (Employment Division v. Smith).

If the Court did so, then a law that burdens or restricts religious worship would only be constitutional if it survives what is called “strict scrutiny.” In the case of abortion, a state would have to show that it has a compelling interest in preserving fetal life and that it could not protect fetal life in a manner that is less restrictive or burdensome on religious exercise. 

Most abortion laws would survive challenges even under this standard. Protecting the life of a child is about as compelling an interest as possible. And with abortion, there are only two options, either the woman is allowed to have an abortion and terminate the child or not. Therefore, it’s unclear whether there is a viable less restrictive alternative that protects both fetal life and religious exercise. The state would therefore likely prevail and the abortion law could be applied without religious exemptions.

Religious Liberty Claims Might Succeed in Easing Burdens such as Notification Laws

There are, however, certain kinds of religious freedom claims that might succeed. I could see a religious claimant successfully seeking an exemption to an ultrasound,  notification, or a waiting period law that was particularly burdensome on religious exercise. For instance, if a religion taught that women under the age of 18 should not be required to consult with their parents in making important life decisions, a teenager would likely be able to get a religious exemption to a parental notification law. Similarly, if a religious belief prohibited or discouraged the taking of ultrasounds, an exemption to a mandatory ultrasound law could likely become available.  Granting a religious exemption to such laws would be feasible without undermining the state’s core interest in protecting fetal life. Religious freedom claims might therefore result in exemptions from specific laws burdening access to abortions, but without establishing a generalized religious freedom right to an abortion.

Religious Liberty Claims Might Support a Narrow Life of the Mother Exception (but so will other Constitutional provisions)

The final claim worth considering is a religious freedom claim when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. The obligation to protect the life of the mother is certainly a strong tenet of many (likely all) faiths. In such a case, a court might find the mother’s religious freedom claim sufficiently compelling to overpower any interest the state has in protecting fetal life. I therefore could imagine a religious exemption to any state law that doesn’t protect the life of the mother. But I also think that an abortion ban that did not protect the life of the mother would be unconstitutional in a variety of other ways. In any event, every single state already has an exemption when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.  

Religious freedom claims surrounding abortion are therefore not wholly frivolous, but religious freedom challenges are unlikely to achieve what claimants truly want which is a more expansive right to an abortion than allowed by state laws.

Ultimately, abortion bans are based on the recognition that fetal life is human life and entitled to full protection. This understanding is not dependent on religious belief. Abortion bans are therefore not an imposition of religion. And while some religious people might sincerely believe that abortion should be more widely available, their claims would fail in light of the state’s morally compelling obligation to protect life.

The post Overturning Roe v. Wade Did Not Impose Religion on America appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Many of us can relate. The heartbreaking events unfolding in this other part of the world involve brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, and children—all of whom are equally precious as any of us. And facing an impossibly painful and bloody ordeal that some have described as the Ukrainian “1776.”   

War has been with the human family forever. But compared with previous eras, our ability to witness it in real-time, excruciating, audio-visual detail is new. And emotionally draining. 

Yet how could we possibly turn away from that?  “It’s like helplessly watching a bully go after a smaller, more helpless victim,” said another individual, “and not even be able to do anything.”

Immanuel Levinas once famously argued that when we’ve seen the “face of the other,” we don’t have the option of simply ignoring anymore. Not without hurting our spirits.  

That’s true here as well. It’s clearly important that we witness some of this—and be reminded of the importance of doing whatever we can to alleviate suffering and help wherever we can (finding reliable places where your contribution can do good—here’s another good option—while avoiding scams)

What about the less cataclysmic needs closer to home? It can be easy to forget about and ignore some of these less dramatic aches all around us. To this, Mother Teresa—who spent her life ministering to the deepest pains all around—spoke eloquently, when she directed people back to what they could do for those closest to them, in their own midst.  “Peace and war begin at home” she once taught—adding, “If you want to change the world, go home and love your family.”

While keeping an eye on that modern tendency towards self-absorption, it’s worth asking how this kind of intimate witnessing of mass casualties overseas impacts everyone else “tuning in from home.”    

Clearly, these Ukrainian families and fighters—along with many unwitting Russian soldiers and their families—are going through the truest and most brutal, life-changing trauma.  But after years of studying bystanders of violence between others (like children watching domestic violence), researchers now know about something called “secondary trauma”—which is painful internal changes that happen when witnessing awful things others are experiencing.   

This is very different from witnessing violence in movies, which most of us are accustomed to—and which still affects us in tangible ways.  Most of us, of course, recognize those images as fake though and feel reassured that it (usually) works out in the end. But for children, who can’t appreciate that something’s not really happening, the effects of even made-up television violence are especially acute. 

How about televised or streamed violence that is all too real? Especially in a moment like this, it’s worth appreciating the real impact of witnessing real-time horror and devastation in others’ lives—so we can, at the very least, navigate this heartbreaking media environment in healthy ways and maybe even set some boundaries.    

All of this, of course, can quickly move in a narcissistic direction—another example of being consumed in our own thoughts and feelings when others are fighting for their lives. But there’s an equally unhealthy mentality that can insist that a focus on Ukraine is the only thing that matters right now—e.g., What’s the point of fixing dinner for your kids when so many children are suffering on the other side of the world?  Why should you be worried about anything when others are fighting for their lives and freedom?

Some of this does put our own problems in perspective. “Witnessing this does really help me see my smaller problems in a different light,” one woman admitted. In an article entitled, “The War in Ukraine Puts America’s Problems in Perspective,” Columbia University professor John McWhorter recently said, “America may be a mess in many ways, but a look at the headlines lately shows us what a mess really can be.”  He also suggested that what’s happening overseas should also put “a check on an American tendency to overdo the self-criticism inherent to our experiment.”

All this balance is helpful.  But while we can appreciate some of the courageous reporting that keeps us aware of what’s happening, some of the headlines seem to share a morbid fascination in promoting its most horrifying details—with headlines like:  “Horrifying pictures paint the dark reality of death on Ukraine’s streets … Russia’s bloody grip on Ukraine intensifies … Horrific video shows Ukrainians hit by Russian missile … Heartbreaking images: victims, destruction revealed after horrifying Ukraine hospital attack … Horrifying pictures show apocalyptic scene after women and children are targeted during ‘ceasefire.’” 

Horror. Horror. And more horror. No wonder many of us now have “itching” eyes—feeling a need to see more and more. But ask yourself honestly:  do you really need to see all this?

For those of us who have been following Ukrainian President Zelensky’s messages, it’s all too apparent that this may not end well.  The other night, after one of us followed his latest speech, a feeling of unease settled over—bringing to attention that same morbid fascination in watching this unfolding tragedy, with real life-and-death consequences.  

And with nothing we could (really) do.  

In that moment, it suddenly felt important to shut off all the devices and respect a line that should not be crossed in the witnessing of someone else’s suffering.  Instead, a prayer was offered up to the One who knew exactly what was needed and had the power to do something about it.  

In a day when “thoughts and prayers” are more often than not ridiculed as being insufficient and a distraction from “doing something,” we believers cannot abide this rhetoric. Appealing to God is more than just a distraction—it’s a unifying practice that unites all who believe in something higher than their own thoughts and feelings, and who hold on (with “surety”) to a future “hope in a better world” where this kind of thing doesn’t happen.  

And where “all tears”… “every tear” will be wiped away from weary eyes.  

In the meanwhile, while all too many tears flood all too many eyes, how are we to keep going?  

Omniscient awareness straining mortal minds.  Shelly Sawyer Jenson has highlighted the difficulty most human beings have to emotionally carry an awareness of the scope of problems everywhere in the world. As she put it, “For thousands of years, the problems most human beings have been aware of has been limited by the geographical boundaries of their own neighborhood and home—with most time and energy going to that.”  

By comparison, it’s a brand new experience for many of us to be so in touch with problems all the way around the world— far from the brick and mortar of our own homes.  

And it really hurts.  After Moses was shown “… the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created” he “greatly marveled and wondered” with awe and joy.  And yet, afterward, he eventually collapsed in exhaustion. After Enoch was shown a similar vision of the mass of people around the world and their suffering, he “refuse[d] to be comforted.”

But God didn’t leave either of these in exhausted or despairing places, saying unto one, “Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look.” At what? 

Even while knowing full well the pain of His children’s aggression against each other, the Almighty points both mourning witnesses to the consolation that comes in the compensating suffering of His Son. As the text notes, “Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up.”

From  his own experience witnessing mass slaughter, Mormon might likewise say unto us today: 

My brothers and sisters, “be faithful in Christ; and may not the things” which you keep seeing online “grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death.” “But may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and His mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever.”

The reality is that aside from financial contributions, there are limitations on what we can do—both individually and as nations—for these brave brothers and sisters fighting for their freedom.  We can and should keep seeking to do more. And we should trust the power of united prayers.    

Even while doing everything we can to support brothers and sisters in dire circumstances in Ukraine (and elsewhere), may we keep coming back to that “hope for a better world” as an ongoing source of comfort and joy.   

In the meanwhile—while we hope, pray, and work towards that day—remember, it’s okay to turn off some of the endless reminders of heartache all around the world.  That doesn’t make you selfish, it makes you sane.  

And as you are guided, you can continue to join those providing support from a distance.  Turning it off isn’t the same thing as “turning away.”  

Our earnest prayers continue to flow for our suffering brothers and sisters in Ukraine, Russia—and all around the world.

The post It’s Okay to Turn It Off appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Thomas Griffith, a former federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, once said, “Disagreement is critical to the well-being of our nation. But we must carry on our arguments with the realization that those with whom we disagree are not our enemies; rather, they are our colleagues in a great enterprise.”

Is that how you feel about talking with your own political opposite? Not likely. But for reasons I will explain, below, I am certainly encouraged. In the increasingly polarized world in which we live, I am optimistic that we can find peaceful connections as we seek to resist demonizing those that think differently than we do.  I am also confident that as we genuinely seek to understand and learn from those whose views differ from ours, we will find common ground in many cases, and humanity and goodness in almost all cases.  Lastly, I’m also profoundly appreciative of the reality that as we seek to protect the rights of those who are different than we are, the protection of our own rights will be enhanced. 

The conflict in our community. I live in Loudoun County, Virginia.  Of late, our community has been a hotbed of contention, division, and rancor.  Broadly, there has been vehement disagreement over masks and vaccinations, the addressing of racism in curriculum, policies about the treatment of our LGBT+ community, as well as a variety of other issues. In the wake of all this, I found myself very disturbed, but not by the fact that there was such strong division and such varied opinions. After all, right-thinking, rational people, given the same set of information, can come to vastly different conclusions.  I was instead troubled by the tone, the anger, the unkindness, the incivility that arose from those holding different points of view.  School board meetings, newspaper articles, social media posts, and other private and public communications were filled with accusations, affront, insults, and hatred.  There was more than enough finger-pointing and demonizing to go around.  The better angels of our nature were difficult to see.

Much of this conflict coalesced around Loudoun County Public Schools’ then-proposed policy 8040.  Policy 8040 was the result of a Commonwealth of Virginia mandate for each school district to craft and implement a policy for the 2021-22 school year promoting equity and protection for LGBT+ students.  Loudoun County developed a policy and then made it publicly available for both review and public comment.  The public comment sessions during school board meetings were sadly circus-like.  Commenters on both sides of the 8040 issue spoke passionately and often caustically, aggressively, and insensitively.  Advocates of the proposed policy often cited the protection of all children in our schools.  Opponents felt vehement that their own interests and those of their children were being ignored regarding these social issues, such as the use of student-selected pronouns and transgender use of bathrooms aligning with their identified gender. One meeting was cut short by the board as a result of the public not abiding by the rules of engagement.  (Currently, there is an active lawsuit about this step of shutting down public comment.) There was a police presence and even some police activity.  The whole process seemed to leave folks on all sides feeling divided and defeated.  After the meeting, the rancor continued through newly organized advocacy groups, media interviews, social media, and the like.

The community reconnaissance.  We at the Community Levee Association began to talk about how we could bring some measure of civility—and then ideally some policy compromise—to the 8040 debate.  We used a few methods—emails to school board members, social media posts, etc.—to seek to slow the process to give us time to find mechanisms for building unity among opponents.  None of these efforts bore noticeable fruit.  As a result, we at the CLA decided to try to sponsor some sort of meeting ourselves, one that brought stakeholders of all types to the table, hoping some sort of compromise would rise to the top. Despite our relative inexperience, we forged ahead optimistically, confident we could do some good.  We also sought advice from participants in Utah’s Fairness for All effort, learning as we went along about how to build trust and then build consensus.  We also sought guidance from good people who knew much about human behavior and how to build trust, especially among those who appeared to have nothing in common.  We were ready to dive into relatively uncharted waters!

Our first item of business was to find participants willing to meet together and talk about issues with those that by all measures were opponents.  A group of leaders from a local LGBT+ advocacy group agreed to attend.  Several individuals affiliated with the religious right agreed to attend, including a right-leaning activist, as well as one typically conservative school board member.  We developed an agenda that first sought to build trust, and next sought to specifically address proposed policy 8040.  We met our first major obstacle upon sending out the formal invitation and agenda to all participants.  Our LGBT+ friends were reluctant to meet with some of the named participants from the right due to a lack of trust that there would be openness and civility.  Additionally, it became evident quite quickly that neither side knew whether to trust the CLA as the hosting institution.  The idea emerged that we should hold two initial meetings—one between the CLA and the religious right folks and one between the CLA and the LGBT+ folks.  Each side agreed to these two meetings.

One side note needs emphasis here. Because an LGBT+ protection policy was mandated by the Commonwealth of Virginia, it was virtually a given that some version of proposed policy 8040 would be passed by the school board.  By all standards, the LGBT+ leaders had no need to meet with us, no quantifiable reason to need us, and no apparent evident benefit from dealing with, meeting with, or compromising with those with whom they disagreed. What an extraordinary message was sent when they agreed to meet, along with the conservative leaders—together demonstrating that conciliation, bridge building, and wise and honest compromise was the best way forward. These LGBT+ leaders especially are to be commended.  What a marvelous thing when the group that holds the majority of votes in some way is still interested in coming to the table to create unity, consensus, understanding, and improvement. We were deeply thankful for all willing to participate with us.

The preparatory meetings. In June of 2021, the CLA met one morning, first with opponents of 8040, and then with advocates of that same policy.  The first meeting had 3 CLA members and 4 community members (including one school board member) in attendance.  There were some trust-building exercises held as we all got to know each other (as basic as “What’s a favorite childhood memory?” and “What would you consider a perfect meal?”), and then there was candid sharing of what each attendee’s interest was in the policy.  It seemed that as each person spoke, they were being candid about their concerns.  All sharing was civil and measured.  Some wanted to broaden the discussion beyond policy 8040 and include other issues such as pandemic-related issues and critical race theory discussions.  The CLA felt strongly that, in order to be effective, we needed to focus fairly exclusively on LGBT+ issues and policy 8040 and help both sides find common ground on this single issue.  Also, because of the successful Utah model, we felt like we had some precedent and modeling to lean on.  At this first meeting, many concerns were aired—the safety of “straight” children, bathroom safety for all students, the use of pronouns for transgender students, parental rights in LGBT+ situations, the allowance of those with religious beliefs not reflected in 8040 to be true to their convictions, and so on.   We at the CLA learned much and were so thankful for the engagement and efforts of all who attended.  

Almost immediately following the first session, the same 3 CLA members then met with 2 officers of Equality Loudoun, a prominent LGBT+ advocacy group in Loudoun County.  This meeting followed the same pattern as the first.  We shared our personal stories, built trust, and then spoke specifically about policy 8040.  The folks attending this second meeting passionately and civilly expressed their strong desires to offer protections to the LGBT+ population in the school system.  While we were unsure as to how they would speak of religion and religious protections, we learned much from them about their own sometimes positive religious experiences and about their hope that all interested parties could learn to find a way to protect all interests.

The big meeting. We at the CLA felt like these two meetings were a resounding success.  The primary measure of that success was that, after holding these two sessions, our LGBT+ friends were now willing to come to the table, literally, to meet with those who opposed, on some level, proposed policy 8040.  And so, we organized another meeting to be held in August 2021.  We invited leaders from Equality Loudoun to represent those in favor of 8040, and we invited several new participants of a few different faiths to represent those with some objections to 8040.  Because some of our earlier participants stated that they weren’t necessarily motivated by religious freedom, we sought to invite those who were, feeling like that most closely aligned with following Fairness For All principles.

August’s meeting was nothing short of amazing.  There were 9 in attendance—3 from the CLA, 3 interested in protecting religious freedom, and 3 from Equality Loudoun.  We followed fairly similar practices from our earlier meetings—trust-building exercises, inviting participants to explain what each one’s interest was in 8040, and talking about whether we had any common ground.  Between each step, we went around the table asking each participant whether they felt sufficient trust to move on to the next agenda item.  Each time, each was ready to move forward.  When it came time to talk about common ground, all around the table agreed that we hoped to do what was best for children, for their safety, their learning, their dignity, their happiness.  It became clear that there were many different points of view as to what that specifically meant and how it should be reflected in policy.  There was a robust discussion about parental rights, student privacy, pronouns, bathrooms/locker rooms, school trips, and so on.  As the hour grew late, we devised a simple plan.  A Google doc was created where any participant could propose a change or amendment or improvement to 8040, and under each proposal, each participating individual and/or group was listed.  We then voted on whether or not we could accept the proposal—yes, no, or with revision.  Our time frame was short—the school board vote on 8040 was only a few days away.  Additionally, we each agreed that we would only send along to the school board those items that received unanimous approval from those at our meeting. It is of significant note that this meeting ended with handshaking, hugging, and an abundance of goodwill between all participants.  That alone, to me, is an extraordinary success.

The rest of the process played out fairly well.  We at the CLA sent a letter to all school board members, sharing with them the process the CLA had used to find consensus and then offering to them our 8 unanimous proposals.  At the August 2021 Loudoun County School Board meeting, 8040 was presented for a vote.  The first of our 8 proposals was presented—and accepted into the policy!  (This proposal was concerning improvements to school facilities increasing privacy for student bathroom use.)   We were thrilled with this outcome.

I am not experienced in the slightest in working across significant disagreements in the public square.  However, this experience has taught me that my optimism is not misplaced.  We can get along.  We can talk to each other.  We can learn from each other.  We can trust and respect each other.  And in that talking and learning and trusting and respecting, good can come—important, real, and sustainable good.  When I seek to protect your rights and you seek to protect mine, we both are benefited.  And perhaps we can even become friends along the way.

The post Collaboration Amid Controversy: A Hopeful Report from Loudoun County appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

We often speak of an individual judgment, but this scripture specifics a collective judgment that we will receive for whether or not we engaged in specific actions. While we have an individual relationship with God, that relationship does not exist isolated from the rest of our lives. Thus, the text famously continues, “And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

Here and elsewhere, loving God is directly tied to loving our neighbor. Rather than an abstract theological system, Christianity is ministerial in nature. While followers of Jesus see their salvation as dependent on the atonement of Jesus Christ, they err when living life solely for themselves. As Christian believers, we find ourselves when we live a life for Christ, which is a life for others.  

This underscores an obligation of charity towards each other. When Jesus began His ministry after a forty-day fast, He opened up the scriptures and read, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.”

Christians onlookers to Ukraine’s siege. Putin invaded Ukraine without any proven provocation. While some have defended Putin as having Christian values, Putin has clearly gone directly against the core Christian commandment: love for neighbor which is like unto love for God. When we love our neighbor, do we without justified provocation launch missiles at them? Do we force them to flee from their country out of a justified fear of violence? Do we dismiss or excuse or ignore this violence? Do we look away and ask “am I my brother’s keeper?”

Do we see someone on the side of the road wounded and walk on by? Do we refuse to help people who are a different tribe than us? Do we refuse to humble ourselves and try to distract from the situation by engaging in hypotheticals about it? Do we forget the humanity of others? Do we use our strongly held beliefs as an excuse to not help our neighbor?

If we do any of these things, we do not love our neighbor. Especially in a situation where the moral questions are this obvious, and where people are being violently oppressed by a clear aggressor, we have an obligation to do what we can to relieve the oppressed and liberate the captive.

Our failure to do so would have dire consequences. If we justify or excuse the evil of Putin through direct defenses of Russia or using this invasion as a way to make a partisan jab, we trample on the sacred lives of fellow brothers and sisters in Ukraine.  Our action (and inaction) during this invasion have an impact upon each other directly, while also signaling something to God.  

We are told to “do justice to the afflicted” and to “look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.” In this moment, we need to take seriously our obligation unto the “least of these” by relieving the oppressed as scripture commands us to do. Neutrality does not suffice because we cannot be neutral about an autocratic ruler violently and without real provocation invading an innocent country. We cannot see a brother in need and close our hearts. To be neutral in such a way would render our discipleship meaningless and make us hypocrites. 

This transcends partisan politics straight to the core of Christianity: do we put our love for God and our love for neighbor before anything else or do we have politics, ideologies, pride, material goods, whatever it may be that we have elevated higher than our obligation to love God and love our neighbor?

We know that this life is a test to see if we can do what God commands us to do. If we have reached the point where we are willing to step back and watch innocent people die brutal deaths and a country be destroyed rather than have charity, justified by our political beliefs, we are not Christian. If we watch evil unfold before our eyes and do not have compassion for those who are harmed, we are not Christian. If we remain puffed up in pride and use an evil situation to further our political agenda, we are not Christians. 

Discipleship allows a spectrum of belief on a variety of issues, but we cease to be disciples of Jesus, at least, when we do not love each other. If we possess every Christian virtue except charity, we have entirely missed Christianity.

If we are to not just draw near to God with our lips but have our hearts close to him as well, then our hearts must be close to the children of God, especially when they are oppressed.  In the case of Ukrainians, may we feed their hunger, may we give them drink, may we welcome them in, and may we clothe them. 

Our life is a performance of Christian discipleship. May we make it count.

The post The Christian Obligation to Support Ukraine appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, as the editors already noted, has exposed deep fault lines within American thought. The scriptures Latter-day Saints have chosen to emphasize have exposed similar divides. Many are quoting well-known scriptures such as those to “renounce war and proclaim peace,” the tears of God in response to violence among His children, and others reflecting a general opposition to violence and bloodshed that is true of virtually every faith tradition.  

The problem with highlighting those scriptures right now isn’t the aspiration towards peace, since everyone wishes for it. The problem is the failure to recognize that renouncing war in isolation seems to imply opposition to all warfare. And that opposition taken as a blanket rule would mean that the Ukrainian people, in this current moment, are subjected without any real, and effective assistance to the naked aggression and “barbarous cruelty” of their brethren to the east. 

But to insist that God’s word in scripture is exclusively a pacifist message is as much of a “wresting” of the actual text as happens with many other modern and popular ideologies. I believe the discourse among people of faith and Americans, in general, might be enhanced by considering scripture and unique Latter-day Saint scriptures articulating a loving defense of rights by active, armed intervention.

The courage of Ukrainians. For instance, modern members of the Church of Jesus Christ can appreciate the frenetic and fearful mood of the ancient Nephites as they witness the unleashed Russian war machine against Ukraine. Many historical theologians had to wrestle with competing ethics in biblical texts (some of which are discussed below). But there are clear examples that provide orientation. An ancient Putinesque figure named Amalakiah exerted relentless, malicious energies to “bring his brethren into bondage.” Were it not for the intensive, concerted, and righteous efforts to fight back led by Captain Moroni—joined by his brethren—it was inevitable that their lives would be stripped of freedom. Moroni rallied his people by asking who would maintain their “rights and their religion”—defending “our freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.”

It’s hard to ignore the parallel language for anyone who has heard democratically elected President Zelensky speaking to his people over recent weeks. For instance, he said: “This is our land and our history … [our fight] is about peace and principles, of justice, of international law. It is about the right to self-determination, that every person might determine their own future. It is the right of every society, and of every person, to security, to a life without threats.”

In later scriptural verses, Mormon describes the Nephite “reluct[ance]” to fight, but the simultaneous desire to avoid abandoning their people to the “barbarous cruelty” of the invaders. Underscoring the importance of having the right heart, this people was also reluctant to fight because of their concern for sending so many unprepared souls to meet God. This is the loving heart of just war that has gone too infrequently mentioned in modern Latter-day Saint thought, but which proves key in governing how we should react.

A scriptural basis for supportive intervention. But the call to action isn’t simply based on the zeal of the moment or inspiring stories, and it must go deeper than “partisan allegiances and the urgencies of battle.” If a nation is on fire, simply put, one should consider putting out the fire instead of simply providing first aid for burn victims. Beyond the concept of love and a desire to protect one’s neighbors using force, what modern theorists call humanitarian intervention isn’t new or uniquely stated in Latter-day Saint scripture.  The concept has developed through the years and starts with the idea that people have either God-given or natural rights. These rights can’t be violated on a personal basis. The Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas invoked Psalms 82:4 as an impetus for delivering the poor and needy (A Latter-day Saint version of this concept is reflected in sacred text referring to constitutional principles for “the rights and protection of all flesh” premised on the idea that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.”)  Thus, if many people’s rights are being violated through death, robbery, or any other violence, they have a right to appeal to their prince or ruler. As the early modern writer, Hugo Grotius wrote in what sounds like a couplet from King Benjamin, “kings receive authority that men might enjoy justice.” But with other powers and states, the judicial system of one state fails to have authority in another state.   

This led to an early form of humanitarian intervention because a loving prince had a duty to intervene even if it was another state’s citizens who were suffering from an unjust ruler. This provision providing for oneself and neighborly help in just war has fallen out of favor with modern thinkers and people for the basic reason that it is too often used and manipulated to the point that any leader can wage war against any state at any time. For instance, Vladimir Putin referenced this notion when he claimed he was protecting the rights of Russian minorities and seeking to deNazify the Ukrainian state. Even classical Chinese theorists like the strongest opponent of offensive war named Mozi, still left the door open for leaders to manipulate their countries into war through the ability to “punish” wrongdoers. 

Yet the fact of this principle being manipulated doesn’t mean we should stand by as the innocent are massacred. The scriptures send a stark message about love and hypocrites that apply to the practice of humanitarian intervention too. Contemporary Christian thinkers like Paul Ramsey have noted the expansive nature of love in the story of the Good Samaritan. He asked simply, what if the Good Samaritan happened upon the beaten traveler in the middle of the attack? It is absurd to think in the name of “turn the other cheek” (or “renounce war”), he would have picked up the other cheek of his neighbor to be struck. The love that the Good Samaritan had for his fellow man not only justifies but demands the use of force in such an instance. 

Opponents of using force would cite the inhumanity of warfare and the potential death and destruction as reasons to avoid intervention. Those are important concerns, as many historical thinkers took great pains to limit the dangers of war. But to borrow a commonly cited verse from the same mighty American text, God’s mercy “cannot rob” his justice. Overwrought concern for potential future victims of American intervention would have mercy rob justice and rob current victims of nonintervention. In short, reading about love in the Book of Mormon shows the need to love your neighbor by defending their violated rights. Talk about peace cannot be used as a justification for standing idly by while thousands are slaughtered. This is what Thomas Aquinas would call an “evil peace.” 

So when Latter-day Saints are moved by compassion for those in Ukraine they must turn away from the temptation to muddy the waters with ideas that the problem is “over there,” can’t be located on a map, is less important than domestic problems, and thus insignificant, too complicated to recognize good and bad guys, that America is too wicked to intervene, or that they love peace and thus oppose intervention. They might instead trust in their compassion and consider Amulek’s teaching to the Zoramites: 

For after ye have done all these things, if ye turn away the needy, and the naked, and visit not the sick and afflicted, and impart of your substance, if ye have, to those who stand in need—I say unto you, if ye do not any of these things, behold, your prayer is vain, and availeth you nothing, and ye are as hypocrites who do deny the faith.

This scripture is often cited as a need for those that have faith and follow Christ to back it up with action. That is a good point that most would agree with. Yet love doesn’t stop when it becomes difficult or requires force. In matters of war and peace love is equal parts convicting and motivating. Believers can donate to charities, speak out against human rights abuses, and other similar activities. But if they stop there, they might be like the first responder that provides first aid for a burn victim, without consideration for the conflagration blazing all around them creating more victims. If they blanch at wielding the sword instead of proclaiming peace they might consider John Calvin when he wrote, “If a ruler sheaths their sword and keep their hands unsullied by blood, while the wicked roam about massacring and slaughtering, then so far from reaping praise for their goodness and justice, they make themselves guilty of the greatest possible injustice.” 

Among other things, the story of the Good Samaritan should tell us that the Ukrainians are our neighbors we have an obligation to love. The Book of Mormon teaches that if we turn away the needy and suffering, we are as hypocrites who deny the faith. Alma tells us that the justice of God cannot be robbed by mercy, and while controversial, we might consider how our talk of love and peace might rob the Ukrainians by preventing timely and needed intervention to protect their lives. If we choose to ignore that mandate to love our neighbors by failing to take meaningful action to stop their slaughter, we could likewise seem more like hypocrites who have posted memes and scriptures about love and peace but do nothing to show love or bring about peace for those that need it most.

The post Loving Neighbors by Standing Up to Their Slaughter appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In order to hinder the NAACP’s efforts in this regard, the state of Alabama attempted to require the NAACP to disclose its membership lists, including both names and addresses. The NAACP resisted, recognizing the impending harassment and potential violence its donors would face if this information became known. After a complicated legal battle, the Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of the NAACP, holding that the right to keep the donor information private was part of the freedom of association. 

Though freedom of association is not mentioned in the text of the Constitution, the Court has recognized it in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and other cases as a constitutional right implicitly tied to the exercise of the First Amendment rights. In the recent case of Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta (2021), the Court once again faced a freedom of association question related to donor privacy: Did compelling charities to disclose donor information to the state of California (in the interest of preventing charitable fraud) unconstitutionally abridge freedom of association?

The victory for the petitioners seems to be a clear win for First Amendment rights, but critics of the decision raise important questions: Is donor privacy always as important as the Court makes it out to be? And was the Court’s protection of donor association rights unnecessarily and problematically broad?

The importance of donor privacy

Nobody wants to risk harassment, intimidation, threats, and violence simply for donating to a charity, and thankfully, most charitable supporters probably won’t. But occasionally, financial supporters of some 501(c)(3)s do face these threats, posing a deterrent effect to their freedom of association that is, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, “real and pervasive.” 

Consider the example of Brendan Eich, who was effectively forced to resign from his appointment to CEO of Mozilla Firefox because of his previous donations to the Proposition 8 campaign. Scott Eckern, former artistic director for the California Musical Theater, faced the same fate, while the phenomenon has leaked into other political arenas; for example, police officer William Kelly was fired after donating to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense. 

Whether or not one agrees with the causes to which these individuals donated, it is important to recognize that each donor faced significant retaliation for what was merely a constitutional exercise of their associational rights. Donor privacy could have helped these individuals to support what they wanted to stand for without facing substantial risks to their livelihoods. 

Because of examples like these and a hostile political climate, most of us probably engage in some sort of risk analysis before exercising our First Amendment rights. 

Do I really want to unleash a Twitter skirmish? 

Will my employer fire me for donating to this organization? 

Can I get into or teach at an elite school if I voice an insufficiently woke opinion?  

While it’s advisable for all of us to think (and usually, learn) before we speak, the pressure to say the “right” thing—or, at a minimum, avoid saying the “wrong” thing—is creating a chilling effect on freedom of speech. 

The results of a July 2020 Cato survey provide strong evidence that fears of wrongthink are curtailing our discourse. The survey found that 62 percent of Americans (including the majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans) self-censor because of a political climate that makes them feel they cannot say the things they believe. And fears associated with “cancel culture” (despite its imprecise definition) may also be influencing this self-censorship; a 2021 Pew Research study found that while cancel culture is praised by some for holding people accountable, others perceive it as a censorship threat. 

And that’s just when it comes to voicing an opinion. If people put their money where their mouth is (or where it would be, if they weren’t afraid), the consequences might be worse than Twitter-shaming or even employment termination. Petitioner Thomas More Law Center, a conservative non-profit law group that defends religious freedom, family values, and the sanctity of life, said its clients, whose names cannot be kept private, have faced kidnapping, torture, death threats, and even an assassination attempt, in addition to ongoing harassment, hate speech, and boycotting. These actions, Thomas More Law Center notes, are likely indicative of what its donors would face if their names were disclosed publicly. NAACP members in the ‘50s faced similar problems. Had their names been disclosed, the entire membership list would have been subject to heinous acts.

Of course, it’s worth debating whether merely disclosing information to the government is as bad as public disclosure. That distinction was complicated in this case because California had failed to ensure that its donor records were kept secure. 

But even if the records had been secure, the ruling in Americans for Prosperity would likely have been the same: “Our cases have said that disclosure requirements can chill association ‘even if there is no disclosure to the general public,’” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

The Court used Shelton v. Tucker (1960) to prove this point. Shelton was a case in which public school teachers in Arkansas had been required to disclose all their organizational affiliations. This information was used in hiring decisions; in fact, Arkansas used it to prevent members of the NAACP from becoming teachers.

But good intentions today may not always result in good intentions or outcomes tomorrow. Even though California claims it has remedied its security issues with the donor information, the previous security breach reminds us that the government is not infallible. And while one hopes that donor information held by the state will always be used correctly in the future, much depends on continued ethical practice by public officials—something that, unfortunately, is not always guaranteed. 

Was the Court’s decision overly broad?

It’s important to step back and note that all of these examples so far have concerned charitable organizations with controversial political views. It’s true that many, if not most, charities are minimally controversial. Many donors have no objection to disclosing their information; in fact, many publicly proclaim their charitable giving.

Justice Sotomayor noted as much in her dissent, arguing that this demonstrates the Court’s decision was overly broad. In particular, she accuses the Court of assuming that donor association rights are inherently burdened by disclosure requirements. “You skipped a step,” she effectively says to the Court: burdens on rights of association need to be proved. Because burdens don’t automatically emerge from donor disclosure requirements, she contends, the Court should not have imposed a blanket standard that subjects them to the high degree of scrutiny the Court employed (known as exacting scrutiny).

To her point, the ruling may be broader than necessary. But it’s difficult to imagine Justice Sotomayor’s proposed alternative being tenable. She suggests that controversial charities should have to demonstrate a burden on associational rights and then apply for an exemption to disclosure requirements.

There are a number of potential problems that could emerge under this approach. First and foremost is the “deterrent effect” Chief Justice Roberts described. Because donors have little confidence their information will actually be kept private, they may be reluctant to give, knowing that their charities would have to fight a legal battle for this right with no assurance of a victory. Furthermore, applying for an exemption may draw additional attention, skepticism, and even hacking attempts upon the charity and its donors, increasing the social and political cost of applying for an exemption. 

And finally, who’s to say which charities do and don’t support controversial causes? As more issues and organizations become politicized, organizations that once thought they were safe from the throes of political controversy may in the future find their information used against them and their donors. 

Given the potential consequences of disclosing donor information, it’s easy to see why donor privacy and associational rights draw support across the board and why many have praised the Court’s decision. Nobody wants to lose his or her job for voicing a political or moral opinion or supporting a view that doesn’t comport with corporate’s. Nobody wants to be Brendan Eich. 

On the whole, the decision in Americans for Prosperity was a victory for American civil liberties at a crucial time when social media and cultural norms have deterred many from standing for and articulating what they really believe. While the case deserves investigation on other grounds—including whether the “exacting scrutiny” standard applied was the right one, or whether the decision poses a threat to donor disclosure in electoral contexts—it should be commended for providing more robust protection for the critical rights of the First Amendment. If we want to foster a society where Americans will be capable of the intellectual and moral integrity to truly think for themselves and act accordingly, we should celebrate the outcome of this decision.

The post Protecting Freedom of Association: Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta appeared first on Public Square Magazine.