We recently sat down with Professor George to talk about what Fidelity Month is all about. This interview has been edited for length and clarity, and Professor George has approved the edits.

Public Square Magazine: For readers who may not be familiar with Fidelity Month, what is it and how did it start?

Robert George: Back in the spring of 2023, I happened to read a report in the Wall Street Journal. It included polling data showing that the belief of Americans in certain core values—values that had traditionally been sources of unity and strength for Americans—had very considerably diminished over the past decade or decade and a half. I’m talking about values such as religion, family, and patriotism. And these values have indeed been sources of our unity and strength in the United States of America because we are not a nation who can look to a common racial heritage or ethnic heritage, or even a common religious tradition or cultural heritage for our unity and strength. We Americans come from many, many different racial and ethnic backgrounds. We come from different traditions of faith. Our cultural histories are very different. So what do we have in common? What binds us together? Especially when times get tough—what are our sources of unity and strength?

Historically, they’ve been a shared commitment to the principles of our civic order, the principles of our Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. But also, very critically, they’ve been a shared belief in the importance of fidelity to God. Whether we’re Jewish or Christian, whether we’re Protestant or Catholic, Orthodox, LDS, we share, at least historically have shared, a commitment to the idea that there is a superintending deity: a God who creates us, indeed creates us equal, and endows us with certain unalienable rights. These rights don’t come from government; they don’t come from kings or parliaments or presidents or congresses; they come from a more than merely human source. And therefore, no merely human authority can legitimately violate those rights or take them away. So we’ve had that in common historically.

In fact, the polling showed that one value had increased in importance in the minds of Americans, and that was money. Religion went down, family went down, country went down, but the belief in the importance of money went up. Now, I’m all for people being prosperous. I want everybody to be financially secure. I want people to have enough money to take care of themselves and their families, and have a few luxuries, and all that. But money, as important as it is, is not on the same scale of importance with God, family, and country.

So, I really was concerned. And I thought, “How can we go about the business of reviving and restoring our fellow citizens’ commitment to the principles that once were the sources of our unity and strength that once bound us together?” How do we rebuild faith in God, a deeper commitment to spouses and families, a sense of the importance of patriotism and love of country? So, I said, initially to myself, well, we have a day for this, and a week for that, and a month for the other thing. How about having a month that’s dedicated to fidelity? To fidelity to God, fidelity to spouses and families, and fidelity to our country and communities.

And so I did what you do these days. I went online. I went to my Facebook account and my Twitter account, and I announced: “By the power vested in me by absolutely no one, henceforth the month of June will be Fidelity Month.” And that’s how it all began. And then, fortunately, people read the social media posts, and a number of people said, this is a great idea. We want to get behind this. And the next thing you know, we had Fidelity Month up and going. It’s entirely a grassroots movement. It’s not a top-down directed thing. There’s no budget, there’s no staff, there’s no administrative structure, there’s no president. I guess I’m the founder, since it was my idea, and I floated it on social media, but there’s no official structure for Fidelity Month. But it’s grown as a grassroots movement.

And I was really delighted, that for this month, for June of 2026, the governors of both Utah and Arkansas have proclaimed, officially, their states’ recognition of Fidelity Month, as has Michigan’s House of Representatives. So, it’s a growing movement.

PSM: This seems to be catching on. Why are people interested in this idea?

Robert George: Because at the end of the day, there are some things that money can’t buy. And there are some things that are more important than money. That’s not to deprecate the importance of material things. As I say, I really do want everyone to prosper financially. I want everyone to have a materially good life. But that’s a secondary consideration, or should be a secondary consideration. And I think even if things have gotten a bit out of whack, and people are tending to value material things over the more-than-merely-material things, people feel the want or the need for something greater, something beyond ourselves, something beyond the material.

And that’s when faith in God, the importance of fidelity to the family, the importance of patriotism and love of country and community come to the fore. Of course, people sometimes just need reminding. There’s an old saying that people more often need reminding than instruction. And I think that’s true in this case. People know in their hearts that there are some things that money can’t buy, there are some things that are more important than the material things of life, and they have a pretty good idea of what those things are. But sometimes, folks need to be reminded. So Fidelity Month is a reminder for all of us.

PSM: For you, is there an important distinction between “fidelity” and related concepts like “commitment” or “loyalty”? Was it important for you for this to be Fidelity Month?

Robert George: Well, there are certainly related concepts that are very important, and that are aspects of fidelity in some cases, but I think the term fidelity is the right term. What we need to revive is faith. Now, part of that is what we usually mean by faith, namely, faith in God. But we also need greater (and richer) fidelity in marriage and in the family. And we also need a revival of patriotism—fidelity to our country and communities. Being faithful involves being grateful—and that is another related concept. We’re faithful when we’re grateful. And fidelity does require gratitude, and gratitude does prompt fidelity, or reinforces fidelity. We should be grateful to live in this country, where we have, by the standards of history and cultures, an almost unique measure of liberty, opportunity, and security. Most people, in most places, at most times, would give their right arm for the opportunity to live in a place like the United States of America. And we don’t often appreciate enough what our country makes available to us and makes possible for us. Therefore, sometimes we’re not grateful; but we should be.

PSM: I think many people can easily get on board with the idea of fidelity to God and fidelity to family, but fidelity to country might be harder for some people. When many people hear patriotism, they immediately link it to nationalism. Could you walk us through how you think about patriotism?

Robert George: When some people hear the word “patriotism,” what they think is being evoked is a kind of chauvinism. But patriotism is not that. Patriotism is not thinking, because I’m an American, I’m better than you because you’re Japanese, or Indonesian, or French, or whatever. Even the concept of American exceptionalism, which I think is an important concept that I’ll talk about in a minute, is not a matter of beating on our chests and saying how wonderful we are and how much better we are than other people. That’s not it at all. Patriotism is simply a matter of being grateful and therefore being loyal. In other words, faithful to the country.

And patriotism itself is concern for one’s community—recognizing that one is not an island or an atomistic individual. So that’s the respect in which America is an exceptional place. No, it’s not that other people don’t believe in God, or think the family is very important, or believe in patriotism. People, wherever they are, should love their country for the gifts that their country gives them and makes available to them. They might not love their regime, they might not love their government. But patriotism is not love of your government. And it does not require us to adopt the position, “my government right or wrong.” Patriotism is love of one’s country.

Now, for those of us who are religious believers, certainly for those of us who are Christians, we recognize that love of country is secondary. Our first loyalty is to God. And our second loyalty is to our family. But to recognize that our first loyalty is to God and our second loyalty is our family is in no way to suggest that we don’t also need to be grateful to, and loyal to, our country and our community. It’s true that love of country can go haywire. And the nation can become an idol. But anything can become an idol. Anything can replace God. We have to be careful of that, no matter what the other thing is. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t properly contribute to, believe in, uphold, and be loyal to our country and our family.

PSM: I’m curious what threats you see to fidelity both in culture and in the ways that laws are changing. Where are these threats coming from, in your view?

Robert George: There are plenty of threats; there are always plenty of threats. As I said, anything can become an idol. The human condition is such that human beings—we frail, fallen, fallible creatures—are always vulnerable to the temptation to put something in God’s place, to put something first above God. Those of us who are Christians, of course, believe that there is nothing that comes above God or before God. The trouble is, we can put other things first. We can put money first. We can put fulfilling or satisfying our desires ahead of God—making our desires into idols. We can put fame or celebrity first, replacing God with those idols. Power, wealth, status, all of those things can become idols.

And we today, in 2026, here in the United States and throughout the world, are as vulnerable to those temptations to idol worship as anybody has ever been in the history of the human race. We are as prone to idol worship as were the people who bowed down before stone outcroppings or worshiped golden calves in ancient times. So that’s number one.

Now, what are the threats? Well, the threats are everywhere. Promiscuity. The divorce culture. Everything that came out of the sexual revolution. You can date the sexual revolution in different ways. You know, once you start trying to trace these things back, the next thing you know you’re in the Garden of Eden with the serpent and the apple and Adam and Eve. But certainly in the 1940s Alfred Kinsey’s widely hyped and quite phony and fraudulent so-called sexuality “science” became a kind of justifying theory for breaking traditional norms of sexual morality. And then in the 1950s, we had the mainstreaming of pornography, so-called softcore pornography, beginning with Hugh Hefner’s Playboy magazine and his whole empire. Then the 1960s counterculture normalized promiscuity and made it socially acceptable. With that came the rise in out-of-wedlock childbearing and massive fatherlessness, especially in some of the most vulnerable communities, or sub-communities of our country. And then the sexual revolution continued to the point at which you now have people claiming that being male or female is not an objective biological reality. Instead, it’s said to be a matter of some subjective alleged “gender identity” that you have invisibly somewhere inside you. So, there are very significant threats to the family today.

And then with patriotism and love of country, it’s so easy to fall into thinking, well, my country owes me, or my community owes me, but I owe nothing back. I’m here for them to serve. And I need to just focus on getting everything I can from the common stock or the common pool. And, I don’t have any responsibility to give back, to serve, to do my part, to be a contributing member of the community. And I think, again, we have to fight back and push back against such attitudes. We need to remind people of the importance of being contributors and not just takers.

PSM: I’m curious, if you could have this grassroots movement grow in an ideal fashion, which institutions would be the most important for this to take hold? I know it’s exciting to see some states adopting it, but what about families, religious groups, or other groups? How do we spread it to those who maybe aren’t already inclined toward faithfulness?

Robert George: I like grassroots building. I want this to be a grassroots movement. I don’t want to try to direct everything from the top. So, I’d like to see it begin in the family, with Mom and Dad teaching the kids—not just by precept, but by example too. Precept is important. It’s important for parents and teachers and pastors to preach a little bit, to talk. But even more important is setting an example. So, Mom and Dad, set the example for your children of worshiping God and putting God first. That’s what my parents did for me. It’s the greatest gift they gave to me and my brothers.

Second, parents should model fidelity in their love and concern for each other. And by fidelity, I want to make clear, I mean more than merely avoiding having adulterous affairs. That’s important, obviously. But that’s only the beginning of fidelity, not the whole of fidelity in marriage. The whole of fidelity in marriage means serving your husband or wife. Serving your spouse. That’s why we think of marriage, rightly, as a vocation. Vocation is not a career; vocation is not a job. Vocation is a way of serving, and in marriage, husband serves wife and wife serves husband. Marriage is a way of serving. And of course, husband and wife, as father and mother, serve their children. So, I think it’s important for men and women as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, to model fidelity in its richest sense in marriage.

Third, parents, again, by precept and example, can model patriotism. They can take their civic responsibilities seriously and thereby encourage and teach their children to take their civic responsibilities seriously. Vote. Contribute to campaigns. Get behind the causes you believe in. Contribute time as well as money to serving the civic interest. Be willing to run for office. It doesn’t have to be President of the United States. How about the local school board? How about the county commission? Or support friends and neighbors who you think would be good office holders in their efforts to be a county commissioner, or a school board member, or mayor, or whatever it is.  I think those are some of the ways, and they all involve teaching by both precept and example. People can begin in the family to promote fidelity.

Then, what’s next? Churches and synagogues and mosques and other houses of worship all over the country should be promoting these values. I would love the churches—all denominations and traditions, because they basically share the same set of principles—I’d love to see them get behind Fidelity Month, recognize Fidelity Month. The pastor should preach a sermon about fidelity at least once during the month. Preach on fidelity. Maybe you could do three Fidelity Month sermons: One on faithfulness to God, one on faithfulness in marriage, one on patriotism and love of country, and why that’s legitimate and not idolatrous, unless you go about it in an idolatrous way.

And remember, this is all about reminding people of what they already know. We’re not teaching something new. This is not some new ideology. It’s not some new philosophy, it’s not some new theory. It’s just reminding people that there are some things that really matter, that ultimately matter.

You know, I sometimes say to my students, and to my kids (and to myself, to be honest with you) that there are some things that matter, but at the end of the day, not all that much. And then there are other things that really matter. So, what are the things that matter, but at the end of the day, not all that much? Things like wealth, power, influence, status, prestige, celebrity. Those aren’t bad things. It’s not bad to want those things. In fact, they can be good things because you can use them for good. You can use money for lots of good things. You can use power, if you have it, in a good way, for good things, to do good things. You can use influence for good. You can use celebrity for good.

But those things, though they matter, are not, at the end of the day the things that really matter, because things like wealth, power, status, influence, prestige, and celebrity are not ends in themselves. They’re not things that we want just for their own sake. They’re things that are means to other ends, and they have their value only as means to other ends. And they need to be contrasted with the things that really matter, the things that are not mere means to other ends but are desirable for their own sakes—things like faith, family, friendship, knowledge, beauty, integrity, honesty, decency, and compassion. Those are the things we want, not just as extrinsic instruments to get something else that they will make it possible for us to obtain or attain. They are the things you want for their own sakes. They are the things that really matter. They’re the things that ultimately matter.

David Brooks has a good way of illustrating the difference. He asks, what do you want on your tombstone someday? We all have just a short period of time on this earth. If you live 100 years, that’s a really old age, but it’s a blink of an eye in the history of the cosmos. What do you want on your tombstone for whatever number of years you have? Do you want it to say something like, Summa Cum Laude, Princeton? Goldman Sachs partner? No. What you want is something like “faithful husband, loving father and grandfather, loyal friend.” From the perspective of death, we can see more clearly the difference between the things that really matter, such as family, friendship, faith, knowledge, beauty, integrity, from the things that matter but not all that much.

PSM: Are there other ways that people can get involved if they are interested in doing more?

Robert George: Yes. I’d like everybody to go to the Fidelity Month website, www.fidelitymonth.com, because there at the website, you’ll be able to see what you personally can do to be part of this grassroots movement. There aren’t going be people upstairs who are doing stuff. Everything about Fidelity Month is grassroots, so if you go to the website, you can see what you can do to promote Fidelity Month.

Number one, you can say the Fidelity Month Prayer, which is a prayer that people in all traditions of faith can, in good conscience, say to ask God’s blessing on us, that we may be truly faithful to Him, faithful to our spouses and families, loyal and faithful to our country. Number two, you’ll be able to access the Fidelity Month logo for free. Use it for the month of June for your social media accounts. Use it on Facebook, or Twitter, or Instagram, or whatever social media accounts you have. Number three, it has suggestions about what you can do in your local community, like hosting a speaker for Fidelity Month, maybe at your church, maybe at your community center, or having a panel discussion. You can also go to the merch section of the website, and you can buy at cost (we don’t make any money on it, it’s just sold at cost) the Fidelity Month flag, or a Fidelity Month cap or tee-shirt. Those things help to get the message out. People see the cap, they see the shirt, they see the flag, and they ask, hey, what’s that about? And boy, there’s your opportunity to witness to the importance of fidelity. And there are many other suggestions about how just everyday people, just ordinary folks, in every walk of life, from every tradition of faith, with every background, can spread the word about fidelity and be part of this movement to remind people about the things that really matter.

The post Robert P. George on Fidelity Month appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

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

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

A Divinely Inspired Constitution 

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

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

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

The Connection Between the Constitution and the Declaration

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking Equal Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.