They talk as though “Mormonism” were an ethnicity. As though there were something in the blood. As though having the right grandparents, the right zip code, the right memories of casseroles and church basketball and trek and EFY and green Jell-O and dirty sodas and ward culture means you retain some inherited authority to define what the Church is, what it should preserve, and what it owes the world.

The Church of Jesus Christ is not an aesthetic, it’s not an ethnicity, it’s not a regional brand, it’s not even a culture. It is a church.

It has doctrine, commandments, ordinances, priesthood keys, and covenants. It has admission requirements, and it has boundaries.

“Mormon” Isn’t a Culture

Beginning in the early- to mid-2010s, there was a tendency among online Latter-day Saint malcontents to claim they had a special say over what happened in the Church by listing their Latter-day Saint bona fides before they launched into whatever complaint they had.

It started to become an embarrassing cliche, but these critics would usually talk about callings in which they served, people they knew, and their heritage in the Church, as though this gave them some special authority to critique.

Perhaps the most groan-worthy example of this was when The Washington Post described James Huntsman, who at that point was no longer a member of The Church of Jesus Christ, as “Mormon royalty” because of who his family was. 

At the time, these complaints were usually focused on tensions between the critics’ progressive American beliefs and the positions of a worldwide church. And the attitude was imported from Reddit, a social media site that is designed to encourage groupthink, and condescension against those outside its own orthodoxy. 

At the same time, a trend began of conceptualizing a Latter-day Saint culture that was severable from the doctrine and practice of the Church, led by many of the mommy bloggers and eventual influencers. They showed their lives online, but often with the religious portions omitted or left on the edges to make the lifestyle content more broadly accessible. 

Increasingly, those who were in the space, but not faithful Latter-day Saints themselves, would use the word “Mormon” to describe themselves, their spaces, or their movement. In fact, on Reddit, they called the “subreddit” dedicated to criticizing The Church of Jesus Christ and its members “r/mormon.” 

This trend has continued as the Church’s actual membership increasingly lives outside Utah and the United States, among people who would be quite confused by carrots in Jell-O.

Why Would They Still Want the Name?

I understand why so many people want to associate themselves with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the “Mormon” name. 

For the purposes of marketing, “Mormon” clearly interests people. Latter-day Saints have incredible reputations worldwide. I can understand why those who don’t choose to support The Church of Jesus Christ or live by its covenants and doctrines still want to participate in the sense of community and identity it provided. I would also love it if I could keep getting paychecks from my employer without doing any of the work. 

But just because their desire to stay associated with the Church makes sense doesn’t mean that reasonable people need to abide by it. 

John Dehlin, for example, criticized the Church with false information for so long and so consistently that he was excommunicated over a decade ago. His podcast, “Mormon Stories,” is not about “Mormon stories,” nor has it been for a very long time. The podcast is, by all rights, about “Ex-Mormon Stories” or “Anti-Mormon Stories.”

So when he recently described himself in a podcast as “Mormon,” it makes sense, it’s just not true, not in any meaningful way. 

And we would do well to look at such claims the same way Europeans do when Americans claim European identity—with cringe. 

“You’re not Irish. Maybe your great grandparents were Irish, but then they left, and you’ve been in America for a very long time.” 

Names have incredible power, which is why they are protected under trademark law. I understand faith transitions can be difficult, and they implicate identity in difficult ways. But if you apostasize from your faith, you don’t get to keep claiming it. Or at least people should ignore you when you try to. 

The process of leaving a faith fundamentally changes the way you think about it, the way you talk about it, and the way you remember it. This is why the Washington Post’s reporting on James Huntsman was so harmful. If he were in fact a “Mormon” who chose to sue the Church, that would communicate something very different about what was happening than the fact that he was an ex-Mormon and chose to sue the Church. 

And that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of his point. But for someone on the inside to make certain kinds of claims is just different than when someone on the outside does the same. People understand this instinctively. 

So when someone uses “Mormon” to describe themselves or their community after they’ve actually left, they are trying to appropriate credibility they haven’t earned. 

I understand that many people desire to discuss their experience growing up within The Church of Jesus Christ even if they’ve left the Church. There is a simple, easy-to-understand way to describe this: “Ex-Latter-day Saint” or “Ex-Mormon.”

Didn’t You Give Up on the Name “Mormon”?

Let’s talk about the word “Mormon” for a minute. Latter-day Saints no longer choose to describe themselves this way. We choose to find every opportunity we can to refer to Jesus Christ and our membership in His Church. 

Some have attempted to argue that because Latter-day Saints no longer use the description “Mormon” for themselves, it is free for others to use. 

It’s not. 

Kentucky Fried Chicken has recently decided to no longer use that name for its restaurants; it is now called just KFC. 

When The Church of Jesus Christ announced a reprioritization of its name, there were several simple short plugins for existing nomenclature. For example:

• “Mormons” could be replaced with “Latter-day Saints”
• “Mormon Church” could be replaced with “The Church of Jesus Christ”
• “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” could be replaced with the “Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square”

But there was one common phrase that did not have an easy replacement: “Mormonism.” And as a writer who has had to deal with this limitation, the more I’ve worked through it, the more obvious it has become to me that this was not an oversight. 

In today’s Church, there is no single “Mormonism”; there are hundreds of cultures around the world as people live the gospel in their own countries and settings.

That thing we call “Mormonism” doesn’t actually do a good job of explaining the culture of all the people who believe in The Book of Mormon. There are lots of smaller cultures within it, and being left without an obvious word I’ve had to think more carefully about what I actually mean. Do I mean Word of Wisdom culture, or do I simply mean Utah culture. 

There is a culture, and it’s probably the culture you think of when I say “Mormonism,” but it is increasingly niche, and we need to find ways to describe it that do not implicate nearly 18 million people worldwide. It is a contemporary Utah-descended lifestyle culture that is downstream from an older pioneer world. It’s an evolved pioneer culture. It could be called “Utah culture” or “Intermountain West culture.” But it’s not “Mormon” culture, it’s not the culture of The Church of Jesus Christ, it’s one of many cultures within a worldwide gathering.

There’s nothing wrong with this evolved pioneer culture. I love funeral potatoes. But to suggest that Taylor Frankie Paul, the star of “Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” is part of “Mormonism” because she drinks dirty sodas, even after she chose to leave, is offensive. 

So I, for one, greeted the news that The Church of Jesus Christ was suing “Mormon Stories” for trademark infringement with gratitude. 

Why Do You Care Who Calls Themselves “Mormon”?

I should be clear: the Church isn’t suing John Dehlin simply because he’s using the word “Mormon” to describe his podcast. The Church is suing him because he uses the word in conjunction with visual imagery specifically to trick people into listening to his podcast, and he refuses to include a disclaimer. 

The fact that most people will quickly be able to tell, after clicking on his podcast, that he is a malcontent doesn’t change the underlying lie. I still couldn’t start a restaurant called “Kentucky Fried Chicken” even if it sold hamburgers to prevent confusion. Trading on that company’s identity to get people in the front door is a problem in itself.

But just because The Church of Jesus Christ is not going after Dehlin solely for using the word “Mormon” doesn’t mean that people of good faith shouldn’t.

This is especially important because it causes incredulous media to turn to these folks as experts on The Church of Jesus Christ, and it can impact members and investigators who are not frequently online. 

Mormon may not be the name we call ourselves, but it is still an important part of who we are. The nickname comes from a record of Jesus Christ visiting people on another continent. That matters to us. Imagine an ex-Muslim starting a podcast about “Quran Stories” and saying that this isn’t a problem because they don’t call themselves “Qurans,” they call themselves “Muslims.”

But that’s not what has happened. Those who have left the faith have not joined these other churches in good faith to continue describing themselves as “Mormon.” This also isn’t about well-meaning Latter-day Saints who may be struggling with a testimony or with standards but who still see themselves as within the community. This is about those who leave, and who, in many cases, are actively seeking to tear down the work done by people who actually love The Book of Mormon, continuing to use the word because it helps them generate more web traffic than an honest name would. 

The Subtle Racism of “Cultural Mormonism”

For a church community that is increasingly populated and run by people from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the idea that people get special say over what happens within the community because of who their grandparents were brings up unfortunate racial problems.

You gain membership through baptism, and you maintain that membership through covenant keeping. 

If you don’t do those two things, then you don’t have a seat at the table; you’ve decided to leave the table. That spot is for new converts learning to leave their own culture for the gospel way, who are trying every day to live in faith and honesty. Trying to freeze Mormon identity to a past time based on what our ancestors were doing dismisses the real work of those all over the world who don’t have that background, but who are doing the work. 

It is their voices that need to be heard, not the person whose grandfather worked with a Romney, or who was a district leader on a foreign language-speaking mission, or who served as second counselor in a bishopric but then decided to leave because the Church’s position on some social issue just wasn’t popular enough for him and his Instagram followers. That person isn’t “Mormon Royalty,” that person isn’t “Culturally Mormon,” that person doesn’t have “Mormon stories,” that person isn’t Mormon. He left. And I wish him the best. But we’re busy trying to build Zion, and you can’t steal our name to help tear it down. 

The post Who is a Mormon? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for minors is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits talk therapy. Commentators from across the political spectrum immediately began using the case, Chiles v. Salazar, as fodder for one political narrative or another, often without context or discussion of how the justices came to their conclusion. 

But interpreting the case as “mere politics” misses crucial details and ignores what the opinion actually said. The fact that eight members of the Court (including two Democrat-appointed justices) signed on to the decision suggests that this case might be more interesting than ordinary politics—it might teach us something about the Constitution. 

But first, what happened? 

Kaley Chiles is a licensed mental health counselor in Colorado. She is also a Christian. Some of her clients are minors who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria.

When these clients come to Ms. Chiles, she lets them dictate the kind of help they want. Some want to acknowledge their experiences with sexuality without making it the focus of their identity. Others don’t. For example, some of her clients who experience gender dysphoria want Ms. Chiles’ help to feel more comfortable with their biological sex. Others prefer to focus on affirming their gender identity. She adapts to the client’s goal.

Crucially for this case, Ms. Chiles employs only talk therapy in her practice. The counselor and client speak—that’s it. No medications, procedures, or other treatments involved.

Did the Supreme Court Just Reinstate Conversion Therapy?

In conducting her practice, Ms. Chiles ran into a law that Colorado passed in 2019. The law is aimed at banning conversion therapy for minors. Conversion therapy is therapy that attempts to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of the patient. Historically, it has included horrifying aversive techniques—including electric shock therapy—that have caused great suffering. Ms. Chiles does not use these methods, and no one in the case defends them.

In defense of the Colorado legislature, drafting laws is hard. Legislators try to define acceptable behavior as precisely as they can, but it’s easy for laws to miss the mark. They are often drafted broadly to ensure they fully encompass their aim—but the scope of the law often extends far beyond the bullseye. Activities that were never intended to be affected sometimes are. 

Broad laws lead to startling headlines like “Supreme Court Allows Licensed Mental Health Practitioners to Traumatize Children.” It gives the sense that the Supreme Court is saying full-steam ahead for shock therapy for people who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. None of us want that!

And thankfully, that’s not what happened here. The way Colorado operationalized “conversion therapy” was very broad, encompassing far more than the typical definition of “conversion therapy.” What Ms. Chiles was discussing in her practice, always at the request of the client, was on the outer edges of the law’s potential reach. 

As one survivor of conversion therapy put it when defending the kind of therapy in this case: “Those are not the coercive practices of my youth. They are value-congruent goals that even secular clinicians may support.” 

For people with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, particularly faithful Christians, this ruling is welcome relief. It means they can talk with their counselors freely and choose their own paths, not being coerced by the state to pursue only one path. For Christians seeking to find peace with their sexual identity and discipleship, this ruling actually preserves their ability to have fully frank conversations with their counselors, to grapple with all of the hard questions and the complexity of their experience. How painful would it be to have counselors who had to shut down those conversations?

The ruling can be seen as preserving choice for everyone, no matter your approach to LGBT+ issues. As Justices Kagan and Sotomayor point out in their concurrence, a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado’s—in other words, one that bars therapy affirming a minor’s sexual orientation and gender identity—would also be unconstitutional under this ruling. To ban one perspective but not the other is viewpoint discrimination, and that is almost always disallowed under the Constitution.

This ruling preserves the right of mental health counselors to speak with their clients, whatever path their clients decide to take. This is good news in a highly contested and very sensitive area. 

The Future of Speech and Conduct 

This case does not resolve all issues related to “conversion therapy”—not by a long shot. The ruling relied heavily on the fact that Ms. Chiles was only using speech in her practice. If she had offered medication or medical procedures, the whole analysis could change. That’s because it would then raise the question of whether the speech was “incidental to conduct,” a fancy legal way of acknowledging that speech and action are often connected to each other. For example, doctors are often required to provide informed consent to a patient before prescribing a medication or performing a surgery. The government can compel the doctor to provide this factual information because it is related to the treatment. But just how far the government can compel speech incidental to conduct is tricky to say. 

Justice Jackson, the lone dissenter, said that a counseling session should be treated as conduct that a state can regulate as part of its police powers. In her eyes, if you are experiencing gender dysphoria, there are a number of treatments you might pursue: medication, surgery, and counseling. Since she views counseling as just another form of treatment, and because the other treatments constitute conduct that the state can regulate, she thinks counseling should also be regulated as conduct, notwithstanding the fact (which she admits) that the conduct itself is pure speech. 

On its face, the argument seems plausible. But we think she misses how talk therapy is different from other kinds of treatment. Various treatments exist because people want different outcomes in a given situation. Counseling as a treatment allows the patient to explore the patient’s own goals. It has greater flexibility than other treatments, allowing the patient to drive the direction. 

Talk therapy is often chosen by people who, for faith or other reasons, prefer to form their sense of self around something other than the sexual feelings they experience. For some, the experience of same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria is a prominent part of their lives, yet the focal point is being a disciple of Christ, including living the law of chastity. Some may say this is a denial of who they “really are,” but this presupposes that the person is constituted fundamentally by their sexual desires—an assumption that many people reject. Talk therapy provides an opportunity for people to decide for themselves how they will take a stand on their identity. 

The Culture Wars, Still Unresolved 

Again, though it’s easy to cheer or boo at this case based on your political leanings, it’s important to take a step back and see what this case actually changed—or didn’t change. Therapists can still talk to clients about the clients’ preferred approach to their sexual desires or feelings about gender. States can still ban harmful conversion therapy that involves medications or treatments that go beyond mere speech. What this case did not do is provide any kind of “resolution” to the ongoing cultural battles over sex, gender, and identity that have been going on for decades. Perhaps the work of finding “resolution” is not the Court’s job but is instead reserved for all of us.

The post Clarifying the Supreme Court’s Conversion Therapy Ruling appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Approximately one hundred people in California are alleging sexual abuse or misconduct linked to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California courts. If these claims all turn out to be true, that would represent one hundred individual tragedies—one hundred instances of innocence lost and one hundred relationships with God potentially complicated by the grievous actions (or inactions) of leaders. It would reflect one hundred stories of emotional and psychological pain.

Even if some of the cases do not hold up in court or are found to be inaccurate, it is heartbreaking to think that someone might feel so angry or disaffected as to make a false or exaggerated claim against the Church. Whether a claim is true or false, it indicates deep pain for those individuals and potentially serious consequences for the faith community they are accusing.

Responding with Care

As Latter-day Saints who have covenanted to mourn with those who mourn, we have an obligation to respond as best we can to these developments. Responding effectively to disclosures of sexual abuse requires empathy, active listening, and clear, survivor-centered steps. First and foremost, start by believing the survivor—thank them for trusting you and reaffirm that what happened was not their fault. As emphasized by RAINN and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, a supportive response prevents secondary victimization, where a survivor is retraumatized by disbelief or judgment.

There is a role for recognizing that false accusations exist. But that role is in broader policy conversations and in specific accusations where the legal system is equipped to provide the accused with the presumption of innocence.

Next, listen without pressing for details the survivor is not ready to share. Calmly acknowledge their pain: “I’m so sorry this happened to you. You’re not alone, and I’m here to help.” Validate their feelings of anger, sorrow, or confusion. According to the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, avoiding “why” questions and blame is crucial for building trust.

Above all, do not underestimate the healing power of compassion and genuine support. A caring, nonjudgmental environment helps survivors feel safe enough to begin rebuilding their lives. As followers of Jesus Christ this may be our best way to help as the Savior’s hands in moving healing forward. By following these best practices—believing, validating, providing options, and ensuring accountability—you can be a steady source of hope and healing for those who have experienced sexual abuse.

What the Church Already Does

There are established mechanisms within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to handle and prevent abuse. 

Their processes start with following best practices in training and policies that prevent abuse. The Church was a leader in abuse prevention, starting regular public sermons on the subject in the 1970s.

The Church’s sexual abuse prevention training is required for everyone who works with youth. Outside groups such as The National Children’s Alliance have recognized the Church’s efforts in this area. 

The Church’s policies, including its geographical boundaries and its calling system, also have the effect of dissuading predators. 

When abuse has occurred, the Church utilizes a helpline staffed by mental health and legal professionals. These are the kinds of professionals that the best research suggests are in the best position to report abuse and result in lower abuse rates. When it is legal, the Church then passes on reports to local authorities. Regardless of the legal situation, the Church then begins to help the victims. 

Statements from the Church indicate that their first priority is providing healing for victims. This often starts with professional mental health counseling. Bishops across the United States have access to networks of therapists that they can utilize, including trauma-informed therapy for abuse survivors. 

Records leaked from church offices several years ago showed that the most frequent first step when victims were identified was to connect them with therapists.

Additionally, the Church has stated that where it or its representatives are directly at fault, it has provided substantial funds for victims’ medical and mental health care. Bishops have access to resources for professional counseling for members who need it, including specialized therapy for survivors. In cases where church leaders are at fault, the Church will work to compensate the victims to the best of their abilities. 

In addition to directed funds, for which the Church’s leaders are responsible, the Church provides financial compensation to help the healing process. Financial payouts can never really repair the damage, but they can help by providing time and resources to help recover. By all accounts, the Church’s offers are generous and well above what would normally be expected.

The Church often utilizes non-disclosure agreements in cases like this. This part of their procedure is controversial. Some see the NDAs as following the Savior’s example of asking those He healed not to broadcast it. Others see these NDAs as cynical attempts to protect the Church’s PR. 

Does the Church Make Abuse Worse?

While the Church’s policies certainly are intended to prevent abuse, do they work, or are there cultural or implementation factors that result in higher rates of abuse among Latter-day Saints?

To the contrary, the best evidence suggests that Latter-day Saints commit sexual abuse at lower rates than the population in general. 

For example, Latter-day Saint troops within the Boy Scouts of America historically had lower rates of documented abuse compared to national Boy Scout averages. While no reliable system can ever guarantee zero incidents of wrongdoing, a review of Boy Scouts’ so-called “perversion files” showed that LDS-sponsored troops constituted roughly 20–30% of overall Scout membership but only around 5% of documented historical abuse cases in that organization. This discrepancy suggests that whatever measures were put in place—such as two-deep leadership or vigilant local oversight—may have contributed to a statistically lower rate of reported abuse.

Recent research suggests that these trends may begin in adolescence when Latter-day Saint teens are less likely to participate in violent behaviors. 

Overall, the best evidence seems to suggest that while Latter-day Saints are certainly not immune from violent or abusive behaviors among their number, there is something about our culture, norms, and policies that make Latter-day Saints an outlier in preventing abuse.

Does This New Lawsuit Mean We Must Reevaluate Our Effectiveness?

While past evidence might suggest that Latter-day Saints are doing well in this space, this newest lawsuit in California might suggest that we need to reevaluate these beliefs. One hundred is an awful lot of sexual abuse cases and may suggest that the problem is considerably more prevalent than previously believed.

And to the extent these revelations prompt self-reflection on how to continue to improve, that would be a welcome result.  

To understand the extent this should revise our understanding, we must understand the context.

The most important context here is that California passed a law allowing victims to file lawsuits within three years, which would otherwise have been too late. So, we would expect a bunch of lawsuits to come forward. 

For example, the Los Angeles Diocese of the Catholic Church faced a similar lawsuit. There, approximately 1900 victims filed suit, at a rate of approximately 43/100,000 Catholics within the diocese.

While cases against school districts are still accumulating, there are some rough numbers. Reports suggest there are a few thousand lawsuits; if that ends up being about 3,000 victims, it would equate to a rate of 50/100,000 students. Many districts are concerned the cases could bankrupt them. 

The 91 suits across California for Latter-day Saints represented 12/100,000 Latter-day Saints within the state—a little less than a third as often. This is about the same comparative rate as seen in the BSA case. 

Essentially, no institution has been spared. Sexual abuse, as disgusting as it is, exists. The fact that it exists among Latter-day Saints should certainly humble us and cause us to continue to seek the best ways to eradicate it. But the fact is that even in this case, the numbers suggest that Latter-day Saints are effective in reducing sexual abuse numbers.

The sad truth is that approximately 1 in 10 adults in the US have experienced sexual abuse in their lifetime. Even if Latter-day Saints were successful in eradicating 99% of abuse compared to other groups, there would still be thousands and thousands of victims. 

What Can We Hope For?

The proper response to these allegations, first and foremost, is mourning. Even if one single Latter-day Saint was abused by someone in the Church, that is a tragedy that demands our empathy and our resolve to do better. The stark reality that an abuser could be a friend, neighbor, or even a trusted spiritual leader is painful. It reminds us that no institution is immune to predatory behavior.

We also hope that justice is served through the legal process, whether that means validating the claims of those who were truly harmed or filtering out any disingenuous lawsuits. The Church has a longstanding track record of responding responsibly in these cases.

None of these points justify complacency. What is needed is sensitivity and support for those who have gone through trauma and vigilance in preventing future abuse. As Latter-day Saints, we also understand that whenever a non-mainstream or “out-group” religion faces such allegations, the public commentary can be harsh. People who already dislike or mistrust the Church may seize upon these scandals as evidence of broader failings. It’s possible we will see sensational coverage or commentary that fails to address how the Church responds or how it compares statistically to other organizations.

In such an environment, we pray that sober, thoughtful journalism will prevail. We also recognize our responsibility as members to do all we can to protect children and vulnerable adults, ensuring no policy or practice inadvertently shelters abusers. That means continuing to refine our safeguarding measures, increasing transparency wherever possible, and emphasizing personal accountability among leaders at every level.

The post Understanding the California Sex Abuse Lawsuit: The LDS Church’s Response in Context appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

When you mention conversion therapy, most people think of antiquated, barbaric, and discredited therapeutic techniques like aversion (shock) therapy or the coercive, repressive, and shaming techniques that are still happening in some unlicensed “Christian” residential programs. If the law banned obviously harmful and dangerous practices like these, no one would object. Because today, as even proponents of conversion therapy bans admit, such practices either died out long ago or are not regulated by mental health licensing laws in the first place. Very few therapists, even Christian therapists, seek to change sexual orientation anymore. 

The problem is that the law is vague and overbroad, causing it to infringe not only on client self-determination but also on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and America’s broad tradition of religious liberty. The next sentence in the Washington law is especially problematic, which states that the definition of ‘conversion therapy’ includes “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” (emphasis added). The Washington law effectively states that therapists must affirm whatever behaviors or gender expressions the client currently engages in, even if the client themselves may want to stop. If the therapist helps the client stop a behavior or reduce the intensity of their conflicted feelings, they will face discipline. Twenty other states have enacted similar bans on “conversion therapy,” defined in an overbroad way.

The Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Most bans on “conversion therapy” violate the freedom of speech by defining conversion therapy so broadly. In another Supreme Court case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), a website designer did not want to be forced to design websites for gay weddings. The Supreme Court ruled that the creation of websites is “pure speech” (communication through written or spoken words), and forcing her to say something she did not believe in violated the core of freedom of speech. Because almost all therapy is done through verbal dialogue, not allowing a therapist to speak with a client about homosexuality in a non-affirming way is also a direct violation of free speech.

The opposing argument was that the bans do not violate free speech because they prohibit “conduct,” and the kind of speech therapists engage in is a form of conduct that can be regulated by the state. However, in NIFLA v. Becerra, decided in 2018, the Supreme Court said that “this Court has not recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’” And as Justice Thomas stated, quoting a similar case out of Florida, “If speaking to clients is not speech, the world is truly upside down.”

The Tingley case also undermines our country’s history of protecting freedom of conscience and religious pluralism. Though America has often fallen short of our ideals, our history includes a robust tradition of accommodating religious differences. During the Revolutionary War, the Quakers, for religious reasons, did not want to fight, and they were granted religious exemptions in many colonies. This exception survives today under the rubric of “conscientious objectors.” Our tradition of allowing religious liberty for all permits a variety of beliefs to coexist without requiring conformity to any specific religious belief. Courts and legislators should protect religiously motivated counselors and their beliefs from being trampled under the excuse of ridding the country of homophobia.

Washington argued that the government has a compelling interest in protecting homosexual minors from harm by clearly dangerous practices. If this was their real motivation, they could easily have defined conversion therapy more narrowly and more specifically. By upholding such a broad definition, the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court are penalizing religious beliefs held by professional therapists who do not want to affirm homosexual behavior. This is the opposite of religious freedom in which such differences are allowed, and matters of belief and conscience may not be compelled.

The fundamental disagreement is over what constitutes “harm” in this context. It is argued that therapists occupy a position of power relative to their clients, many of whom are in an emotionally vulnerable state. Many therapists believe that anything less than full acceptance of LGBT+ identities and behaviors is harmful, even if the clients themselves do not want affirmation. Within this perspective, the person is defined (in significant part) by their experienced sexual desires and gender identity. Any accommodation of traditional views about sexuality or gender is harmful because it could prevent people from living authentically according to their “true selves.” 

But as Carl Trueman and others have shown, this understanding of the “true self” is a relatively recent invention. It is not obviously true, as many of its supporters suggest. Reasonable people of good will can disagree about the extent to which certain desires or experiences should inform our understanding of who we are and how we should live.

Even recent legislation and court decisions by Democrats and Democratic-appointed judges clearly show that traditional views about sexuality and marriage need not be based in ignorance or bigotry. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the case that required all states to recognize same-sex marriages, the Court stated that “many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.” Further, Congress recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act. This law provided federal recognition of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage while also recognizing that “diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.” This clearly includes believers in traditional marriage. Professional counselors who do not abuse their clients physically or psychologically and instead help them reconcile their religious and moral values with their sexuality should be allowed to help such individuals, even if they are minors. It should not be criminal to disagree with LGBTQ-affirming beliefs or for clients to seek therapeutic support in reconciling their faith with their attractions. LGBTQ individuals who want therapy that affirms their identity and behavior should be able to find it. 

Too often, we make this more complicated than it needs to be. LGBT+ individuals who want therapy that affirms their identity and behavior should be able to find it. LGBT+ individuals who want therapy that affirms other aspects of their identity, such as their religious faith, should also be able to find it. Instead, the course chosen by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds, in the words of Justice Thomas, that “expressing any other message [besides LGBT+ affirmation] is forbidden—even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex.” Why should individuals not be able to access the therapy they actually want?

Though the Supreme Court declined to hear Tingley v. Ferguson, the Court should take the next available opportunity to rule on this important issue. Therapists and clients should be free to discuss issues related to gender identity and sexual orientation without fearing punishment from the state. Whereas it was once the case that homosexuals were treated as sick and subjected to dubious “treatments,” the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Those who wish to live a traditional moral code have largely been abandoned by therapists, legislatures, and now even the Supreme Court of the United States. Freedom to explore these issues should not mean the empty freedom to agree with the government. For years, gay activists demanded that the government “get out of our bedroom.” Government should also get out of the therapy room.

The post Disciplined For Disagreeing 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.

But these policies cause more harm to the vulnerable children they are designed to protect because they decrease the effectiveness of governmental bodies in identifying children who are actually at risk. As Dr. Mical Riaz has stated:

… we should be extremely cautious that our outrage is not translated into advocacy for policies that not only don’t adequately protect children but may ultimately be harmful. This is the case, I argue, for calls to expand mandated reporting. Increased reporting sweeps up large swaths of the population in a network of coercive investigations and interventions but doesn’t help keep kids safer. 

As a professional, I’m aware that getting authorities involved can backfire. In one survey, 50% of children whose families had been reported for abuse said the intervention of authorities made the situation “much worse,” while only 3% said it made it “much better.” I am also aware of cases where intervention is needed. However, professionals are legally required to make reports in situations regardless of the individual circumstances.

The current mandated reporting system has led to the over-surveillance of families experiencing poverty and families of color. This has contributed to distrust in the child welfare system and may add to families’ reluctance to reach out for help when facing a lack of resources or difficulties (e.g., unemployment, housing instability) that are risk factors for child abuse and neglect. 

Indeed, if all-encompassing mandated reporting is considered the golden standard, many families and children will be left behind because their fear of governmental bodies overrides their need for help and resources. They would rather be a hungry, houseless, or overworked family than a separated one. With this understanding, advocates for policy change have shifted from “mandated reporting” to “mandated supporting.” JMAC for Families, an organization promoting this shift, states, “This mandated supporting framework seeks to center families through equitable, harm reductionist, and anti-racist practices, while divesting from systems of surveillance and punishment.” In essence, mandated supporting allows professionals to morally and ethically consider the context. 

Utah’s Proposed Bill 

Recent legislation in Utah is taking one step forward on this path. This bill ensures that clergy are in a position where they can have the freedom to report in appropriate cases without state coercion in either direction. In understanding the importance of this new legislation, we need to explore not only mandated reporting but also clergy-penitent privilege. This privilege was established with the idea that “the trust surrounding a confession produces good results for society [and that] states want to ensure those confessions are private.” To this end, many states have made legal adjustments to ensure that clergy are legally obligated to keep confessions private and are only allowed to report at the behest of the penitent (very similar to attorney-client privilege). With these laws, though, clergy confronted with clear abuse find themselves legally bound not to report. 

This law puts Utah firmly in the realm of best practices on this matter. It allows people of conscience to seek help for children as needed without legal risk but does not endorse the mandatory reporting policies that ultimately harm children.

The current proposed bill “amend[s] the state’s child abuse reporting requirements to include legal protections for members of the clergy who report cases of ongoing abuse or neglect learned through a religious confession.” In summary, clergy still maintain the right to confidential confessions while also receiving protections when they morally and ethically report cases of abuse.

While it would be natural to be concerned that this law leaves leeway for bad actors not to report abuse that should be reported, there is no silver bullet here. This approach should help the most children possible.

How the Church Supports Reporting

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides a good example for addressing concerns of abuse reporting within these clergy positions. Church leadership is already provided with training for working with children and youth. This educational training was created to help leaders “recognize and prevent physical, sexual, verbal and other types of abuse. [This] resource … can also help [leaders] to recognize and prevent abuse. The training provides scenarios to help you better understand and apply key principles and policies.” Additionally, the church leadership consistently speaks out against abuse to the members. In a recent conference address, President Nelson publicly condemned it once again, saying: 

For decades now, the Church has taken extensive measures to protect—in particular—children from abuse. There are many aids on the Church website. I invite you to study them. These guidelines are in place to protect the innocent. I urge each of us to be alert to anyone who might be in danger of being abused and to act promptly to protect them. The Savior will not tolerate abuse, and as His disciples, neither can we.

Additional counsel around reporting abuse would be a relatively easy and welcome addition to an already detailed training. 

Perhaps most importantly, the Church employs a hotline staffed by lawyers and therapists, precisely the kinds of professionals who have been shown to make the best decisions about when to report abuse. Utah’s new law should allow the professionals employed by the Church of Jesus Christ to make decisions that will help save the most possible children.

Looking Toward a Better Solution

A vocal advocate for victims of sexual abuse, Jennifer Roach, said, “Any abuse is too much.” And I echo that statement. However, evidence is showing that increasingly strict mandated reporting laws are not an effective solution to the problem of abuse. The proposed Utah bill strikes a delicate balance that will allow for moral and ethical judgment in reporting while also protecting those reporting abuse. This could be a productive model that other states could adopt and may have wider applications for professionals beyond clergy. 

The post Utah’s Legislative Leap: From Reporting to Supporting Child Welfare appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

While the new story shouldn’t come as much surprise to anyone—there are, after all, nearly 18 million Latter-day Saints, and many such cases are part of the public record—its authors clearly hope the anecdote shared will influence public policy and perception.

As evidenced by the swift excommunication of the perpetrator in this case, similar to the excommunication of the perpetrator in the Bisbee case, it is clear that the Church of Jesus Christ does not condone abuse.

So the question becomes how can society at large, and Latter-day Saints in particular, help reduce this kind of abuse. 

In addition to lingering on the heart-wrenching details of this new case of abuse, the article fixates on the fact that church leaders were aware of the abuse but did not report it to the police. And it further reports many of the details of mandatory reporting laws for clergy. 

While the article is a news piece and not an editorial, it is clear the authors want their readers to believe that the solution to preventing cases like this is increasing mandatory reporting laws. 

There is just one problem. Mandatory reporting laws don’t work.

Mandatory reporting laws don’t work

It’s actually fairly uncontroversial among researchers that mandatory reporting laws don’t work. Mical Raz, a physician and public health and policy professor, explained, “We should be extremely cautious that our outrage is not translated into advocacy for policies that not only don’t adequately protect children but may ultimately be harmful.” She goes on to write, “This is the case, I argue, for calls to expand mandated reporting.”

In one study, researchers looked at both reports and confirmed reports of abuse in states with mandated reporting laws and without. While states with mandatory reporting laws had many more reports of abuse, there was no increase in confirmed reports of abuse. 

In other words, no more abuse was actually caught, but there were lots more false reports that wasted the time of state social workers who could have been instead spending their time helping those children who were actually in danger. Another similar study found that while mandatory reporting laws increased reports, less abuse was actually caught.

These resource-wasting reports came much less often from professionals like doctors, therapists, and lawyers. 

As one researcher wrote, “The goal of mandatory reporting is to identify children at risk and intervene to prevent further harm. It is not to create more reports.” 

A 1998 report commissioned by several agencies in the field of pediatric medicine and behavioral health wrote that at that time, there was no evidence for the success or lack of success of mandatory reporting requirements, in part because of the difficulty in constructing a controlled experiment. COVID-19 may have answered that need with a natural experiment. With children not exposed to mandated reporters as frequently, would hospitalizations or deaths from abuse increase? When children returned to schools, would there be a large backlog of cases, reflecting months of unreported abuse? 

One researcher pursued this question in New York City. The data showed that there was no increase in the harm to children. In fact, abuse dropped. And while the author acknowledges this data could be the result of fewer reports, child deaths—a type of abuse nearly impossible to avoid scrutiny of even during a pandemic—also went down 25% in line with other types of abuse. And when schools restarted, there was no increase in reporting rates or substantiation rates—what you would expect if actual abuse had increased or remained steady in the interim. 

Pennsylvania serves as another useful case study. After the sexual assault scandal at Penn State, a sweeping new mandatory reporting law was passed in the state in 2014. But since that time, the number of children who have died from abuse has increased every year. ProPublica summarized researchers’ conclusions: “The surge of unfounded reports has overburdened the system, making it harder to identify and protect children who are truly in danger.” Today almost one hundred more Pennsylvania children are killed or nearly killed by abuse each year than before the mandatory reporting laws went into place. 

And while Pennsylvania dealt with a 42% increase in reports of childhood sexual assault than before the new laws, there was no increase in the number of substantiated allegations. None. 

But what of those abused children who are identified by mandatory reports? Does the intervention make their situations better? Another study asked this question. 

Of abuse survivors, only 18% said reporting made things better, while 62% said it made things worse. That includes 3% who said it made things much better and 50% who said it made things much worse.

So even when mandatory reporting laws work exactly the way they are supposed to, the abused child is 3.5X more likely to say it made things worse than it made things better.

The book Abusive Policies: How the American Child Welfare System Lost Its Way summarizes the state of research on mandatory reporting policies saying evidence has never shown that mandatory reporting laws prevent child abuse or improve outcomes for children.

But while it doesn’t help save children from abuse, it often makes things worse by preventing parents from seeking out the help they need. 1 in 3 people reported that they didn’t seek help because they were worried about a mandatory reporter, which says nothing of the many who wouldn’t report such a thing on a survey. These laws even discourage mothers from seeking medical treatment for their children, worried about the effect of an inaccurate report from a mandated report. And, while most reports are not able to be substantiated, the process can often negatively impact the family life and employment of those involved—especially poor families. Many researchers suggest black and Latino families are those most harmed by mandatory reporting laws. 

Why Don’t Mandatory Reporting Laws Work?

Mandatory reporting laws don’t work because they push the families most in need of help into hiding. A 2019 study found that more than half of people changed what they shared with mandated reporters when they learned about the mandatory reporting requirements. 

In an environment where mandatory reporting laws are universal, abusers simply don’t seek help from therapists, doctors, and spiritual advisors at the same rates they would otherwise. And with the influx of new reports, actual social workers’ time is spent having to dismiss reports rather than helping the children in the worst situations.

As seen in Pennsylvania and New York, this comes at the expense of children’s lives.

Jeremy Bentham, the father of modern utilitarianism, made an argument for clergy-penitent privilege—the right of clergy not to be a mandated reporter, basically—based solely on its benefit to society. He wrote, “The advantage gained by the coercion [of clergy-penitent testimony], gained in the shape of assistance to justice, would be casual and even rare.” Modern data collection has shown evidence of this intuition. On the other hand, he goes on to explain, “Repentance, and consequent abstinence from further misdeeds of the like nature; … are the well-known consequences of [clergy-penitent communication.]”

Getting spiritual help produces fewer “further misdeeds.” Rules that would discourage offenders from confessing to clergy cut off the social value of the self-improvement their confessions aided.

It may seem counterintuitive that having more people required to report abuse actually increases the number of children killed by abuse, and yet that’s what the data shows. That these rules push abusers underground where they can’t be reported, or get help, is the most likely explanation for why. 

Why Doesn’t The Church Mandate Abuse Reporting?

Why doesn’t the Church of Jesus Christ mandate that bishops report any child abuse they learn of? Well, first and primarily, as we’ve learned, that policy harms children.

But there’s also a complicated set of laws around reporting abuse. In cases such as these, two different kinds of laws come into place: mandatory reporting laws and clergy-penitent privilege laws.

Mandatory reporting laws often leave exceptions for clergy, saying that they are not required to report abuse. This is true in Idaho, where this most recent case took place.

Some church critics inaccurately claimed after the abuse in Arizona that this means that while clergy aren’t required to report abuse, they can legally report abuse if they choose to, and argued that for moral reasons, the Church of Jesus Christ should choose to always report abuse. 

While this is accurate if you look only at the mandatory reporting laws, these claims ignore laws around clergy-penitent privilege. In layman’s terms, privilege means that when you tell something in confidence to certain trusted professionals like doctors, therapists, or clergy, they are not allowed to share that information with the police or talk about it in court unless you give them permission.

In most states, including Idaho, clergy can’t decide to tell police what someone told them in a confession without that person’s permission. The person who confessed to them has the right to have that conversation be private—regardless of whether the clergy wants to keep it private after the fact. 

States created these laws for the utilitarian reasons Bentham identifies. Because the trust surrounding a confession produces good results for society, states want to ensure those confessions are private. 

So while some may argue that such laws should be changed—though the research suggests that would be a mistake—bishops would be breaking the law, for now, if they shared privileged information they received during a confession, as this article implies they should have. 

So What Does Reduce Abuse?

If mandatory reporting doesn’t reduce abuse, increases the worst kinds of abuse, and is often illegal for clergy, what can be done to reduce abuse? 

We are far from helpless. Studies have shown that when professionals such as doctors, therapists, and lawyers can make a judgment about when to report, it can have a positive effect on reducing abuse.

Other studies have suggested that increased funds directed to families of children can help reduce abuse.  

Jenn Roach is a survivor of ecclesiastical abuse in an evangelical church. She later became a therapist and has become an outspoken advocate for sexual abuse victims. She suggests six ways that churches can reduce abuse:

1. Talk about the importance of reducing abuse

2. Organize congregations geographically

3. Announce to congregations who will be working with children and youth

4. Assign leaders to children and youth rather than relying on volunteers

5. Emphasize the importance of living in a home with both parents

6.Have female leaders responsible for girls and young women

The Church of Jesus Christ excels in many of these criteria. The Church’s abuse hotline allows volunteer local leaders to contact lawyers and therapists who can help them decide when to report. Church welfare services help provide financial security. The Church’s structure and calling system accomplish many of the items on Roach’s list.

As a result, in the only study comparing abuse rates in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to those in other faiths, the Church’s abuse rates are 75% lower. While church abuse rates, in general, are much lower than rates in schools. 

While there are certainly cases where abuse continues to occur among Latter-day Saints, the policies of the organization should act as a case study on how to lower abuse rates, contrary to the implications of this most recent article.

Why Focus on the Church?

If The Church of Jesus Christ excels on matters of abuse, it’s natural to wonder why there has been so much reporting painting a different picture.

All of the recent reporting about isolated incidents of abuse among members of the Church has originated from one journalist, Michael Rezendes. I don’t want to cast aspersions on his motivations. He is a respected journalist who has previously uncovered systemic abuse in other churches. But his reporting on abuse in the Church of Jesus Christ, which has now spanned well over a year, has not revealed a systemic problem but rather has been focused on individual tragic cases. In fact, The Church of Jesus Christ was recently cleared of wrongdoing in the case Rezendes brought to national attention in Arizona. And it is likely, based on Idaho law, that the bishops were prevented from breaking privilege in the case highlighted in this recent article as well.

While it is certainly tempting to say we could prevent those at the abuse hotline from ever making the wrong decision about whether or not to report by simply mandating the call be made every time, the evidence is more than ample that this makes the problem worse, not better.

But Rezendes’ work is not without consequence. In May, I wrote:

A stark discrepancy exists in how media treats controversies within various religious groups. Consider the sexual abuse scandals within the Southern Baptist Convention—systemic issues that receive comparable media attention to isolated incidents involving Latter-day Saints outside leadership.

And despite the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention just endured a sexual abuse scandal where it was discovered that clergy of the church were moved and protected after accusations of abuse, a recent YouGov survey showed that Americans consider The Church of Jesus Christ its equal when it comes to handling abuse—despite there being no allegations of any similar or pervasive wrong doing. 

The bad reporting I identified in May, has led to bad perceptions in December. 

And while there’s no way I can identify the motivations of a single journalist, I’ve previously suggested that the news media’s desire to find hypocrisy, scandal, and culture war may lead to targeting the Church and its “squeaky clean” persona. 

So while it would be inappropriate to accuse Rezendes of being an opportunist, the bottom line is his desired solution isn’t effective in reducing abuse, and the Church’s solution is. Continuing to shine a spotlight on the places where the Church’s systems have failed can certainly provide some value as we work to find every way we can improve, but ultimately may lead people away from the effective solutions the Church is utilizing and toward methods that don’t work. 

I understand that it is hard to accept a system in which the best outcome is one that still involves morally unacceptable outcomes such as child sexual abuse. And it can be tempting to conclude that we have a moral obligation to change any system that produces anything more than zero incidents of abuse. But we can’t let our moral outrage create policy that will ultimately hurt, and even kill, more children. 

So while this most recent story should lead us to reflect on how we can continue to improve, the answer is not to throw out a system that is one of the most effective at reducing abuse.

The post A Misguided Crusade: How Mandatory Reporting Fails Our Children appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Our history books, our politicians, and other forces have combined to teach us what we think we know about the poor. Although negative myths about poverty and poor people (especially poor people of color) have persisted despite repeated research demonstrating the contrary, those negative myths still drive public policy and often our individual attitudes and actions toward those in need. Here are some of the most prevalent poverty myths:

Myth 1: “The poor could lift themselves out of poverty by working harder.” This is similar to your parents telling you that you can be anything you want if you just work hard enough, a suggestion that most of us outgrow when we realize that our stint on Broadway, in the White House, or in the ranks of professional athletes is unlikely to materialize no matter how hard we work—too much depends on luck, timing, and talent in addition to hard work. Most poor people are working just as hard or harder than the affluent, connected, and advantaged, but our society has organized employment, the economy, and getting ahead in ways that benefit those who have resources and penalize those who don’t. 

In her excellent autobiography, There Is Nothing for You Here: Finding Opportunity in the Twenty-First Century (Mariner Books, 2021), Fiona Hill, a Russia expert who served on the staff of the National Security Council and is now at the Brookings Institution, details how she grew up in the North East of England—an impoverished area deserted by industry and bereft of social programs to help displaced coal miners under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s austerity budget. While Fiona was always good in school, the opportunities for a good education were not available to children in that place and time. By luck and some fortuitous contacts, she managed to get into St. Andrew’s University in Scotland and, from there, to capitalize on her own hard work and intelligence. But things were against her—she knew nothing about applying to college and nothing about going to college; her accent marked her as lower class in Britain’s hierarchy. There were few-to-no resources to help her, resulting in things like getting an interview for a scholarship or similar advantage but being unable to pay for the transportation and lodging needed to apply for the chance. Hill managed to claw her way up to achievement and economic security in the face of class discrimination and sexism. She draws parallels between the situation in her home area and the Rust Belt–type problems in the United States, pointing out correctly that systemic racism in the United States makes the upward struggle even more difficult for black Americans. She skillfully explains the importance of one’s place of origin in determining the benefits and barriers to success.

Myth 2: “People who accept government benefits become dependent and don’t want to work.” There are two categories of government assistance in the United States: “welfare” for the poor and “tax breaks” for the more affluent. 

“Welfare” includes food stamps, housing vouchers, subsidized daycare and housing, WIC supplemental nutrition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, SSI and SSDI payments, and unemployment benefits, all of which are available in limited quantities, are hard to qualify for, and are easy to lose. “Tax breaks” include the Child Tax Credit (which in 2020 benefited parents with incomes up to $150,000 before the benefit was phased out for those with higher incomes), the mortgage interest deduction for first and second homes, government-subsidized retirement benefits, government-guaranteed student loans for higher education, 529 college savings plans, the tax exemption for the value of one’s employer-sponsored health plan, low tax rates on capital gains, and the nonexistent estate and gift taxes, all of which accrue mostly to middle-class and wealthy families and are relatively easy to get and difficult to lose so long as your income and wealth continue. According to poverty researcher Matthew Desmond, these “tax breaks” cost the government $1.8 trillion in 2021—more than twice what we spent on the military and national defense, and far more than was spent on “welfare”—and about half of these “tax breaks” went to families in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. 

Yet we who get these breaks probably feel entitled to them; we certainly don’t believe that they are causing us to become dependent on government handouts. By their nature, they continue to be available if we keep working into retirement, so we are not tempted to quit.

Similarly, the poor are not becoming dependent on government handouts, nor are they tempted to stop working even when they are technically eligible for retirement. The idea that the poor are lazy is a long-promulgated slander. Since the Industrial Revolution required business owners to find ways to lure “the masses into their mills and slaughterhouses to work for as little pay as the law and market allow,” the word has gone out that the poor are “idle and unmotivated.” But researchers who studied cash welfare payments to young single mothers in the 1980s and 1990s discovered that most recipients gave up the payments within two years, sometimes receiving benefits again “for limited periods of time when between jobs or after a divorce.” The researchers concluded, “The welfare system does not foster reliance on welfare so much as it acts as insurance against temporary misfortune.” Temporary misfortunes are much more undermining for the poor than for the better-off, who often are able to turn to savings, helpful family members, banks willing to loan them money, and other resources that often are not available to the needy.

Further, the cash payments that were available under the welfare system of the 1980s and 1990s (Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC) have disappeared in the name of welfare reform. Only under very limited—almost nonexistent—circumstances are any governments in the United States now making cash payments to the poor under the current system of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF. TANF monies are supplied by the federal government to the states as “block grants,” and they are used to fund everything from relationship education to juvenile justice administration, but seldom are they aimed at reducing poverty. Desmond notes, “Nationwide, for every dollar budgeted for TANF in 2020, poor families directly received just 22 cents.”

The poor definitely are not milking the system for every available dime. Hundreds of billions of dollars annually are left unclaimed by people who qualify for assistance—food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and unemployment insurance. These forms of assistance are so difficult to get and keep that many poor families are unable to face the form-filling, line-standing, investigations into their meager finances and need to repeatedly guard their eligibility. For example, a worker can lose food stamps because she was scheduled for a few more hours on the job in one week or month (even though her hours were cut back again after that), resulting in the need to apply all over again for the lost benefit.  

The idea that benefits make recipients “lazy,” a variation on the theme that government assistance leads to dependency, conceals other possible reasons why people may not be working: disability, lack of childcare or eldercare, lack of transportation, lack of medical or dental care that would make them attractive job prospects, lack of expected clothing, lack of literacy or language skills (whether they are native English speakers or not), or lack of computer or other skills needed to search for jobs. 

During the pandemic, the increased unemployment and other benefits for those who struggled economically (such as emergency rental assistance and moratoriums on evictions) cut the level of poverty for all Americans—all racial and ethnic groups, rural and urban dwellers, all ages—by 16 million people in 2021 as compared to 2018. The poverty rate for children was cut in half. The poor had their lot improved temporarily during the pandemic and perhaps got a glimpse of what life could be like when not scraping by with an exploitative job, but as soon as politically possible, governments withdrew the increased unemployment benefits, the back rent was due on pain of eviction, the food stamp benefits decreased, Medicaid eligibility had to be proven again, and new or continuing problems—lack of reliable childcare, increasing food, gas, and rent prices, children with increasing rates of depression and anxiety—cropped up.  

Better-off Americans also got government benefits during the pandemic in the form of stimulus payments, the more generous Child Tax Credit, and the same increased unemployment benefits. Small business owners were eligible for tax credits, paid leave credits, emergency capital investments, and the Paycheck Protection Program, while businesses of all sizes were eligible for employee retention credits and payroll tax deferral. Airlines, cargo air carriers, aviation contractors, and national security businesses received billions in payroll support. State, local, and tribal governments also received federal grants to support their residents and prevent economic hardship and position them for economic recovery. These programs involved billions in government spending. Even though some people took advantage of their availability to acquire benefits to which they or their businesses were not entitled, they seemed justified to prevent economic and humanitarian crises as a result of the pandemic. But only the direct benefits to the poor were later labeled as dependency-creating handouts that needed to be withdrawn as soon as possible to get low-income recipients back to work. 

Here’s the bottom line: The most recent data compiling spending on social insurance, means-tested programs, tax benefits, and financial aid for higher education show that the average household in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution receives roughly $23,733 in government benefits a year, while the average household in the top 20 percent receives about $35,363. Every year the richest American families receive almost 40 percent more in government subsidies than the poorest American families.

Government assistance does not make people lazy, dependent, or unwilling to work; if it did, then we could all claim those adjectives to describe ourselves because we are all receiving government assistance. The question becomes why the help available to the poor is not improving their lives more than it is and why so many people remain in poverty.

Myth 3: “The poor who want to live better lives, and even get ahead, can do so if they just take advantage of the benefits available to them.”  

Government attempts to lift people out of poverty, while far better than nothing, have not succeeded—government spending on antipoverty programs, driven mostly by healthcare spending, increased 237 percent between the beginnings of the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, but as Desmond notes, “when it comes to poverty reduction, we’ve had fifty years of nothing.” And despite all the money spent when it comes to improving healthcare access for the poor, we still have the most expensive healthcare system in the world while lacking universal health coverage.

One wonders why so many dollars result in such dismal outcomes and why Americans continue to allow suffering on the massive scale that is poverty in our incredibly wealthy country. While government programs are alleviating much suffering, the overall picture remains one of millions of people wearing out their lives as they try to put together food, shelter, healthcare, and other necessities, often without getting ahead, no matter how hard they work, and sometimes giving up in despair. Below the circumstances of the working poor are the plights of the mentally ill and the otherwise disabled or chronically unhoused who are living reminders on the streets of our cities of the failures of anti-poverty programs.

Government financial assistance for the poor may be inefficient, inadequate, and insensitive to philosophical differences regarding how best to help those who are struggling, but it is nevertheless a means to reach the most people in need with more consistency than individual and non-governmental organizational efforts. Nevertheless, even if a family qualifies for every one of the anti-poverty programs the government provides, they do not have enough money to make ends meet, much less enjoy the prosperity that would come with a full-time job with a living wage and benefits.

Other government benefit programs are similarly difficult to navigate and require a commitment to make repeated attempts to satisfy what seems like an arbitrary, bloated bureaucracy of unfeeling and unhelpful gatekeepers, with a slim hope of success—and then to reapply or pass a renewed eligibility test for those hard-won benefits repeatedly or have them stripped away.

Consider that people applying for the various government benefit programs may be what the Victorians genteelly referred to as “in reduced circumstances”—having lost a home, a job, a relationship, family members, and other societal supports that keep the rest of us afloat financially and emotionally. Or, worse, and perhaps more often, those who need assistance may never have known the security of those supports; they may have experienced or are experiencing substandard education, pollution in their homes and neighborhoods, a lack of medical care, or exposure to crime, violence, trauma, or abuse. They may have an emotionally supportive family or community that is not able to help them financially, or they may have a dysfunctional family or deteriorating community, or no family or community at all. 

These are the people whose flimsy but desperately necessary help from “welfare” is being chipped away by politicians who consistently target these programs as a way to cut government spending or decrease levels of seldom-proved fraud, waste, and abuse. And yet we could abolish poverty entirely in the United States without new programs, Matthew Desmond writes, by empowering the IRS to collect the more than $1 trillion per year lost to tax cheats—multinational corporations and wealthy families who are avoiding taxes that they owe under current laws. There are other things we could and should do to improve the current system of welfare benefits so that it would be more efficient, effective, and compassionate, but just holding the cheaters to account would be enough to lift the entire poor population of the United States out of the poverty that creates a different world, with different rules, and with so much unnecessary suffering and despair, for those trapped in poverty.

The post From Handouts to Handups: Unmasking the True Face of American Welfare appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Many have already expressed concern about the ramifications of the Court’s decision. Does this mean any business owner could turn away a same-sex couple? Can they also turn away customers based on race, national origin, religion, or other protected characteristics? Importantly, the Supreme Court did not need to address these questions because the decision was circumscribed in several important ways. First, 303 Creative is a case about free speech rather than freedom of religion. Therefore, the reach of the decision only covers “expressive” commercial activity. Second, the Court’s decision does not authorize Smith to turn away same-sex couples or any other group covered under CADA’s protections. It only allows her to decline to create a website that would convey a message contrary to her beliefs. Some may see this as a distinction without a difference—there is a very high correlation between those that request messages celebrating same-sex marriage and those that identify as LGBT+. However, even the state of Colorado agreed that Smith was willing to “work with all people . . . regardless of sexual orientation” and therefore only sought to compel Smith’s speech rather than her conduct.

Of course, even with the limited nature of the Court’s opinion, there are lingering difficult questions that remain. Lower courts must now figure out the precise contours of “expressive activity” under the Free Speech Clause. For example, do businesses selling custom cakes, flower arrangements, photography, or stationery also qualify for the same free speech protections? If not, would other First Amendment provisions lead to a similar outcome?

Leaving this decision up to the courts creates significant uncertainty. But we don’t have to wait for courts to define these lines for us. As the Respect for Marriage Act demonstrates, judicial decisions can spur legislative action and find fixes to problems less-amendable to resolution through court opinions. In the debate over religious wedding vendors and same-sex marriage, this is also the case. So far, more than 20 local governments have passed ordinances that protect LGBT+ rights in public accommodations as well as individuals and organizations that hold to a traditional view of marriage. These laws foster unity without demanding conformity. For example, in Chandler, Arizona, the city enacted nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations based on sexual orientation—protections that were previously unavailable and celebrated by the LGBT+ community. At the same time, the ordinance also makes space for those with traditional views of marriage to act in accordance with their beliefs. The ordinance provides an exemption for “bona fide religious organizations or persons who hold bona fide religious views” but only for objections relating to “marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity” and not other protected classifications such as race, national origin, or religion. Other places strike a different balance, such as Morgantown, West Virginia, where the local nondiscrimination ordinance provides an exemption for primarily religious organizations but not commercial businesses. Perhaps most importantly, passing ordinances like those in Chandler and Morgantown required many different people—religious leaders, LGBT+ advocates, and others—to work together to secure more freedoms that were previously uncertain for either group.

Even with these successful legislative efforts, there will still be hard questions. For instance, Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in 303 Creative emphasized the vitality of “equal access to publicly available goods and services” made possible through public accommodations laws. Her opinion suggests that if discrimination is “widespread,” meaningful public accommodations laws may be undercut by even carefully crafted religious exemptions. This is a real concern for many and one that creates uncertainty for same-sex couples when frequenting the marketplace. 

One possible solution is to allow the state to intervene in such cases. Another is to encourage businesses in the wedding industry to publicize their willingness to celebrate same-sex weddings. For example, Pride Source has started publishing an online directory of LGBT-friendly businesses in Michigan that includes advertising wedding services. Some of my own research uses data to map the wedding services market so laws may better optimize protections for both wedding vendors and same-sex couples.

Finally, there are some questions that market and regulatory solutions cannot address. Much of the distress over these conflicts is not simply about the economic transaction between businesses and customers. More than losing money or going to another business, both sides seem to be most worried about their core identity being condemned in public life. It is the harm to one’s dignity of being labeled as an outcast that both groups can relate to.

When dealing with concerns of stigma or dignitary harm, it is helpful to remember that both religious freedom and LGBT+ rights are founded on the common core of human dignity. Beyond the truly rare cases like 303 Creative that make their way through the courts and receive disproportionate attention, there is common agreement that both LGBT+ rights and religious freedom deserve protection under the law. When conflicts do arise, there are almost always more solutions than simply picking one side or the other. The key is being able to listen, engage, and account for all interests at stake. This can be challenging in many ways. But people of faith are among the best situated to “build bridges of understanding” and find “inspired solutions” to these difficult issues.

The post The Future of Anti-Discrimination appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Hunter’s story is not unique. It is an example of how recreational marijuana is more problematic than many realize. Those who support legalization argue that it is a harmless way to relax and unwind, as well as a potential source of tax revenue. But we are only starting to appreciate the harms associated with this drug. There are many reasons why recreational marijuana use should remain illegal. As a former soldier and a convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that recreational marijuana use is harmful to individuals and society at large.

This issue involves not only moral and religious values but also public health concerns. Too often, we assume that religious arguments have no other support. But that is not true for this issue. 

Marijuana Harms the User

Perhaps the main reason you should support recreational marijuana being illegal is out of pure self-interest. Marijuana is harmful. According to a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), “Marijuana use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.” The report also notes that marijuana use can impair memory, attention, learning, and other cognitive functioning. These negative effects on the brain are particularly concerning, as they can have long-lasting and detrimental effects on an individual’s health. Furthermore, it can have negative effects on the respiratory system, increasing the risk of lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and other respiratory diseases. Marijuana use has also been linked to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

Marijuana Harms Society

If the religious are concerned about caring for their own bodies, they are even more concerned for others. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” Jesus famously said. And the negative effects of marijuana are particularly acute for society as a whole. 

The fact that recreational marijuana is illegal in many states and countries is not simply a matter of arbitrary legislation; rather, it is based on scientific evidence that marijuana is a harmful drug with significant negative effects on individuals and society. 

Marijuana use negatively affects broader society in many ways. Most obvious are its negative effects on public health. The same NASEM study also showed that marijuana use causes impaired driving and increases the risk of accidents—which, of course, has serious consequences for not only the individual but also for innocent bystanders. Additionally, marijuana use during pregnancy can have negative effects on fetal development and increase the risk of stillbirth and low birth weight. In addition to the medical costs for other marijuana-related health issues, the legalization of marijuana leads to an increase in healthcare costs.

But the social harms extend beyond the obvious. The legalization of recreational marijuana also counterintuitively increases crime rates, as increased use of marijuana creates a higher demand for harder and still illegal drugs. Even the black market for marijuana has remained the same size in spite of legalization. Altogether, studies have found that law enforcement costs actually go up in jurisdictions where recreational marijuana use is decriminalized or legalized. 

Marijuana use also harms our society’s bottom line. Marijuana impairs job performance, reduces motivation and productivity, and increases absenteeism. These negative effects can have a ripple effect on society, affecting not only the individual but also their family, friends, and coworkers. And if those aren’t enough, Marijuana legalization is harming the environment. 

While some have argued that legalizing recreational marijuana will improve state budgets by increasing tax income, the accumulation of all these negative effects actually costs more overall than the tax upside. 

Marijuana Harms Children

Among the greatest concerns for people of faith is how we treat our little children. And legalized recreational marijuana harms children. 

One of the biggest risks is accidental ingestion. This happens especially when they are exposed to edible products that look like candy or snacks. According to the Washington Post, there has been a surge in calls to poison control centers and hospital visits involving children who consumed marijuana edibles in states where it is legal. And when children do ingest marijuana, it can cause trouble breathing, loss of coordination, drowsiness, and seizures.

The story is worse for adolescents who use it regularly. When teenagers use marijuana, it can impair brain function, memory, learning, and attention. It can also increase the risk of mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and psychosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes the legalization of recreational marijuana because of these potential harms.

But legalizing marijuana harms not only the children who take it but the children whose parents take it. And when recreational marijuana is legalized, parents take it twice as often as in other states. And when they do, those children are more susceptible to accidental ingestion, as well as secondhand smoke. Not to mention that you become a worse parent when you’re high, not providing the supervision and guidance that children need. 

Marijuana Harms the Marginalized

Perhaps most worryingly for people of faith, the legalization of recreational marijuana harms the most vulnerable among us. According to Matthew 25:40, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” We should bear one another’s burdens and comfort those who stand in need of comfort, as taught in Mosiah 18:9. Recreational marijuana legalization use is contrary to compassion for those who suffer from addiction or mental illness.

Marijuana use can exacerbate existing mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety. And it can be a risk factor for addiction. According to a report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Marijuana use can lead to the development of problem use, known as a marijuana use disorder, which takes the form of addiction.” And this effect takes place most often for those in poverty and other vulnerable populations.

And while marijuana legalization increases these risks for the vulnerable, they are kept out of participating in the financial upside due to barriers such as licensing fees, taxes, and costly regulations. 

Legalization Does Make it Worse

A myth persists that often use and availability of recreational marijuana will remain consistent regardless of whether or not it is legal—as though legalization will have no effect other than not to criminalize those who would have been using marijuana in any case. This argument has the benefit of being able to dismiss all other arguments about the negative aspects of marijuana because, they argue, marijuana use actually won’t change.

The trouble is that this isn’t true.

The legalization of marijuana leads to decreased perceptions of risk. People who live where marijuana is legalized conclude that if it is legal, it can’t be that bad for you. They also are more likely to partake because there is no legal risk to doing so. The research on this issue concludes that legalizing recreational marijuana leads to an increase in recreational marijuana use. So arguments in favor of legalization must grapple with the harms of marijuana because those harms will increase.

It is important to note that the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes is a separate issue and should be evaluated based on the available evidence and medical consensus. My argument focuses on the fact that recreational marijuana use and legalization pose significant risks to public health, safety, and well-being.

As individuals, we have a responsibility to make informed decisions about our health and the health of our communities. We can choose to avoid harmful substances and behaviors and promote healthy and compassionate alternatives. We can also support policies and initiatives that prioritize public health and safety.

Therefore, it is important for individuals and policymakers to carefully consider the potential negative consequences of recreational marijuana use and legalization. I believe that we should strive to create a society that promotes health, safety, and compassion for all individuals in accordance with God’s plan for us. This includes taking a stand against harmful substances and behaviors that can negatively impact our physical, mental, and social health. Recreational marijuana use should remain illegal because it is harmful to individuals and society at large. The potential negative effects on physical, mental, and social health, as well as the potential negative impact on vulnerable populations, outweigh any potential benefits. The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach us to care for the health and well-being of our fellow human beings. I urge my fellow citizens to reject the legalization of recreational marijuana and to work together to build a healthier, safer, and more compassionate society.

The post We Toke the Wrong Turn: Against Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

A new report from the Associated Press critically explores guidelines in how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints handles abuse accusations, looking particularly at a current case in Arizona. What follows is a Q&A of some of the questions that have come up since the release of the report. 

What has newly been revealed in this report?

The case at the center of the new report has had its details known for some time. What is new is that Associated Press reporters gained access to records in another case that discusses the Church’s abuse helpline. Those records shine new light on this case.

Are the documents the AP used in this report available to confirm their reporting?

They are not. The documents are sealed and were presumably leaked to the reporters involved. The leaker is currently unknown, and the documents are not available for independent verification. Amidst 12,000 pages, there is undoubtedly a great deal of context and detail that is being missed. 

What’s the purpose of the Church’s abuse helpline?

The Church’s abuse helpline is there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to assist volunteer leaders in responding appropriately when they learn about cases of abuse. Leaders are encouraged to “call the helpline about every situation in which a person may have been abused—or is at risk of being abused.” The stated aims are to: 

• Assist victims and help protect them from further abuse.
• Help protect potential victims.
• Comply with legal requirements for reporting abuse.

Is it true that the helpline exists primarily to prevent bishops from calling the police and somehow protect the church?

No. Clergy are often instructed by the helpline to call law enforcement. But laws in this area are complicated and vary from country to country and state to state, which means a single policy can’t apply to all bishops, and they will need individualized advice.

To suggest the primary aim is to help avoid liability is a transparently cynical framing of the Church trying to sincerely obey the law in the states and countries where they operate. By all honest measures, the Church’s primary concern is helping victims of abuse.  To reiterate, the current guidelines state, “When abuse occurs, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse.”

How do mandatory reporter laws differ across locations?

There are basically three classes of laws on mandatory reporting of child abuse for clergy. 1) Clergy are required to report with no exceptions; 2) Clergy are required to report, but there are religious exceptions; 3) Clergy are required to not break clergy-penitent privilege.

Laws of type one and three are mutually exclusive. If the Church were to adopt a single policy,  some bishops in some locations would be breaking the law.

Wait, in some places, it’s illegal to report child abuse?

Yes, if you’re clergy. In fact, the Church was recently involved in a lawsuit in Oregon from the wife of a man whose bishop reported his sexual abuse of children to authorities.

Which type of law did Arizona have, where the primary case in the report took place?

Arizona had a type two law. Clergy are required to report abuse unless maintaining confidence is “reasonable and necessary” under the beliefs of the faith.

Outside legal concerns, isn’t reporting abuse the obvious ethical choice?

Reporting abuse in any individual case will most often be best for the child involved. But the answer may not be as clear-cut as some think. There may be some inadvertent consequences of eliminating all prohibitions on reporting. For instance, according to one clinical psychologist, “As the boundaries of confidentiality decrease, people who need help are less likely to seek it out. Instead, they will suffer along in silence and isolation.”

Confessing instances of abuse to a clergy member can often set abusers on the path to deep changes in their behavior. Whereas if they don’t go to see a clergy member because they’re worried about being reported, their abuse will continue without anyone knowing. 

Clearly, the victims need to be our top priority. But there are many victims. And some of those victims will only be helped if their abuser comes forward. And those abusers might only come forward if they trust clergy confidentiality. Some recent research suggests that mandatory reporting laws don’t always work and, in fact, can make the problem worse. A reasonable argument can be made that, in the aggregate, maintaining some degree of clergy confidentiality helps reduce child abuse over the long term.

Are there other reasons for clergy sometimes not to report abuse?

Two years ago, Queensland adopted a law that would require Catholic priests to break the seal of confession in some instances. Carl Herstein, a Michigan-based lawyer and practicing Catholic, argued at the time that the law was a serious violation of religious freedom and that, on a practical level, the law would ultimately backfire. 

In the two years since the law was passed, most crimes went down in Australia, but domestic violence and sexual abuse rates began to increase at a higher rate and continue to rise.

Did The Church of Jesus Christ attempt to conceal the abuse in this case?

Not by any reasonable definition of the word. The bishop encouraged both the perpetrator and his wife to report the abuse. The Church chose to maintain clergy confidentiality in this case but took no proactive steps to hide it from anyone else and, in fact, encouraged reports to be made. 

While some might equate not directly reporting themselves to “burying” the abuse, there is good reason to believe, once again, that if abusers could not trust clergy to maintain confidence, many more cases of abuse would remain entirely buried—not just from the police, but from anyone who could help.

Did the Church support the abuser?

In some ways, yes—but only similar to the way they support all members. This man’s bishop certainly helped him try to change his behavior. The bishop also invited the wife in to try and help address the serious problem. The Church offered to help get them counseling. But in the end, when no change was made, the Church excommunicated him in 2013.

Does sexual abuse occur more among the Church of Jesus Christ than the public at large?

There is no evidence of that, with the available evidence to the contrary. As Jana Riess noted, “I have not seen any credible evidence that the incidence of sexual abuse is higher in Latter-day Saint communities than anywhere else. I’ve certainly seen allegations to that effect.”

According to documents leaked in 2018, the rate of abuse among missionaries and church leaders is considerably lower than those found among general demographics. In one month, out of 170,000 mission presidents, stake presidents, missionaries, and bishops, only seven were accused of abuse. This rate suggests that if all the accusations were accurate, church leaders and missionaries commit sexual abuse at about 1/66th the frequency of men in the same age groups. 

Recently Jennifer Roach, a survivor of clergy sexual abuse, now working as a licensed clinical therapist, wrote for Public Square Magazine about ways the Church of Jesus Christ has developed policies that prevent the kind of abuse she experienced.

How does the Church of Jesus Christ compare with other faith communities when it comes to abuse?  

While there have been isolated incidents of abuse, The Church of Jesus Christ is now the largest denomination in the United States to have not been implicated in a systemic sexual abuse scandal.

Does the helpline ever help the abused?

Absolutely. Often, the helpline will ensure that bishops or stake presidents move forward in reporting directly to authorities. The Church confirms that in Arizona alone, this has happened hundreds of times. The helpline also alerts bishops about resources available to them to support the families.

Why did the bishops appear to stand idly by while the abuse continued?

They didn’t. First, they provided counseling for the family—while encouraging them to report the abuse. They also eventually excommunicated the abuser, the most serious ecclesiastical step they could take to convince the man that his behavior must stop. 

Did the AP miss anything in their article?  

The AP report suggests in several places that the Church engaged in an effort to conceal the abuse. There has been no evidence of any effort to cover up. What the bishops were advised to do was maintain clergy-penitent privilege in this case according to Arizona law. The article also fails to mention that bishops are volunteer leaders, which necessitates the kind of professional advice the helpline provides.

In addition, the article regularly mentions seven years of abuse, without clarifying that the abuser was only a member of the Church for three of those years and then was kicked out of the Church likely because of the abuse. And the article also implies the Church’s current policy is to discourage bishops from disclosing abuse to local authorities. 

Has the Church made mistakes in this or other cases? 

The Church is not perfect in this area. By making decisions on a case-by-case basis, there will always likely be cases where the Church errs on one side or the other on this issue—both in supporting members and in leader behavior. A recent case of an Elder’s Quorum president with a past of sexual abuse comes to mind. And there were clearly some tragic errors made in this case as well.

There are conflicting reports—some reports say that the Church hotline said “don’t report it” and others sources say “it’s optional to report it.” Either way, the two bishops involved clearly didn’t do what the Church Handbook said, which is most importantly to stop the abuse. No doubt, both former bishops—along with senior leaders—feel deep sorrow that more was not done in these two cases to ensure the children were safe. 

In the end, does the helpline prevent or cause more harm?

There’s no way to quantify a question like this. But it seems likely that balancing competing concerns in each individual case is likely to produce better results than a blanket policy that has to be instituted by volunteers.

Research shows that volunteers who are also mandatory reporters create many of the problems that make these laws ineffective. Professionals, like the therapists and lawyers who staff the helpline, often make better determinations of when to report.

Roach also explains, “Churches who operate as independent entities get no oversight. They mess this stuff up far worse than groups like The Church of Jesus Christ that are willing to take consultation outside of the immediate local context. In a closed system, the temptation to bow to strong personalities is just too strong—and many of the independent churches without oversight are so personality-driven that this is destined to happen.”

The post Are Publicized Abuse Cases Exceptional or Representative of Our Faith? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Many of the most important moments in our national history have come as a result of religious conviction turned into political action. From abolition to women’s suffrage and child labor laws to the civil rights movement, religion has played the role of an instigator for political change. Religion compels us to act and to become, or else our faith is in vain. At this moment, while our shared pain and anger at the loss of life in Uvalde, Texas, and elsewhere are still intense, it’s been good to see congressional efforts to leverage those feelings as a goad to new political action.  

This compromise is a welcome response, although it is by our estimation too limited to meet the full needs of the moment. If those in political office refuse to act further, then it’s perhaps time to replace them in the upcoming election. It is time for us to become single-issue voters with gun control as our top priority. 

For those open to considering sensible pathways to common-sense gun control, this essay provides a framework for thinking about responses to gun violence but is not meant to be the definitive statement.  Instead, it represents the thoughts of two concerned citizens, who got on their knees to pray and then got up and sought to turn that faith into action. It begins with some basic information about gun violence, the U.S. political system, and what is needed to enact policy change, before concluding with a roadmap for political action in 2022.  

Gun violence data. Mass shootings (Note #1), such as those in Uvalde and Buffalo, have become an everyday occurrence in America.  Between 2020 and 2021, there was a 13.4% increase in the number of incidents. In 2021, there were 693 mass shootings, which resulted in 702 deaths and injuries to another 2,844 people, with racial minorities being disproportionately victimized (Gun Violence Archive, 2022).  This year (as of May 25, 2022), 234 people have died in 214 mass shootings, which translates into an average of 1.6 every day.  Thus far in 2022, Texas is leading, both in terms of the number of mass shootings (21) and mass shooting fatalities (45), but there have been shootings in 35 states, as well as the District of Columbia (Gal and Hall, 2022; Gun Violence Archive, 2022). (Note #2)

Nearly half of mass public shooters leaked their plans in advance, which some consider to be a “cry for help” by suicidal individuals (Peterson et. al. 2019).  Some perpetrators have histories of psychiatric illnesses, but any link between mental illnesses and mass killing is tenuous at best.  The vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent (Knoll and Annas, 2016; Fridel, 2017).

Most gun violence and fatalities are not caused by mass shootings.  As of May 25, there have been 17,300 firearm fatalities in the United States (Gun Violence Archive, 2022).  Between 2017 and 2021, the number of gun deaths, excluding suicides, increased by 35%.  The total of non-suicide deaths was nearly 21,000 in 2021.  Among children and adolescents, gun fatalities have overtaken auto accidents as the leading cause of death (Ogasa, 2022).  The US also has the highest gun suicide rate in the world, approximately 24,000 annually (Brownlee, 2022).

According to the 2021 National Firearms Survey, there are 81.4 million gun owners in the U.S.  Between January 2019 and April 2021, 7.5 million adults became new gun owners.  This meant that 17 million people, including 5 million children, who previously were living in gun-free households, now are living in close proximity to guns.  The average gun owner has five firearms.  Nearly half (48%) have owned high-capacity magazines (e.g., those holding more than ten rounds) (#5) and more than 30% or 24.6 million have owned an AR-15 or similar weapon, such as was used in the recent mass murders in Buffalo and Uvalde (English, 2021).  

The political calculus. The U.S. Constitution created a system of divided governance with power divided between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.  It also divided power between the national government and state governments (e.g., federalism) (#6).  This created multiple veto points, where politically powerful interests have opportunities to derail legislation, even legislation supported by most of the public.  These veto points have made it possible for pro-gun forces to derail regulation for decades, even when large majorities of the public have favored reforms.

As described in the famous and often mocked Schoolhouse Rock cartoon, “I’m Just a Bill,” getting a bill passed into law is a complicated process, where legislation must gain support within committees in both the House of Representatives and Senate and then be passed by both chambers—and hopefully not vetoed by the President before actually becoming law.  While a useful civics lesson for the younger set, the cartoon glosses over the ways that powerful political actors can halt progress at the many veto points.  It ignores the need to get a supermajority of 60 votes to ensure passage in the Senate because of the filibuster rule.  The cartoon also leaves out that the Supreme Court has the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws.   

A further complication, again provided by the Constitution, is that governing authority is divided between the national and state levels, with the former having precedence in foreign affairs and defense while the latter ostensibly has greater responsibility for domestic issues (#7).  Federalism means that civil rights, including those dealing with firearms, can be radically different across the 50 states.  For example, 7 states have assault weapons bans, but 43 do not, which makes keeping the weapons out of a state nearly impossible  

Finally, the Supreme Court has the power to rule on the constitutionality of all laws, including those dealing with firearms (#8).  Judicial rulings are based upon what a majority of justices believe to be the correct interpretations of the relevant Constitutional language.  Although the Court has cited other provisions in gun rulings (#9), the Second Amendment is the fundamental text. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Until recently, the Court did not interpret the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right to have firearms (#10). But in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that individuals have a right to possess a firearm unconnected to militia service, but that right is not unlimited (#11).

At this point, one might give up, deciding that the barriers to meaningful change are too great.  After all, the last congressional vote on gun control until this last week was on the 2013 Assault Weapons Ban, which failed in a Senate vote of 40-60. Not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill. What has been true for the past nine years need not be true today. 

Opening the policy window. Please note that succeeding will not be easy, and certainly is not guaranteed, but it is possible. Academic researchers have shown that major policy change is possible when a policy window opens.  According to Kingdom (1995), a policy window opens when there is a convergence of the problem, policy, and politics streams.  The passage of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban provides a good example of how this can occur.

The current convergence of streams. A similar gun control policy window is now open.  As required by the problem stream, public attention is focused on mass shootings, which are dramatically higher than in 2013, the last time when gun control was voted on in Congress.  The number of mass shootings with at least four victims increased from 269 in 2014 to 692 in 2021 (Gun Violence Archive, 2022) (#13) and people have learned there is no place that is safe—not churches, synagogues, nail salons, grocery stores, night clubs, schools, office buildings, hospitals. …

According to a public opinion poll taken after the Buffalo shootings (but before Uvalde), roughly twice as many respondents support stricter gun control laws than oppose them (60% versus 32%) (Yokley, 2022).  And according to a poll taken in early June after the Uvalde shooting, 69% favor stricter gun control, with 44% wanting them to be a lot stricter (Ipsos, 2022).  When broken down by party leaning, 88% of Democrats, 67% of independents and 50% of Republicans favor stricter gun regulations.  When asked questions about assigning responsibility for gun violence, respondents identified the mental health system (76%), loose gun laws (64%), racism, and white nationalism (61%) (Ipsos, 2022). An earlier Quinnipiac Poll (Malloy & Schwartz, 2021) asked respondents whether they supported or opposed specific gun control measures and found:

• 89-8% Support background checks for all gun purchases.
• 74-21% Support “red flag” or extreme risk laws that allow judges to remove firearms from individuals at risk of committing violence.
• 52-43% Support a federal ban on the sale of assault weapons.
• 51-44% Support a ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines

As required by a policy stream, there is solid research showing that gun control is effective in reducing deaths.  According to a study by the Giffords Law Center (2022), there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between the strength of state gun regulations and gun deaths per 100,000 population.  Another study found that a person who was living in a household with a gun owner was twice as likely to die from gun homicide, compared to someone living in a gun-free household.  Spouses and intimate partners were 7 times more likely to be killed with a gun. Eighty-four percent of those victims were female (Studdert et. al, 2022).  The likelihood of suicide was threefold higher among handgun owners (Studdert et. al, 2020). Waiting periods before one can purchase handguns results in a 7-11% decrease in suicides and a 17% decrease in homicides (Luca et. al, 2017).  Background checks and other means of preventing high-risk individuals from owning guns also result in risk reductions (Webster and Wintermute 2015; Vernick et. al., 2017).   

In the aftermath of the Uvalde mass shooting, President Biden came out in favor of an assault weapons ban, lauding the effectiveness of the earlier national ban (#14). After its enactment, the number of mass shootings decreased by 37% and mass shooting deaths declined by 43%. In the ten-year period after the ban ended, the number of mass shootings increased by 183% with a 239% increase in mass shooting fatalities.  It is worth noting that many shooters have shifted to using semi-automatic handguns (DiMaggio et. al., 2019; Kessler 2022).  However, enacting bans on the purchase of large-capacity magazines, which would also apply to semi-automatic handguns, can reduce the harm (Gius, 2017; Koper, 2020).  

Even before the most recent mass shootings, there were signs that politicians were becoming less deferential to gun rights groups. This can be seen in the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America opposed because it closed the “boyfriend loophole.”  Although the lapsed law had a provision banning gun purchases by individuals convicted of domestic violence offenses against spouses and family members, it did not cover acts by intimate partners. Despite gun rights groups lobbying against passage (Johnston, 2022), the bill passed in the House of Representatives on a 244-172 vote, with 29 Republicans voting in favor (#15).  The legislation moved more slowly in the Senate, where it ended up being incorporated into Appropriations legislation that passed on March 11, 2022, with 19 Republican senators voting in favor of the omnibus bill (#16).  Eleven Republican senators also chose to co-sponsor S3623, the stand-alone VAWA reauthorization bill, as did 45 Democrats and 2 Independents (#17).

A bipartisan group of senators, with the support of party leaders, have managed to garner enough support to overcome the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate (#18). The bill will help states create and implement red flag laws, increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs, close the boyfriend loophole, enhance the review process for gun buyers under the age of 21, and boost resources for school security. The bill does not expand background checks, ban assault weapons, or increase the minimum age for gun purchase. Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) are acting as policy entrepreneurs in this case.  On the Republican side, fifteen Senators voted for the bill. Another fourteen House Republicans voted for the bill, joining all Democrats in the House of Representatives. Arguably, the single most promising development is that some very influential Republican donors endorsed the bipartisan bill.  This past week in Texas, 250 conservatives, who described themselves as “gun enthusiasts,” including major Republican donors, publicly endorsed the bipartisan effort, calling for expanded background checks, establishing 21 as the legal age for gun purchases, and “red flag” laws (Klibanoff, 2022).  

There are other aspects of the political context that are more favorable now than a decade ago. First, the level of gun violence is much higher now, which raises its salience among the public. Also, the National Rifle Association is weaker than it has been for decades (#19) and there has been growth among pro-gun regulation groups. Within months of the gun control defeat in 2013, two new national gun control non-profits—Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and Giffords PAC—were established and began making campaign contributions to political candidates willing to support gun control legislation (#20).

Gun control groups still have less money than the gun-rights group, but the gap has narrowed.  In 2012, gun control groups only spent $250,000 on lobbying versus $6,129,911 from gun rights groups and $909,500 from gun manufacturers.  The following year, the gun rights side increased their expenditures ($15,292,052 from gun rights groups and $820,000 from gun manufacturers).  Gun control groups increased their spending nine-fold to $2,197,765.  At this point in 2022, the gun rights side has spent ($2,089,303 from gun rights groups and $640,000 from gun manufacturers), while the gun control organizations have spent $609,329 (Open Secrets, 2022b), but those figures will ratchet up as we get closer to the election.  

One factor that has not gotten much attention is the potential importance of women in organizing for change.  Think about what women accomplished on the issue of drunk driving with MADD. Women have political clout that often goes unrecognized.  There are more women than men in the country and women are more likely to vote.  In 2020, the turnout among female voters was 68.4% versus 63.3% among men (Center for American Women and Politics, 2022a). Women also are more likely than men to prioritize domestic policies that support children and families, while men are more concerned with business and defense.  It is hard to imagine a more powerful trigger event for women than the images of the children who died in Uvalde. 

In their analysis of ANES data from 2020, researchers at the Center for American Women and Politics (2022) found a large gender gap on all gun control measures.  On a general question about whether the federal government should make it more difficult for people to buy guns, there was a 12-point gender gap (women 55.6% v. men 43.6%).  Among Democrats, the gap was 10.7 points (women 79.9% v. 69.2%), while among Republicans it was 8.6 points (women 26.5% v. men 17.9%).  The gender gap on a question about banning assault weapons was almost as large—11 points (women 56% v. men 45%) but it was 8.5 points among Democrats (women 74% v. men 65.5%) and 8.1 points among Republicans (35.2% v. 27.1%) (#21). The gender gap on a question about background checks was smaller—4.6 points (women 89.1% v. men 84.5%).  It was very low (1.5 points) among Democrats where 93.7% of women and 92.2% of men favored background checks.  Only among Republicans was there a noticeable gender gap of 6.6 points (women 87.1% v. men 80.5%) on background checks.

The material presented thus far has focused on making change through our elected officials.  The Supreme Court, however, has the power to overturn any law that it deems unconstitutional (#22), but it also must pay some attention to the public mood.  As an unelected body, whose members have lifetime tenure, maintaining Court legitimacy is always a concern among its members (#23). Approval of the Court in Gallup polls fell to its lowest ever, 40% in September 2021 (Jones, 2021)—and this was before the leaked draft ruling to reverse Roe v. Wade; all of which is likely a concern for the Justices.

Roadmap for Action

The problem of gun violence can feel overwhelming, but there are concrete steps that every person can take to create political change. 

Talk with friends and family: Do not discount the importance of talking with people—both those who share your beliefs and those who do not.  With people who support gun control, your goal should be to move them to activism.  Do not be afraid to talk with friends and family members who own firearms, but please do so in a manner that is respectful and not condemning.  Being able to protect oneself and family is the reason that most people give for owning firearms (English, 2021), so point out that gun fatalities are higher in households with guns and that women are particularly at risk. Also, brainstorm about alternative ways to protect oneself.

Advocate. Politicians pay attention to public sentiment, particularly in the months leading up to an election.  At this point in the election cycle, they are working to expand their electoral base, so reach out to them.  Legislators have staff whose primary job is to keep track of constituent concerns.  Staffers keep very close tabs on the number of constituent letters, telephone calls, and emails that they receive about an issue and which side is generating the most heat (#24). Gun rights groups are very skilled in mobilizing their members to lobby elected officials, but gun control advocates can do the same.  The most effective letters are those where the writer speaks from the heart about why this is personally important (#25). Also, consider writing letters to the editor.  If a particular regulation is being considered, write a letter endorsing it and keep in mind what is realistic for someone in a strong gun-rights state to support. The following is a list of policies aimed at reducing gun violence. Decide which ones you support and feel comfortable advocating for.

• Funding for violence intervention programs for communities with high levels of gun violence
• Funding for mental health programs in schools
• Funding for suicide prevention
• Safe storage legislation
• Initiate public awareness campaigns akin to what was done with tobacco
• Add a surtax, like with tobacco, to gun and ammunition purchases
• Age restrictions on the purchases of firearms
• Strengthen background checks for purchasing firearms
• Waiting periods for purchasing firearms
• “Red flag” laws that allow police or family members to petition courts to remove firearms from individuals whose behavior indicates a risk of gun violence
• Banning the purchase of assault weapons
• Banning the purchase of high-capacity magazines

Collective advocacy.  Elected officials are more likely to pay attention when you are speaking on behalf of a larger group.  In the immediate aftermath of mass shootings, politicians rush to offer thoughts and prayers to the bereaved.   Well, let those same politicians know that your faith community is not just sending thoughts and prayers, but it is actively encouraging parishioners to keep it in mind when they vote (#26). Think creatively about which organizations that you belong to would be open to taking a stance on gun violence.  Professional groups and unions, such as those in the education, religion, and health fields, are obvious choices. Most gun violence is perpetrated by men, so advocacy by groups that are predominantly male will carry extra weight. Also, consider joining and supporting gun control organizations.  They need your help—both labor power and money.

Financial support for lobbying. Money matters in politics.  The Gun rights side typically expends at least 6 times more money on lobbying compared to what gun control groups have.  Their biggest source of funding is gun manufacturers.  Gun control money comes from individual donors, hence the big disparity. The following is a partial list of some of the national groups actively engaged in research and lobbying for gun control: Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Giffords Law Center, Brady Campaign, Sandy Hook Promise, March for Our Lives, John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California Davis. According to Open Secrets (2022a), the groups most active in lobbying are Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Brady PAC, and Giffords PAC.  

Rules for strategic campaign giving.  Running for political office is expensive.  In 2020, the total amount spent on congressional campaigns was $7 billion.  Be strategic in deciding where to contribute and how much to give because money does not necessarily translate into political success. There are two rules to strategic campaign giving. The first is do not flush your money down the toilet.  Resist the urge to give money to candidates who do not have a realistic chance of winning, even if you really like their policy positions and dislike those of their opponents. The second rule is to keep your eyes on the prize, which requires remembering that there are many veto points where bills can get derailed. You need a legislative coalition, which by definition includes people with differing views. A major veto point in the Senate is the need to secure 60 votes instead of a simple majority. With this in mind, a liberal Democrat might decide to donate to Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Alaska has a ranked-choice voting system, where the top two candidates in the primary election move on to the general election. Murkowski voted to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act that eliminated the boyfriend loophole. Her most likely opponent is Kelly Tshibaka, a staunch gun rights advocate. Murkowski might be persuaded to vote for some gun regulations. With this in mind, a person committed to gun regulation might send a check to the Murkowski campaign, but also include a note about the need for “sensible gun regulation.”  

Contributing to Senate races in 2022. Senate races are used to illustrate how one can apply the two rules of strategic campaign giving in evaluating candidates, but it is equally applicable to other races. This year, 34 Senate seats are being contested.  To avoid violating the “do not throw your money down the toilet” rule, one needs to assess the overall competitiveness of a race. Objective measures of competitiveness are derived from calculations of the partisan leanings of voters and the quality of the candidates.  

According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index (CVPI) and Politico Forecast, the following states are competitive Senate races: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Neither listed Alaska as competitive because it will not switch from being Republican, but it also is likely to have a closely contested Senate race. 

1. Arizona:  This is a toss-up race, pitting Democratic incumbent Senator Mark Kelly against a Republican, who will be chosen in the August 2nd primary. This is a battleground state. In 2016, Kelly was elected with 51% of the vote.  Kelly is the husband of Gabby Giffords.  Although he has not received campaign contributions from gun control groups in 2022, he has been a recipient in the past.  Kelly is not a sponsor of the current assault weapons bill in the Senate, but he has supported it in the past (Greenwood, 2022).  It still is an easy decision to support Kelly.

2. Florida: This is a race that is labeled as leaning Republican, as is the state.  So far in 2022, the Republican incumbent Senator Marco Rubio has received $22,510 from gun rights groups.  Rubio was elected in 2016 with 52% of the vote. It is not clear yet who the Democratic nominee will be, but this is another easy call—give to the Democrat.  One of the Democratic candidates, Val Demings, while in the House, sponsored assault weapons ban legislation (Greenwood, 2022), while the other candidate, Alan Grayson, has tried to avoid the issue or limited his comments to calling for “common sense” regulation on Twitter. The primary will be on August 23.

3. Georgia:  This is a toss-up state. The incumbent Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock has received $32,166 from gun control groups in 2022.  In the 2021 special election, Warnock got 51% of the vote. Warnock is a sponsor of a bill introduced by Senator Feinstein to ban assault weapons (Greenwood, 2022). His opponent Republican Herschel Walker gave a very confusing answer to a question about how to respond to gun violence after the Uvalde shooting (#28).  This is another easy call.  It is a toss-up state where one candidate is pro-gun control and the other is confused, at best.

4. Nevada: This is another toss-up state.  Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto has not been a recipient of gun control funding.  She was elected in 2016 with only 47% of the vote.  Cortez Masto is not a sponsor of the current assault weapons bill (Greenwood, 2022). The Republican nominee will be chosen in the primary on June 14.  While having a Democrat in the seat is almost certainly better than a Republican, Cortez Masto is not going to be out front on gun issues. 

5. New Hampshire: This is a lean Democrat state.  The incumbent Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan is a sponsor of the current assault weapons ban bill (Greenwood, 2022) and this year has received $10,613 in funding from gun control groups.  The Republican nominee will be chosen in the September 13 primary.  But supporting Hassan is an easy call.  In 2016, she won with only 48% of the vote.  

6. North Carolina: This is a lean Republican state.  The incumbent Republican, Senator Richard Burr was elected in 2016 with 51% of the vote.  He has not been a recipient of significant funding from gun rights groups.  The Democratic nominee, Cheri Beasley, generally is supportive of gun regulation measures, such as safe storage, universal background checks, and “red flag” laws.  Working against the Democrats is the presence of a Green Party candidate, who will pull from them.  

7. Ohio: This is a lean Republican state.  The incumbent Republican Senator Rob Portman is not running for re-election, which makes this an open-seat race. The Democratic nominee, Tim Ryan, has served in the House for many years and has a strong history of support for gun control measures.  Thus far in 2022, he has received $18,458 from gun control groups.  His Republican opponent is J.D. Vance, the author of Hillbilly Elegy, who had supported “red flag” laws, but now opposes them, along with all of the proposed legislation endorsed by President Biden (Israel, 2022).  This is another easy call.

8. Pennsylvania: This is a toss-up state.  Incumbent Republican Senator Pat Toomey chose not to run, which makes this an open-seat race.  Democratic candidate John Fetterman has endorsed an assault weapons ban, as well as other control measures (Greenwood, 2022). The Republican nominee, Dr. Mehmet Oz, in 2017 and 2019 was listed as a co-author on articles espousing many types of gun control, but he now claims to not have written the pieces and that he is strongly pro-gun (Nerozzi, 2022).  Supporting Fetterman is an easy call.

9.Wisconsin:  This is a toss-up state.  The incumbent Republican, Senator Ron Johnson, was elected in 2016 with 50% of the vote. Gun rights groups have given his campaign $24,536 this year. The Democratic nominee is not yet clear, but will certainly be more supportive of gun control than Johnson. The primary election will be held on August 9.

Concluding thoughts.  At this moment, there is an open policy window for gun reform. Don’t let the policy window close without making your voice heard. Candidates for office are making political calculations about what they must do to build political coalitions large enough to win in November.  Help them make the calculation that taking action on gun control is the way to prevail on Election Day. Let’s turn our prayers into action, knowing that we are agents unto ourselves commanded by our respective faiths to do good in our political communities.

Notes:

1. The data, cited in this section of the paper, uses the Gun Violence Archive definition that a mass shooting is where four or more people are shot at the same place.  It is important to recognize that there are different classifications that result in different numbers of incidents, fatalities, and perpetrator profiles.  Fridel (2017), in an important study of mass murders committed between 2006 and 2016, limits her data to incidents that resulted in at least four fatalities as opposed to four shooting victims.  The FBI also collects data on active shooter incidents, which are defined as “one or more individuals who are engaged in killing or attempting to kill in a populated area” (Ogasa, 2022).

2. The 15 states, thus far in 2022 without mass shootings, are Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

3. Females make up less than 4% of mass shooters (Statista, 2022).

4. Researchers, drawing upon a data set of 318 mass public shootings that occurred between 1966 and 2017, developed the following four categories: disgruntled employees, school, ideologically motivated, and rampage offenders.  Disgruntled employee shooters often are acting on the spur of the moment and have done the least planning, while the ideologically motivated shooters have given their actions a great deal of thought and inflict the greatest harm (Capellan et. al., 2019). Other research suggests that public school shooters tend to be young males (Murray, 2022).

5. Although there still needs to be additional research on the impact of high-capacity magazines, one study found that it increased the number of school shooting victims by more than 50% (Gius, 2017).

6. Local governments have the power to pass laws that apply within their jurisdictions, but those laws can be overturned by state governments. All local governments are subordinate to their respective state governments, which created them. For example, an urban area can pass a city ordinance banning certain types of firearms, but that can be overturned by the state legislature.

7. Over time, the national government has become increasingly important in what used to be state-controlled policy areas, resulting in most domestic policy areas having become shared spheres.  When the issue is brought to the Supreme Court, most national government incursions have been ruled permissible, but there have been some reversals as the Court has become more conservative.

8. The current Supreme Court docket includes a case that could result in New York state’s stringent licensing of concealed carry permits being overturned.

9. See, for example, U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), where the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling overturned a federal law prohibiting handguns within 1,000 feet of a school, on the grounds that the law was based on a flawed interpretation of the Commerce Clause. According to the Court, the Commerce Clause only gave the national government a right to regulate interstate commerce, not the sale of a gun in a single state.

10. There were a number of Supreme Court decisions dealing with the Second Amendment in the years following the Civil War.  See U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) that failed to provide clarity on who had a right to bear arms and under what conditions. Then in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Court clearly held that the right to bear arms was contingent upon a relationship to militia service.

11. The Supreme Court in subsequent decisions reaffirmed that the right was fundamental and was equally applicable to state and national governments. They also held that the right covered firearms not in existence at the time of the Second Amendment’s adoption. See, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) and Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S.  (2016).

12. These were the 1989 shooting of 34 children and their teacher in Stockton, California, the Luby shooting of 50 people in Killeen, Texas, and the 101 California Street shooting of 14 people.

13. The Gun Violence Archive was started in 2013 but did not begin collecting data until the following year.

14. In 2013, Biden was the primary sponsor of S1607, legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

15. The following is a list of the 29 Republicans: Don Young (AK), David Valadao (CA), Darrell Issa (CA), Mario Diaz-Bolart (FL), Mike Boost (IL), Rodney Davis (IL), Marianette Miller-Meeks (IA), Pete Stauber (MN), Jefferson Van-Drew (NJ), Nicole Malliotakis (NY), Chris Jacobs (NY), Troy Balderson (OH), David Joyce (OH), Steve Stivers (OH), Anthony Gonzalez (OH), Markwayne Mullin (OK), Tom Cole (OK), Stephanie Bice (OK), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Michael McCaul (TX), John Carter (TX), and Bryan Steil (WI). All of the Democrats present voted in favor.

16. The nineteen Republican senators were John Barrasso (WY), Roy Blunt (MO), Shelley Capito (WV), Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), Joni Ernst (IA), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS), Mitch McConnell (KY), Jerry Moran (KS), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rob Portman (OH), Richard Shelby (AL), John Thune (SD), Tommy Tuberville (AL), Roger Wicker (MS), and Todd Young (IN).  All of the Democrats voted “aye.”

17. The Republican co-sponsors were Roy Blunt (MO), Richard Burr (NC), Shelley Capito (WV), Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), Kevin Cramer (ND), Jerry Moran (KS), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rob Portman (OH), Thom Tillis (NC).

18. The following is a list of senators, who have been identified as working to craft legislation: Richard Blumental (D, CT), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-Me), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) and Pat Toomey (R-PA).  Early reports indicate the plan is to craft legislation dealing with mental health, school security, expansion of background checks, and incentives for states to pass “red flag” laws. Manchin has come out in favor of raising the age to purchase assault weapons to 21.

19. Over the past two years, the NRA has been embroiled in internal conflicts and fighting, as well as battling financial misconduct litigation that led to the organization trying to file for bankruptcy (Briggerman, 2021).

20. The Sandy Hook Promise and March for Our Lives also engage in national lobbying, but typically have less money (Open Secrets, 2022a.)

21. There also were responses from independents and those not wanting to give party preferences, but those are not included here.

22. There also were responses from independents and those not wanting to give party preferences, but those are not included here.

23. For more information about different aspects of Supreme Court legitimacy, see Fallon (2018).

24. The office of Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has been flooded with letters and calls in support of gun regulation since the Uvalde shooting. On June 6th Lummis stated that she was willing to consider a range of gun control measures—the same ones that she had vociferously rejected two weeks earlier (Teh, 2022).

25. The June 7th plea for gun control by Matthew McConaughey, who is from Uvalde, was particularly effective. McConaughey and his wife Camila Alves spent several days meeting with the families in Uvalde. He conveyed this sense of personal connection and loss.  McConaughey also wrote an opinion piece in Austin American-Statesman (Kurtz, 2022).

26. Faith communities are likely to be divided over gun control, but that should be viewed as an opportunity for discussion, perhaps starting with Matthew 18: 1-6.  Christianity Today analyzed Pew Research Center data on gun ownership. They found that 41% of white evangelicals, at the time when the survey was taken, owned a gun as opposed to 30% of the overall population. White evangelicals also were more likely to carry that gun, 65% versus 57% (Shellnutt, 2017).

27. All campaign contribution figures are from Open Secrets (2022b; Open Secrets, 2022d; Open Secrets, 2022e).

28. After referring to Cain killing Abel, Walker said the following: “what about getting a department that can look at young men that’s looking at women that’s looking at their social media” (Cillizza, 2022).

References:

Briggeman, Lucien. 2021. “NRA is ‘Out of Ammo’ as It Faces a Legal Mess of Its Own Making.” ABC News. February 22. Abcnews.go.com/us/nra-ammo-faces-legal-mess- making-experts/story?id=75949839.

Brownlee, Chip. 2021. “Gun Violence in 2021, By the Numbers.” The Trace.  December 27. https://www.thetrace.org/2021/12/gun-violence-data-stats-2021/

Capellan, Joel A., Joseph Johnson, Jeremy R. Porter, and Christine Martin. 2019. “Disaggregating Mass Public Shootings: A Comparative Analysis of Disgruntled Employee, School, Ideologically Motivated, and Rampage Shooters.” Journal of Forensic Science. 64(3): 814-823. 

Center for American Women and Politics. 2022. “Gender Gap in Public Opinion.” Cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-public-opinion#:~:text=Gender%20gap..

Cillizza, Chris. 2022. “Herschel Walker’s Answer on Gun Violence is Literally Nonsensical.” CNN Politics. May 26. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/herschel-walker-gun- violence-fox-news/indes.html.

Cook Political Report. 2022. “2022 Senate Ratings.” March 6.  270towin.com/2022-senate- election-cook-political-2022-senate.

DiMaggio, Charles, Jacob Avraham, Cherisse Berry, Marko Bukor, Justin Feldman, Michael Klein, Noor Shah, Manish Tandon, and Spiros Frangos. 2019. “Changes in US Mass Shooting Deaths Associated with the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Analysis of Open-Source Data.” Journal of Trauma Acute Care Surgery. 86(1): 11-19. 

English, William. 2021. “2021 National Firearms Survey.” Georgetown McDonough School of Business Research Paper No. 3887145. July 16.

Fallon, Richard H. 2018. Law and Legitimacy in the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Federal Elections Commission. 2021. “FEC Announces 2021-2022 Campaign Cycle Contribution Limits.” February 2. https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2021- 2022-campaign-cycle-contribution-limits/.

Fridel, Emma E. 2017. “A Multivariate Comparison of Family, Felony, and Public Mass Murders in the United States.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence: 1-27. DOI: 10.1177/0886260517739286. 

Gal, Shayanne, and Madison Hall. 2022. “The US Had 214 Mass Shootings so Far in 2022. Here’s the Full List.” The Insider. May 26. https://www.insider.com/number-of-mass- shootings-america-this-year-2022-5. 

Giffords Law Center. 2022. “Gun Laws Save Lives.” Giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/scorecard/#map.

Gius, Mark. 2017. “The Effects of State and Federal Gun Control Laws on School Shootings.” Applied Economics Letters.:1-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350485/.2017.1319555.

Greenwood, Max. 2022. “Democratic Senate Hopefuls Take Cautious Tack on Assault Weapons Ban.” The Hill. June 6. https://thehill.com/campaign/3508350-democratic-senate- hopefuls-take-cautious-tack-on-assault-weapons-ban/?email=417717285df99deb73a…

Gun Violence Archive. 2022. www.gunviolencearchive.org. 

Ipsos. 2021. “Press Release: Two in Three Americans Favor Stricter Gun Laws.” https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/two-in-three-americans-favor-stricter-gun-laws.

Israel, Josh. 2022. “JD Vance Says the Solution to Gun Violence is to Force More People into Institutions.” The American Independent, June 3. Americanindependent.com/jd-vance- gun-violence-mental-illness-ohio-senate-republican-candidate-institutions/.

Johnston, Aidan. 2022. “18 Senators Voted for Gun Control: In Under 48 Hours, VAWA Gun Control Was Rammed Through Congress.” Gun Owners of America. March 11. https://www.gunowners.org/na03112022/.

Jones, Jeffrey. 2021. “Approval of U.S.  Supreme Court Down to 40%. A New Low.” Gallup. September 23. News.gallup.com/poll/354908/approval-supreme-court-down-new-low.aspx.

Kessler, Glenn, 2022. “What Research Shows on the Effectiveness of Gun-Control Laws.” The Washington Post. May 26. https://www.msn.com/en-us/newa/us/what-research-shows- on-the-effectiveness-of-gun-control-laws/ar-AAXMIwC.

Kingdon, John. 1995.  Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd Ed., New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Klibanoff, Eleanor. 2022. “Some Texas GOP Donors Urge Congress to Act on Gun Control Measures like ‘Red Flag’ Laws, Expanded Background Checks.” The Texas Tribune. June 4. Texastribune.org/2022/06/04/Texas-gop-donors-gun-reform/. 

Knoll, James L. IV and George D. Annas. 2016. “Mass Shootings and Mental Illness.” Psychiatry Online. https://www.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099.

Koper, Christopher H. 2020. “Assessing the Potential to Reduce Deaths and Injuries from Mass Shootings through Restrictions on Assault Weapons and Other High-Capacity Semi-Automatic Firearms.” Criminology & Public Policy. 19(1): 147-170. Doi:10.1111/1745- 9133.12485.

Kurtz, Judy. 2022. “McConaughey Calls for ‘Real Change’ on Guns in emotional white House Appearance.” The Hill. June 7. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/3514832- mcconaughey-calls-for-real-change-on-guns-in-emotional-white-house-appearance/.

Levine, Ally J. and Minami Funakoshi. 2020. “Financial Sinkholes.” Reuters. November. https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/SENATE-FUNDRAISING/yxmvjeyjkpr/. 

Luca, Michael, Deepak Malhotra & Christopher Poliquin. 2017. “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(46): 12162-12165.

Malloy, Tim, and Doug Schwartz. 2021. “Majority Support Stricter Gun Laws, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds Stark Divides on Views of Police and Voting Issues.” Quinnipiac Poll. April 15. 

Murray, Isabella. 2022. “Lawmakers Note Profile of Mass Shooters—Mostly Young Men—As They Weigh Gun Compromise.” ABC News. May 30. Abcnews.go.com/politics/lawmakers-note-profile-young-men-weigh/story?d=85074593.

Nerozzi, Timothy. 2022. “Dr. Oz Denies Writing Gun Control Advocacy Columns, Business Partner Claims Authorship.” Fox News. March 16. Foxnews.com/politics/dr-oz-denies- gun-control-advocacy.

Ogasa, Nikk. 2022. “Mass Shootings and Gun Violence in the United States Are Increasing.” Science News. May 26. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gun-violence-mass- shootings-incresae-united-states-data-uvalde-buffalo. 

Open Secrets. 2022a. “Summary.” Open Secrets: Following the Money in Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q12++.

Open Secrets. 2022b. “Gun Rights vs Gun Control.”  Open Secrets: Following the Money in Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns.

Open Secrets. 2022c. “Contribution Limits. Open Secrets: Following the Money in Politics.” https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/contribution-limits.

Open Secrets. 2022d. “Top Recipients: Gun Rights.”  Open Secrets: Following the Money in Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/industris/recips.php?ind=Q13&recipdetail…

Open Secrets. 2022e. “Top Recipients: Gun Control.”  Open Secrets: Following the Money in Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/industris/recips.php?ind=Q12++.

Peterson, Jillian, Gina Erickson, Kyle Knapp, and James Densley. 2021. “Communication of Intent to Do Harm Preceding Mass Public Shootings in the United States, 1966 to 2019.” JAMA Network Open. 4(11): Nov 1. Doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33073.

Sharkey, Patrick and Yinzhi Shen. 2021. “The Effect of Mass Shootings on Daily Emotions is Limited by Time, Geographic Proximity, and Political Affiliation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118(23): 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100846118.

Shellnut, Kate. 2017. “Packing the Pews: The Connection Between God and Guns.” Christianity Today. November 8. Christinitytoday.com/2017/November/god-gun-control-white- evangelicals-texas-church-shooting.html.

Shepard, Steve. 2022. “The Senate Leans Republican.” Politico Forecast 2022. https://www.politico.com/2022-election/race-forecasts-ratings-and-predictions/senate/.

Statista. 2022. “Number of Mass Shootings in the United States Between 1982 and June 2022 by Shooters’ Gender.” Statista.com/statistics/47445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s- gender.

Studdert, David M., Yifan Zhang, Erin E. Holsinger, Lea Prince, Alexander F. Holsinger, Jonathan A. Rodden, Garen J. Wintermuth and Matthew Miller, 2022. “Homicide Deaths Among Adult Cohabitants of Handgun Owners in California, 2004-2106.”  Annals of Internal Medicine. April 5. https://doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762.

Teh, Cheryl. 2022. “GOP Senator U-Turns on Gun Legislation Stance After Being Flooded with Calls from Constituents Demanding Action to Stop Mass Shootings.” Business Insider. June 7.  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senator-u-turns-on-gun- legislation-stance-after-being-flooded-with-calls-from-constituents-demanding-action-to- stop-mass-shootings.

Tennery, Amy. 2022. “U.S. Sports Teams Take Stand Against Gun Violence After Uvalde, Buffalo.” Yahoo News. June 4. https://news.yahoo.com/u-sports-teams-stand-against- 100412679.html.

Vernick, Jon S., Ted Alcorn, and Joshua Horwitz. 2017. “Background Checks for All Gun Buyers and Gun Violence Restraining Orders: State Efforts to Keep Guns from High- Risk Individuals.” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. 45(1): 98-102.

Webster, Daniel W. and Garen J. Wintemute. 2015. “Effects of Policies Designed to Keep Firearms from High-Risk Individuals.” Annual Review of Public Health. 18(36): 21-37.

Weisman, Jonathan. 2021. “Gun Talks Put Senate’s Tattered Credibility on the Line.” New York Times. May 30. https://politomix.com/nyt/1939692/gun-talks-put-senates-tattered- credibilityon-the-line. 

Yokley, Eli. 2022. “Most Voters Back Stricter Gun Control Measures After Buffalo—and Many See White Nationalism as a Critical Threat.” Morning Consult. May 16.  https://morningconsult.com/2022/05/16/buffalo-shooting-gun-control-white-nationalism- survey/.

The post The Faith to Act on Gun Reform appeared first on Public Square Magazine.