An older woman and a young protester laugh together near a flag, revealing joy and connection in pursuit of a more perfect union.

We the People, A Zion People: Healing the Divide with Covenant Community

What would it take to form a more perfect union? Rejecting outrage, loving neighbors, and renewing civic and spiritual bonds.

Download Print-Friendly Version

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This past school year, my daughter’s second-grade class memorized the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. Hearing her recite those familiar words—“in order to form a more perfect union”—felt unexpectedly moving. I was struck by the boldness of that phrase: not just to create a functioning government, but to reach for something better, something higher. The Founders didn’t settle for pragmatism alone; they aimed for progress, for refinement, for unity rooted in principle.

Extremes don’t represent the majority of Americans, but they are the voices we allow to be amplified in the media and online.

Of course, “perfect” is not the word most of us would use to describe the current state of our union. Grievance politics dominate from both ends of the spectrum, our public discourse often plays out as performative outrage, and once-rare acts of political violence have become disturbingly familiar. Even our national conversations, conducted through social media platforms like X, feel more like cage matches than civic dialogue.

President Russell M. Nelson has spent the last two years warning Latter-day Saints against this sort of contention. “The present hostility in public dialogue and on social media is alarming. Hateful words are deadly weapons. Contention prevents the Holy Ghost from being our constant companion.”

So, how do we begin again? How do we recover that original aspiration—not as a slogan, but as a lived reality?

Love for our nation

On the political far left, activists and politicians have no problem openly scorning the country. As left-wing writer and activist Dylan Saba recently unironically observed on X, “It’s hard to be a left-wing politician because as a politician you have to act like the US is fundamentally good when the correct left-wing position is that the US has been evil and destructive its entire existence.” They disproportionately criticise Americans’ wrongdoings, while often inexplicably praising governments far less free. 

On the extreme of the political right, the disdain for the country is less obvious—they don’t hate America, only its multiculturalism, religious pluralism, education, government, and electoral process. They will wave their American flags proudly while telling you the country is going to hell in a handbasket. Conservative social media accounts like Libs of TikTok and many conservative radio shows primarily exist to tell their audience what to be outraged about next. 

We created something rare and beautiful—a tiny outpost of Zion in a time of national fragmentation.

Of course, these extremes don’t represent the majority of Americans, but they are the voices we allow to be amplified in the media and online. They’re the voices that we tune in to when we’re feeling frustrated with the other side and want to be validated in our own “correct” opinions.

But this kind of partisanship and focus on the negative is not good for us, and it is not good for our relationship with our nation. 

In the 1970s, relationship and marriage researchers Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Robert Levenson ran longitudinal studies to find out the difference between happy and unhappy couples. Through their studies, they became very adept at predicting the couples who would stay together and those who would divorce. The primary determining factor they found was a balance between positive and negative interactions during conflict. Couples who had five or more positive interactions for every negative one tended to be in stable, happy relationships, while those who had fewer positive interactions were often on the path to divorce. The “Gottman Ratio” of 5:1 is good guidance not only for our marriage and other interpersonal relationships, but also for our institutional relationships, such as those with our churches and country. 

There is so much to love about our nation. From its vast and varied landscapes to its rich cultural contributions—Hollywood, Broadway, and world-class professional sports—America is a remarkable tapestry of traditions, languages, and perspectives. At the heart of it all are the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution, especially those guaranteed by the First Amendment. For Latter-day Saints, love of country takes on added meaning. We believe that God raised up this nation, in part, to make the restoration of the Gospel possible.

This divine purpose doesn’t ask for passive admiration. It calls for active devotion. President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address remains one of the most stirring reminders of that duty: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” These words resonate even more today when we see “country” not as an institution far removed, but as the people and places closest to us—our communities, our neighbors, our shared covenant to build something better together.

Love for our neighbors

That kind of covenantal love is rarely abstract. It’s grounded in everyday acts of service and solidarity. Shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, we moved into a new ward, and I gave birth to our second child. My husband worked long hours, and I was home with two very small children—a stage of life that can feel deeply isolating. Although the ward was small and mostly older, we were fortunate to find two other young couples, each with toddlers in tow. We came from different backgrounds, held different political views, and lived very different lives. But we needed each other—and that was enough.

Let us be Zion people in a fractured land. Let us love our country, yes—but also love our neighbors, and thereby love God.

When the pandemic shut down our normal routines, we leaned on each other. We met for walks, traded babysitting for doctor’s appointments, shared meals, and celebrated the arrival of new babies. We didn’t talk much about the “big issues” of the day. We didn’t have to. What we did was see and meet each other’s needs. We created something rare and beautiful—a tiny outpost of Zion in a time of national fragmentation.

During that same period, many of my peers found themselves pulled into online activism. Isolated and overwhelmed by constant news updates, many turned to social media to make sense of the chaos. For some, digital activism became a kind of surrogate community—offering purpose, identity, and moral clarity. But the tradeoff was steep. According to data from the Manhattan Institute, mental health among young Americans—especially young women—declined precipitously during the “Great Awokening.” As politics became a proxy for meaning, and tribalism replaced friendship, the promise of progress often came at the expense of peace.

In contrast, loving our neighbor in real, tangible ways remains one of the most powerful forms of civic and spiritual service. “American cultural commentary is awash in anodyne phrases like ‘love is love,’” as I wrote earlier, “but it seems like we have forgotten how to do the second greatest commandment.” True love—Zion love—means bringing casseroles to the sick, watching a neighbor’s kids, checking in on the elderly widow, and offering grace to those who see the world differently than we do. As Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson taught in her October 2017 General Conference address, The Needs Before Us, “We do not need to agonize over every possible good thing we could do in the world. We should begin with a focus on one: one person who is right in front of us and who needs our help.”

Catholic scholar George Weigel recently noted that “a self-governing democracy can only be sustained by a widely shared sense of civic friendship and mutual responsibility.” He pointed to the outpouring of neighborly aid in the wake of Hurricane Helene, when Americans from across the political spectrum rushed to help one another. That’s the America I believe in—and the Zion I hope to build.

As Latter-day Saints, we believe this nation was divinely prepared for a sacred purpose. President Dallin H. Oaks has taught, “The United States Constitution is unique because God revealed that He ‘established’ it ‘for the rights and protection of all flesh’” and that “only in this nation could the restored gospel of Jesus Christ come forth in its prophesied role to preach the gospel to every nation.”

That restoration didn’t just bring doctrines and ordinances. It brought a vision of a covenant people—what the scriptures call Zion. A society defined not by uniformity of thought, but unity of heart. Not by ideological purity, but mutual commitment. A people prepared to “bear one another’s burdens,” not just complain about one another’s politics.

So this Fourth of July, let us renew our faith in “We the People”—not just as a political phrase, but as a covenant. Let us be Zion people in a fractured land. Let us love our country, yes—but also love our neighbors, and thereby love God. In doing so, we’ll edge ever closer to that still-unfinished aspiration: a more perfect union.

About the author

Amanda Freebairn

Amanda Freebairn is an associate editor at Public Square Magazine. She is a proud wife, mother, writer and teacher, and holds an M.Ed. from Arizona State University.
On Key

You Might Also Like

The Laser and the Lightbulb

Regarding COVID-19 and those who have assumed management of our lives, the public needs to know and agree on when it is necessary for us to cede control.

New Examples of Violence Against Churches

While we are attuned to the uptick in targeting Catholic churches in the United States in response to frustrations about abortion, the epidemic has started to spread more widely. Bitter Winter reports, that Austria, a country that had previously largely avoided religious violence has now been the victim of targeted assaults on Catholic churches in the country. Three Austrian Churches Vandalized in Two Weeks Meanwhile, stateside, another Catholic church has been targeted, this time for a theft. A tabernacle at a Brooklyn church, valued at $2 million has been stripped from the church. Given the value of the tabernacle, the theft may not be religiously motivated. The latest story has an interesting side-note from Get Religion. Terry Mattingly covers some of the religious nuances that The New York Times got wrong in their initial report of the story, underlying the continued need for increased religious literacy among reporters.

The Room Next Door Review

“The Room Next Door” is the latest example of arthouse social engineering.  The film is about a troubled woman, Martha, who in the midst of cancer treatments decides to commit suicide. If this bothers you, the film implies, it is because there is something wrong with you. This is all the more troubling, because the film, in many ways, is beautiful. It is directed by Pedro Almodóvar, one of the most acclaimed living film directors, in his first full-length film in English. And you can’t help but be taken by the beauty of it all. The film is suffused with the soft colors of the woods. Despite being an entire screenplay full of little except two friends talking, the camera work keeps the film alive and moving. And Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton who play Ingrid and Martha once again give impeccable, engaging performances, that you can’t help but admire.  But all the beauty in this film is in service of a story that is decidedly ugly—but not self-awarely so. Our two main characters are old friends who met as young writers. Ingrid has published a best seller recently, where she writes about how she can’t accept death. On her publicity tour, she learns that Martha is in the hospital with cancer. She goes to visit her and reignite their friendship. We learn through the conversations that these characters aren’t bad people, necessarily, they just struggle to see a world outside of their own desires and consciousness. They have repeatedly avoided building relationships or having families. Martha does have a daughter. But she chased her father away, then lied to her about who he was her whole life, and then proceeded to be an absent mother so she could chase the romanticism of being a war correspondent.  Now that she is sick and dying, she notices that she has no one in her life. The movie comments on this like an unusual quirk, rather than the inevitable result of a life of bad decisions. We learn early on that cancer treatment can be a roller coaster with euphoric peaks, and miserable nadirs. During one such rut, Martha purchases a suicide pill, and decides she will kill herself. She reaches out to Ingrid and asks her to come on vacation with her, so that she will have someone in the house when she does it.  Ingrid agrees. And although she early on expresses some discomfort, she quickly respects Martha’s wishes to largely pretend nothing is happening. They have a lovely vacation in upstate New York watching old movies and reading books. While they are there, Ingrid reconnects with Damien (John Turturo) an ex-boyfriend of both hers and Martha’s. He is horrified at the state of the world, and seems to only live for sex (or to constantly talk about sex.) Damien is not a sympathetic character, and perhaps the audience is supposed to read that his unpleasant and helpless politics are akin to Martha’s helpless approach to life. If so the audience hardly has time to ponder it under a heavy heaping of affirmations about the power to choose, and the dignity to die.  Eventually, Martha does exactly what she promised to do. There is a brief police investigation where the officer (Alessandro Nivola) expresses concern that Ingrid would have knowingly not gotten help for her friend. A lawyer comes and helpfully tells the audience we can ignore that concern because he is a religious fanatic. This is the kind of movie that alludes to James Joyce not just once but three times. It is so pleased with just how artsy it is. And for a film with a message like “life isn’t worth fighting for,” the best comfort is that it’s so artsy not a lot of people will watch it.  The only people I would recommend watching this film is for those studying how society has devalued human life, and how good tools can be misused to harm people. The film is rated PG-13. It includes several normalized same-sex relationships, and some joking about polyamorous relationships. But obviously the biggest warning is the way it normalizes and glamorizes suicide. If you watch it with older teenagers, I would focus on questions about the choice that Martha made, and how family and relationships could have helped her make better choices. I might ask about how Ingrid could have been a better or more caring friend. One out of five stars. “The Room Next Door” will be released in theaters nationwide January 17, 2025.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This