Deep Musings on Secular, Worldly, and Religious Ideas...

This morning as I read through the morning news I find myself contemplating the picture attached to this article about Trump meeting Pope Francis. And not just because of the grim look on the Pope's face. If anything I am sure that this is just a bad and out of place picture out of hundreds, and that's why it is making the media rounds. (Only Trump is smiling, and everyone else looks off. I'm sure it's just a bad picture, and not indicative of any real emotions.)

But it is an interesting picture for other reasons.
1. Jared Kushner- Jewish.
2. Ivanka- former Christian converted to Judaism to marry her husband.
3. Melania- former topless model, from a not usually Christian country, that tends to hate Catholics, and yet claims to be a Roman Catholic.
4. Trump- serial womanizer, on his 3rd wife, who claims at different times to be Catholic or Lutheran. I think he and Melania are not actually really religious except in political years.

And then there is the Pope. A man who embodies the very definition of being the Lord's servant on Earth. Few men in history have shown the love and compassion for all of humanity that Pope Francis has. He has set an example for all of the world when it comes to accepting sinners and the poor. He shows humility in all that he does. (And I would say without hesitation is the very compelling opposite of all things Trump.)

I may not be Catholic, but I have nothing but the greatest respect for Pope Francis.

It is of interest to note that he doesn't just represent a religion, but a country. It is a religion with so much power that it is a country. That's no small thing. The Vatican City holds a great deal of power within its walls.

And that's my jumping off point---

What if all religions were their own nation state? What if other world leaders had to pay the same respect to all religions that they do to the Vatican?

I think it would be a beautiful thing. I'm actually quite serious on this. I don't believe religions need armies to be heard. The Vatican certainly doesn't need one, and yet is heard worldwide. (Also, sidenote, if you've ever seen the Swiss Guard at the Vatican, feel free to laugh at the idea of those men actually in battle.

Which brings me to my next musing...

Respect for religions and beliefs.

Whilst in the Middle East, Melania and Ivanka didn't cover their heads. But they did to meet the Pope. They would not have been allowed to meet the Pope otherwise. I do believe they should have shown respect for Muslim beliefs in Saudi and worn head scarves there too.

Last, but more important than all the rest, Callista Gingrich. The third (or is it fourth?) wife of Newt, has been named Ambassador to the Vatican.

For a hundred reasons I don't like Trump. But this is one of the few things he's done that truly just disappoints me. Appointing Callista Gingrich to the Vatican is showing tremendous disrespect for Catholicism and the Pope.

Both the Church and the Pope have promoted strong marriages, anti-divorce, and purity. And so Trump appointed a woman who had a 6 year affair with Newt while he was married. Callista and her husband represent the Pope's views on family and marriage about as well as Donald and Melania. Of course, her job is to represent American views, not the Pope's. But in this unique ambassadorship, it would be far more appropriate and fitting to appoint someone who doesn't embrace the opposite values.

It's very disappointing.

Respect for other's beliefs is more important now than ever before. Intolerance of other beliefs has always been (and probably always will be) what leads to war. If the Crusades and Islam's War on the World has taught us anything, it's that we greatly need to respect other's beliefs.

So look at the picture below one more time and think about it. And think about how the Pope is doing something here many popes before him would not have done. He is standing with 2 Jews, a topless model, and serial adulterer. He is the one in this picture showing respect for others' beliefs, and embracing those he doesn't agree with.

Not the other way around.

I Choose Religious Freedom

Recently I read an article about Gary Johnson (Libertarian candidate) and religious liberty. It turned me 100% against him.
But his exclusive piece in today's Deseret News, has turned me 100% to him. I highly recommend reading it.
Whereas I've been a Libertarian for a while now, it was his out-of-context comments about Mormons and religious freedom that turned me against him. Now that I've read them in context, and he's expounded on the subject, I can fully back him, solely on his beliefs regarding religious freedom. I completely and in every way agree with him.
Specifically this is what has won me over -
"non-discrimination and religious freedom are not opposing forces, but can instead go hand in hand.

I want to be clear. I believe we can, and must, strike a balance between our shared American values of religious liberty and freedom from discrimination. My concerns lie with the possible consequences of politically-driven legislation which claims to promote religious liberty but instead rolls back the legal protections held by LGBT Americans.

This does not in any way diminish my respect for and commitment to the legitimate protection of the right to believe, to practice and to express deeply-held religious beliefs."

"America is big enough to accommodate differences of opinion and practice on religious and social beliefs. As a nation and as a society, we must reject discrimination, forcefully and without asterisks.

Most importantly, as president I will zealously defend the Constitution of the United States and all of its amendments."

Give it a read- Gary Johnson: Clarifying my views on religious freedom and Mormons.

I Will Keep the Faith. I Still Believe.

In my column for Meridian Magazine yesterday (Elections, Facebook, and the Throne of Thoughtless Stupor) I quoted Elder Neal A. Maxwell.   (For my non-Mormon friends, he was a much beloved leader in the Mormon Church who was known for not only his incredible knowledge and understanding of the scriptures, but his beautiful way with words. Check out this YouTube clip of him talking about Jesus Christ and the Universe. It's wonderful.)

 “The same God that placed that star in a precise orbit millennia before it appeared over Bethlehem in celebration of the birth of the Babe has given at least equal attention to placement of each of us in precise human orbits so that we may, if we will, illuminate the landscape of our individual lives, so that our light may not only lead others but warm them as well.”

I have often turned to this quote when I question what is the point of my life and why I have had to suffer through two bad economies and long periods of under/unemployment (the first after 2001 and again now). I said yesterday in my column, and I will try to say it again in my heart again today, that if the Lord can place a star over a stable, and that the placement of my life in this humanly orbit is no mistake, then I have no choice but to believe that something and someone as important as the President of the United States is not just the will of the people (because I must believe that all those people are here at this time and place as purposefully as my existence is), but who the POTUS is is the will of the Lord as well.

And so even though I am heartbroken and sad, and felt that much of my personal opportunities and happiness were tied up in the results of this election, I will accept the results and move on. And I will not cave in to the tendencies of so many to become a “doomsday prepper,” or moan and groan about what might happen next. I will wake up each day and remind myself that this is what the Lord has allowed, and continue on with the belief that He will never leave me without opportunities and choice.

There is a common belief in the firearms industry that firearms sell better under a democrat president. When people are afraid of losing their guns, they buy more of them. And you know what? Maybe the same holds true about many things in life. If people are afraid of where our country will go under this president, maybe they will fight harder to prevent those things from happening? Would they fight as hard under a Romney presidency? (Probably not.) Heed the battle call and join the fight. After all, it is no mistake that you were placed here in this orbit now.

It is my job to be happy and keep the faith no matter my circumstance. And if there is anything I have worked hard on these last 3 years it is finding joy in spite of difficulties. I will soldier on in God’s Army and choose to find joy, no matter what, and keep up my faith that the Lord will provide.

DNC boos putting God into the platform

Something fascinating happened off peak hours, and was therefore largely unseen, at the Democratic National Committee today.  The DNC suspended the rules of the convention and inserted language back into the platform.
It was called to a voice vote. Representatives there have made it clear that they did not have a quorum present to do so, and even then, the new language was not voted in favor of. In fact, it was booed.
The language in question- putting the word "God" back into the statement "we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."
And-
" Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."
Yes, that was booed.
Need more proof?

Both statements were in the 2008 party platform. The DNC had approved a platform the night before. Restoring the mention of Jerusalem goes along with what advisers said was the president's personal view, if not the policy of his administration. The administration has long said determining Jerusalem's status was an issue that should be decided by Israelis and Palestinians in peace talks, but has been careful not to state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

There is no question about it though. What happened around 5 pm ET today did not reflect the views of the majority of delegates at the convention. The vote had to be taken 3 times and even then, it is something of a stretch to say it passed with a majority (if they even had a 2/3 quorum present). After it passed it was loudly booed in the convention hall. 

Only time will tell if we will get an answer as to why these two defining and religious changes were made. Only time will tell why they were left out in the first place. 

But one thing is for sure, the reaction by the delegates may be the most telling part of the entire thing.

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Mormons in the News- a lot!

If you think religion isn't playing a part in this campaign cycle, check out this list of articles just from the last few days-

- Priest to profit: How the Mormon church teaches priesthood holders to lead (Washington Post, May 13, 2012)
- If Harvard Business School were a religion, it could be Mormonism (Washington Post, May 11, 2012)
- Why Mitt Romney shouldn't hide his Mormon leadership (Washington Post, May 11, 2012)
- How Mormons like Romney cultivate business savvy early on (Christian Science Monitor, May 14, 2012)
- Prominent Mormon leaders beyond Mitt Romney (Washington Post, May 10, 2012)
- London Calling for teens at Mormon prom (Washington Post, May 14, 2012)
- Pat Robertson: Romney's faith not an issue (USA Today, May 14, 2012)


Five articles in four days just in the Washington Post alone. Now it must be mentioned that most of them were in the "On Faith" section of the WaPo, and that at least three of them were written by Mormon Church members. (I can personally identify those members, but I cannot say for certain about the other two.)


In fact, Mormons and Mormonism are now in the news so often that the LDS Church official public affairs office has dedicated a portion of its blog to "Mormonism in the News: Getting it Right." Every time a news organization reports on Mormons- and gets it right (which not all organizations do), the www.mormonnewsroom.org site actually provides a link to the story. Doesn't mean it had to be a flattering article. It just had to actually get the facts right. (And at least once, they have called out a news organization for getting the facts just plain wrong.)


The fact that there is even a need to commend news organizations for getting their facts straight is rather ridiculous, don't you think?


It goes without saying that Mitt Romney's run for office has definitely made a major impact on the Mormon church's public profile. (He has not in anyway actually made an impact on the actual teaching and beliefs of Mormons.)

Last week, completely unrelated to religion, I noticed that on the "Anderson" daytime TV show, that there were 3 different major segments on different Mormons (Elizabeth Smart, the "Sister Wives" who are not LDS, or members of the mainstream Mormon church, but are "fundamentalist Mormons," and are a gray area, but I'm counting them anyway, and Stephanie Nielson of the "Nie Nie Dialogues."). I can remember as a child when it was a big deal when ANY Mormon appeared on TV. We stopped everything to watch a Mormon on TV. (We watched a lot of Steve Young football.) Now it happens so very often that no one breaks out the phone tree to alert their friends that a Mormon will be on TV!

I was probably just naive and optimistic when I thought that the religion issue would be dropped when Romney emerged as the presumptive nominee. Silly me.

Mitt Romney to Speak at Falwell's Liberty University

Just because it looks like Mitt Romney has the nomination all sewed up, doesn't mean all Republicans or evangelicals are lining up behind him. And just because Mike Huckabee and Pastor Jeffress have endorsed him doesn't mean everyone is over and passed the Mormon issues.
Former Governor Romney has been asked to speak at the convocation for Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia (swing state!) on May 12. LU was founded by Reverend Jerry Falwell, Senior in the 1970s. The current chancellor of the university is Jerry Falwell, Jr. This is a university known for extremely conservative values, religious activity, and well, quite frankly, not liking Mormons. It boasts it is the largest Christian university in the world.
In the Virginia primaries there were 95 counties, and 39 independent cities. Ron Paul only won in 12 locations, and Lynchburg was one of them. (Reminder- only Paul and Romney were on the VA ballot.)
Romney's speech to the university will be one of the largest of his campaign, other than the convention. The audience size will be approximately 50,000 graduates and guests.

Falwell said in a statement university officials were “delighted that Governor Romney will join us to celebrate Commencement with Liberty’s 2012 graduates.”

Liberty has a long history of getting involved in politics. Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann spoke there in 2011, and other politicians have made the rounds there too- including President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee.
President Obama once spoke in Lynchburg as well, but at a local high school, and not the [extremely conservative] university.
Speaking at LU is a strong indicator that Romney is courting the more conservative sects of the Republican Party (and not the more moderate members), and that he is reaching out even more to the evangelicals. But not all Liberty and Lynchburg residents are happy about it. Students are announcing intentions to boycott their graduations, or to show up at the services with signs for other [former] candidates. Their gripes (heard on the local tv news yesterday) ranged from religious differences, to the fact that the school's straw poll in the fall, and the primaries, showed support for other candidates.
Virginia is a key battleground or swing state in the national elections. It has 13 electoral votes, and a history of splitting support between Republican and Democrat. The more urban and suburban areas of Northern Virginia (outside of Washington, DC), and the military regions of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, tend to not fall in line with the rest of the much more conservative state.

Rick Santorum on Separation of Church and State

Former senator Rick Santorum has done it again. He's taken his inability to separate his politics from his religious beliefs to a whole new level. Last October he addressed an audience at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H., where he brought up J.F.K.’s famous 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. (link will take you to full transcript of JFK speech) At the time Santorum said, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”
When Kennedy gave that speech there was a great deal of concern during the campaign season that he would be taking orders from the Vatican, or forcing Catholicism on all Americans. The speech was a major turning point in his campaign, thanks in large part to the following quote. 

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

It is a little shocking that Santorum is choosing to insult the speech, rather than echo it.

On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum whether he stood by his statement last year. Santorum's response-

“The first line, first substantive line in the speech, says, ‘I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.’ I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

Even when referencing a famous historical speech, Santorum has a frightening habit of taking things out of context, inserting new meaning, and acting upon it. Santorum went on to say that the First Amendment

“says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960... To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

Woah, wait, where did Kennedy say he would not consult with people of faith? 
To say that Kennedy was saying that people of faith have no role in the public square is an extreme stretch. What Kennedy did say was, "where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials;"

Whether conservative or liberal, Kennedy's speech is enlightened and inspiring, unless your intent and belief is that church's should have more power over the government. There is nothing in the speech that indicates that religious beliefs should be withheld from voters or activists. In fact, Kennedy bravely remarks,

"But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." 

It does not blatantly say that he would choose to follow his religious beliefs over politics, but it does allow one to interpret that he may do so, and vice versa.
It is bothersome that Santorum would find this speech so offensive and disgusting. It leaves one to question his own motives and approach, especially in light of Mitt Romney's 2008 speech that addressed religion. (full text of Romney Religion Speech). Romney's speech was compared many times to the Kennedy speech. Santorum's comments and lack of further clarification leave just enough room open for interpretation as to leave one wondering if he would put his religious ideals above the interests of the country. Or does he not see a situation where his religious beliefs may not be in the best interest of the country?
In his speech, Romney said,

"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

Perhaps it is time for Santorum to either come out and say that yes, he is completely governed by his religious beliefs, or not. He alone has brought his religion into the campaign, and it is time for him to make it clear where he stands on the separation of church and state. Is his ultimate goal to bring in so many of his own religious and moral beliefs that the church would lead the state?

Arguments about religious freedom

Vatican Museum (open source photo)

Exactly what does separation of church and state involve? Keeping religious preferences out of politics? Keeping religious preferences out of government? Keeping religious doctrines out of public moral issues? All of the above? None of the above? And when does it include keeping the government out of religion? 
Right now all religious freedom is being threatened by both state and federal governments forcing churches to offer services that are not in alignment with their teachings. For instance, Catholic social agencies are being forced to either shut their doors or allow same-sex couples to foster or adopt. All feelings about same-sex couples and marriages aside, this is a complete violation of the separation of church and state.
The same thing is happening to Catholic Church owned hospitals- offer abortions and birth control or risk getting shut down! And another instance is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Office of Migration and Refugee Services was denied federal funding for its highly regarded services that aid trafficking victims, after the Department of Health and Human Services stressed a preference for grantees that provide family-planning services. Did you catch that- a US federal agency prefers to give money to organizations that provide birth control and abortions. 
The current state of federal legislation is to support organizations that represent a more liberal agenda and to penalize organizations and churches that do not. Those who are happy with a more liberal agenda will praise this and call it a good separation of church and state. But really it is the equivalent of reverse affirmative action [where preference for minorities hurts the majority]. We work so hard to keep religious beliefs out of government that the legislation now favors anti-religious behavior and activities. 
I don't agree with this at all. It will be interesting to see if someday the world becomes so jaded against religion, that we completely kill it, before finally coming full circle with it and begin to protect religious liberties again. 


To read the pending legislation regarding religious liberties - 
House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution
Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), (recently approved by the House and Senate in a bipartisan vote) (Also read, GOP Abortion bill passes House)
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361) 
and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).

Sources:
Bishop Lori to Congress: Respect Religious Freedom

Archbishop Chaput: Religious Freedom Should be an Election Year Issue