Abortion: My views; the candidates' views; Latter-day Saint, Catholic, and evangelical views

(See also FAMILY/SOCIAL ISSUES below.)

What follow are (1) my views (and those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), (2) the candidates’ positions, (3) comments from Frank Schaeffer (an evangelical pro-life leader and a supporter of Obama), (4) more on Obama’s position, (5) additional links (to comments by Latter-day Saints and Catholics).


(1) First, from my letter to the editor (http://english2.byu.edu/faculty/youngb/politics&religion-viewpoint.htm):

Officially, “the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience” but allows for possible (but not automatic) exceptions in cases of rape, incest, severe defects, and serious threats of the life or health of the mother. But “the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals . . . concerning abortion” (see http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion). This is very different from legally prohibiting abortion in every case.

The Church’s position clearly leaves open to Latter-day Saints different ways of addressing abortion in the political realm. Individuals should feel free to argue passionately for their views on this matter. But since the Church has explicitly declined to take a position on legislative approaches to abortion, no one should claim that his or her view represents the Church’s official position.

Of course, on these and other issues I have strong views. On abortion, for instance, though I believe there should be legal allowances in cases of rape, incest, and threats to a mother’s well being, abortion for convenience seems to me socially, morally, and spiritually damaging, deadening our collective sensitivity to the preciousness of life. But given that we are dealing with the state of people’s hearts, I believe persuasion and positive examples are at least as essential as legislation in bringing about changes.

[By the way, one thing in addition: The Church does not have a position at which life begins--in the sense of when the spirit enters the body. The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at conception; earlier--in the late Middle Ages, for instance--that was not its official position, and some of its theologians taught that life begins at the moment of "quickening."]


(2) Second, the candidates' positions in general:

McCain: McCain calls himself "pro-life" and favors encouraging a "culture of life" but would leave the decisions concerning what legal restrictions would be made on abortion to the individual states.

I don't know what his belief is about when life begins.

Palin: I don't know what legislative proposals she currently favors, but she believes in general that abortion is wrong under all circumstances, including in cases of rape and incest.

I don't know what her belief is about when life begins.

Obama: He believes abortion is a "tragic situation" but calls himself "pro-choice" and believes that "ultimately . . . women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision." He opposes late-term abortions as long as exceptions are made for threats to the mother's life or health. He favors various measure to discourage abortion including encouraging sexual responsibilitiy ("sexuality is sacred") and adoption and making it more economically feasible for women to choose to give birth rather than have an abortion.

He has indicated that he does not know at what point an individual life begins.

Biden: Biden accepts Catholic teaching on abortion, including its teaching that life begins at conception. But he believes Catholic teaching should not be enforced as law on everyone.

However, he does oppose public financing of abortion since that requires those who oppose abortion to help support it.


(3) Comments from Frank Schaeffer, an evangelical leader who is "pro-life" and pro-Obama (and whose father helped found the pro-life movement):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/why-im-prolife-and-pro_b_85636.html


(4) More on Obama's views:

EXCERPTS FROM THE THIRD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE:

OBAMA: I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.

But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision.

. . .

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life,

. . .

This is an issue that . . . divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

We should try to reduce these circumstances.

FROM A SPEECH ON RELIGION IN POLITICS (indicating why he believes those with strong religious views should not necessarily try to turn those views into law that applies to everyone) (source: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ ):

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

[The implication for abortion is this: Catholics may believe it is God's will that abortion not be allowed under any circumstances; Latter-day Saints believe that abortion for convenience is wrong, but that there may be some circumstances when abortion could be the appropriate choice; people of other religious persuasions could believe that God has revealed nothing about the moral status of abortion. But people in all of the groups have to talk to each other about the issue in terms that all can agree on or at most use rational or pragmatic arguments to persuade each other. They cannot simply say, "This is God's will" and expect everyone else to accept their view.]

OTHER INFORMATION: The following sites give (a) the Obama campaign's view on strengthening families and (b) Obama's Father's Day speech, in which he emphasizes fathers' responsibilities:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/06/15/
remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_78.php

(5) For thoughts on abortion and other issues from Latter-day Saint and Catholic supporters of Obama, see these links:

http://thinkinginamarrowbone.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/mormons-for-mccai/#comment-1882 (Comments from a Latter-day Saint)

http://www.catholicsforobama.org/

http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/cfo/pdf/Catholic_Case_for_Obama_booklet.pdf

http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2008/10/kmiec-responds-to-criticism-on.html

McCain and Mormons

I don't know much about McCain's religious views. Some say he's not particularly religious; others, that he's very private about his religion. His view of Latter-day Saints seems to be respectful but somewhat distant. His mother has expressed anti-Mormon views that he gently distanced himself from. When he was running against Romney, some of his supporters (including at least one major figure on his campaign staff) tried to use Romney's religion against him. McCain himself said he "didn't know" if Mormons are Christians.

Here are links to further information:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/mccain_i_dont_know_if_mormons_are_christians.php

http://committedtoromney.com/2007/06/21/scott-helman-i-take-back-a-few-of-the-bad-things-ive-said-about-you/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/21/rival_camps_take_aim_at_romneys_religion/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854731/posts

Where to find my thoughts on Obama

For my thoughts on Obama--and the 2008 political season in general--click on this link: Election 2008, which leads to two related sites, http://bruceyoung-election2008.blogspot.com and http://whyobama2008.blogspot.com.

(Note: A few items will be placed here, with links from the other sites leading here.)

Viewpoint: Politics and Religion (Daily Universe editorial)

[The following is a "Viewpoint" editorial I wrote for The Daily Universe; it was published on Sept. 15, 2008 with a sentence or two deleted. What follows is the complete version.]

Already this political season, there have been letters to the editor in the Daily Universe comparing candidates to Book of Mormon personalities and declaring that certain political positions do or do not coincide with the teachings of the Church. I don’t mind people bringing their religious views into political discussions as long as they do it with intelligence and respect. A dash of humility would be nice too (something we could all use more of). What has bothered me—because I expect better things of BYU students—is how often these letters have been ill informed or lacking in charity and respect.

Over the past week or so, letters have appeared dealing with such topics as creationism, abortion, and war and peace. It has struck me as slightly amusing and more than a little sad that sometimes the letter writers have sounded more like fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals than Latter-day Saints. I have great respect for evangelicals. But it is important for Latter-day Saints to understand that our doctrines and policy positions sometimes differ significantly from those of evangelicals. We also differ from many other Christians in having a policy of strict political neutrality. The First Presidency has even stated recently that “principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties.”

Here is my take on three of the issues that have recently appeared in the Universe’s opinion page:

(1) Creationism: Creationism is an interesting religiously based view but is not a scientific theory comparable to evolution. (I’ll let the science people explain why.) Furthermore, creationism as commonly understood, with the earth created out of nothing in seven 24-hour days, is not consistent with LDS doctrine. Given these and other factors, my view is that science classes in the public schools should stick with mainstream science.

(2) Rooting out evil: I find it troubling that some young Latter-day Saints think they are called of God to rid the world of evil by violence. Perhaps this attitude confirms what President Spencer W. Kimball said a generation ago: “We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord.” He added: “Our assignment is affirmative: . . . to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies” (Ensign June 1976). I believe the approach the Church counsels has been well expressed by President Joseph F. Smith: “Let us . . . conquer all the evil that we see around us, as far as we possibly can. And we will do it without using violence; we will do it without interfering with the agency of men or of women. We will do it by persuasion, by long‑suffering, by patience, and by forgiveness and love unfeigned” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, chapter 28).

(3) Abortion: Officially, “the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience” but allows for possible (but not automatic) exceptions in cases of rape, incest, severe defects, and serious threats of the life or health of the mother. But “the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals . . . concerning abortion” (see http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public‑issues/abortion). This is very different from legally prohibiting abortion in every case.

The Church’s position clearly leaves open to Latter-day Saints different ways of addressing abortion in the political realm. Individuals should feel free to argue passionately for their views on this matter. But since the Church has explicitly declined to take a position on legislative approaches to abortion, no one should claim that his or her view represents the Church’s official position.

Of course, on these and other issues I have strong views. On abortion, for instance, though I believe there should be legal allowances in cases of rape, incest, and threats to a mother’s well being, abortion for convenience seems to me socially, morally, and spiritually damaging, deadening our collective sensitivity to the preciousness of life. But given that we are dealing with the state of people’s hearts, I believe persuasion and positive examples are at least as essential as legislation in bringing about changes.

For me as for others, political passions sometimes obscure my vision and dampen the charity I should extend to others. On such occasions, I feel called to repentance when I remember statements made by two presidents of the Church. George Albert Smith warned, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” President Hinckley reminded us that “political differences never justify hatred or ill will,” adding, “ I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties” (see “Instruments of the Lord’s Peace,” Ensign May 2006).

[open for new post]

Religion and politics: Especially for Latter-day Saints

Though many Latter-day Saints (unfortunately, in my opinion) think that the Republican party is the only one they can rightly vote for, the Church itself (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is officially neutral in political mattes and in recent years has released statements asserting that "various political parties" (or in an earlier wording "all major political parties") have "principles compatible with the gospel." (I'll provide links to even more explicit statements later in this post.)

The following statement (found at http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-
stories/first-presidency-issues-letter-on-political-participation) was issued by the First Presidency in September 2008:

As citizens we have the privilege and duty of electing office holders and influencing public policy. Participation in the political process affects our communities and nation today and in the future.

Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.

Therefore, in this election year, we urge you to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government.

The Church affirms its neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates. The Church also affirms its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas S. Monson
Henry B. Eyring
Dieter F. Uchtdorf
The First Presidency

(See also http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/
public-issues/political-neutrality.)

In the late 1800s, the majority of Latter-day Saints preferred the Democratic party, but in order to help prepare Utah for statehood, the Church encouraged members to participate in both major national parties. For various reasons, Church membership gradually inclined more to the Republican party, and those attitudes hardened during the 1970s and 1980s, when social issues such as abortion became prominent.

By the 1990s, Church leaders were concerned about the exclusive identity of the Church and the Republican party in many members' minds. Elder Neal A. Maxwell encouraged a younger General Authority, Elder Marlin K. Jensen, to hold an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune to explain why he (Elder Jensen, who is a Democrat) believed being a Democrat was compatible with being a faithful member of the Church. The interview may be found HERE.

Also during the 1990s, Gordon B. Hinckley, the president of the Church, made statements encouraging political diversity in the Church. (I'll insert some of those here.) Unfortunately, such statements seem to have had little effect. In fact, at the time, Republican leaders in Utah tended to react with disbelief even to suggestions coming from Church leaders that faithful Church members could appropriately and enthusiastically support the Democratic party.

Now, things have gotten so bad in Utah that even many Republicans feel diversity is badly needed. I've talked to some prominent Republican leaders and have heard similar reports second hand. The excessive dominance of the Republican party in the Utah State legislature has led some to compare the Republicans in that institution to a "sick family."

In Utah County, where I live, the Democratic party has worked very hard over the past few years to let people know of its moderate stance, and the party has found a first-rate slate of candidates for various offices--many of them, I believe, clearly superior in qualifications and ability to their opponents. The Democratic candidates include former mission presidents and others whose Church credentials are unquestionable. I've met several of the candidates and am persuaded that, if only voters could get to know them, they'd be very impressed. But lacking that, many people will, unfortunately, vote for the Republicans simply because they are Republicans, and we'll be lucky to have even a single Democratic candidate elected.

The following are links that give more information on this sticky issue and also information on some of the candidates.

(1) An editorial I wrote on politics and religion (click the preceding link to see it).

What I mean by "trust"

When I say that America will benefit by an increase in trust in our government, I mean trust that the government is led by people of good will, people who trust us, and people who will respect the law and the liberties and legal protection of all people under the law.

But we should never trust our political leaders to be perfect--to make perfect decisions or even, always, to make wise or moral ones. We must always hold our leaders accountable and be willing to disagree with them (respectfully) if we think they're wrong.

In a recent book titled First Democracy (mainly about ancient Greece), Paul Woodruff has commented thoughtfully on this and other issues. Drawing parallels with the United States, Woodruff notes how our government has in recent years shown "contempt for the rule of law in international affairs. At home, it [has moved] to suspend laws governing trials in cases relating to alleged terrorism. It is common to suspend elements of law in a war zone (though international laws still apply), and terrorism seems to make every place part of a war zone. The moral error here--and it is a devastating one--is a confusion about the difference between conventional war and crime. Conventional wars end; crime goes on forever. We can accept a temporary loss of freedom pending the end of war. But not a permanent one. We cannot accept a loss of freedom in order to fight crime or endless war. If we are engaged in a permanent war, we must learn to prevail day by day while observing the rule of law. Terrorism is like crime, in that the threat will never go away. We have had it with us for a very long time. My great-grandfather was killed by anarchist terrorists in 1880 in New Jersey, when a train was bombed. If we suspend the legal rights of suspected terrorists, we may do so indefinitely and everywhere. Such a policy may make us a little safer from terrorists, but it risks putting us at the mercy of leaders who are permitted to conceal their actions in this sphere, and who for this reason cannot be held accountable. But the Founders knew this as well as the ancient Greeks did: leaders cannot ever be trusted. They must always be held accountable.

"Then and now, fear has been at work. The Greeks understood how fear leads to tyrannical behavior. United States leadership is (for good reason) afraid of terrorism and afraid of actions against the United States that might develop under international law. The pattern is fairly clear: Empire [or, for the US, widespread international power and influence leads to exposure, exposure to fear, and fear to devensive moves that sacrifice democratic principles. Fear of external dangers tends to make us want to follow our leaders with devotion, loyalty, and total trust. But trust is dangerous. As Demosthenes insisted in the age of First Democracy, 'distrust is the best protection of the people against tyranny.' Too much distrust destroys the fabric of the state, however, and drowns out harmony with discord. The best protection for us all is courage--the courage to do what is right even when we are beset by dangers. Political courage requires us to keep in mind what is right, and here is where education is the key. We must all learn the lessons of history and share them with each other--about how precious freedom is, and how easily cowards may come to betray it." (221-22)

Maybe a better word than "distrust" would be "vigilance" or "caution." We must never put our government in the hands of others and then stop caring, thinking, or observing. "The price of liberty," we've been told, "is eternal vigilance."

McCain and Obama on the economy (part 1)

I learned most of the following from an e-mail I received in August; I believe it's worth pondering. I've put the quoted parts in quotation marks.

You may remember that back in August, John McCain was asked how many houses he owned. He responded, "I think—I'll have my staff get to you."[see note 1 or click here] It turned out he owns at least seven--the latest count being eight.[note 2]

The Obama campaign responded with the following ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmFd25tRqo&NR=1

The e-mail I received also reported that in August, "McCain and Obama were asked what constitutes 'rich.' Obama said, 'If you are making more than $250,000, then you are in the top 3, 4 percent of this country...You are doing well.' McCain answered, 'I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?'"[see note 3]

The implication, of course, is that McCain may lack a realistic sense of the economic struggles of most Americans. The source of his wealth--or at least of the wealth he depends on--is his wife, who (as I understand it) inherited a massive fortune acquired in the beer industry. Being wealthy, of course, is no crime. But it may require a candidate to make an extra effort at empathy and understanding.

Notes [provided by Eli Pariser and team, MoveOn.org Political Action, in the e-mail quoted above, sent Thursday, August 21, 2008]:

1. "McCain unsure how many houses he owns," Politico, August 21, 200
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12685.html

"Homes McCain doesn't remember having worth nearly $14 million," Raw Story, August 21, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=4079&id=13540-4753918-SCN1fux&t=3

2. "Mrs. McCain, San Diego County Would Like a Word," Newsweek, July 7-14, 2008
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143775/

3. "Who's rich? McCain and Obama have very different definitions," Los Angeles Times, August 18, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=4078&id=13540-4753918-SCN1fux&t=5

FOREIGN POLICY (including Iraq)

I strongly believe America needs to regain its respected role in the world and that it can regain that role only if our government shows respect and good will to other nations. I favor the use of diplomacy wherever possible and believe that armed force should be a last resort. I oppose a "go it alone" foreign policy. I believe that using diplomacy is a sign of strength, especially of moral strength; bullying and intimidation is a sign of weakness.

I believe the invasion of Iraq was morally and spiritually wrong and that the cost of that act in resources, lives (including many tens of thousands of civilian lives in Iraq), and moral authority has been immense. In many ways, the invasion has made America less safe by encouraging anti-American sentiment (and thus a new generation of potential terrorists) and making Iraq an available area of activity for terrorists. I admire Barack Obama's courage in opposing that invasion, his wisdom in foreseeing its negative consequences, and his moral judgment in assessing its moral status. I recognize that a practical solution to the problems in Iraq must be found that will protect American interests as well as those of the Iraqi people. I favor a measured, careful military disengagement from Iraq and believe such a disengagement can actually help strengthen Iraq.

In approaching other problems in the world, I believe efforts should be made not to see others as enemies, even when we disagree with them or oppose their policies, and I oppose approaches that encourage "war fever" in our own nation or nations we might seek to intimidate, knowing that such approaches can make peaceful solutions very difficult to achieve as each side tries to save face and comes to imagine dialogue with the other impossible. I recognize Israel's need for self-protection but also favor protecting the rights and welfare of Palestinians. All effective and legitimate means should be used to discourage the cycle of violence on both sides and especially the idea that violence is the first and normal solution to problems. Israel should be expected to follow rules of conduct that apply to all civilized nations and, especially if it accepts American aid, to respect the rights and dignity of all human beings.

Terrorism and other conflicts in the world will best be dealt with by helping improve people's conditions (especially those who are most desperately in need), giving them hope, and increasing mutual understanding between people of different cultures and systems of belief.

HEALTH CARE

The American health care system needs reform. Problems include excessively high cost for drugs (much higher than the cost of the same drugs elsewhere in the world); lack of insurance for many of our citizens, including many children; denial of benefits, including life-saving benefits, even to people with insurance because insurance companies judge giving the benefits not to be cost effective (I have loved ones who have experienced that problem); impoverishment of people who experience catastrophic--or sometimes non-catastrophic--health problems; and excessive litigiousness that puts an excessive strain on the resources of many professionals in health care. A solution to these problems will need to be multifaceted and carefully crafted. Ie recognize that government health care in some countries has diminished the incentives for the best people to become physicians and has resulted in mediocre health care for most people, with the highest quality health care available only to the wealthy. I hope reform of America's health care system can avoid these problems. But I believe some kind of national health care plan is essential and that adequate health care--both physical and mental--should be available to every American. Such a plan will actually help small businesses (as I have learned from some who run such businesses) by helping them be more competitive with larger businesses that more easily provide health care for their employees. A national health care plan that has an element of flexibility (such as Obama's plan, in which individual participation is not mandatory) may help resolve some of the problems mentioned and may also be more acceptable to Americans, who prize their independence.

EDUCATION

Especially those of us who have recently left the public schools or who have children who are still there recognize the serious problems in our country's educational system. "No Child Left Behind" appears to many of us to have done more damage than good, making school an extraordinarily stressful environment for many students; promoting attempts to make everyone fit into a standard pattern (very damaging for many students, including the most gifted ones); promoting the demented idea that standardized tests are the best measure of real education; and requiring teachers to "teach to the test" and thereby diminishing individual attention and educational inspiration and creativity and using up valuable time (especially at the end of school years) that could be used more productively. Extraordinary efforts need to be made to improve education in this country since education nurtures our most valuable resources--our human resources. But those efforts must be much wiser and more effective than what has been attempted over the past decade. My biggest concerns are class size; addressing students' individual needs; providing salaries and other motivation that will get us the best teachers; and then allowing those teachers to do their thing, which is, above all, to nurture and inspire their students.

ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT

I am fully persuaded that global warming (or more accurately “climate change”) is real and is in significant measure affected by things we humans do. (See http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/61111 for a discussion of the scientific evidence by someone who knows what he is talking about.) Our environment is precious, is vulnerable, and must be protected. We must work to change practices that are damaging and endangering the world we live in, the world we depend on. I favor both short-term and long-term solutions to our energy problems, including vigorous efforts to pursue alternative and especially renewable energy sources. I favor considering a wide array of energy sources, including nuclear energy, recognizing that safety and environmental concerns must be addressed. I believe we should give serious consideration to the Gore initiative to become carbon-free within ten years, believing that delay beyond that time may be disastrous. I also favor US cooperation with other nations in limiting carbon emissions and other threats to the environment.

CIVIL RIGHTS (human rights, civil liberties)

Among the core values of this nation is the idea that every human being should be treated with dignity and respect and that fundamental rights are God-given. Our culture and our government policies should respect those rights. I believe that in recent years--out of fear or out of apathy--Americans have allowed their government to violate some of these core values. Preserving these values--protecting our civil liberties and our respect for human beings generally--is at least as important as mere physical survival. I strongly oppose practices such as torture (and similar practices that amount to torture), extraordinary rendition (essentially kidnapping people and sending them secretly to places where torture and other practices prohibited in the United States can be used), long-term imprisonment without charges and without access to legal counsel, wiretapping without court orders, the suspension of habeas corpus, and granting the President the power to designate anyone as an enemy combatant, thereby depriving that person of standard legal protections. The past century of human history has shown that even democratically elected governments can become horrifically tyrannical if a citizenry anxious about self-protection allows step-by-step erosion of civil liberties and legal and constitutional procedures. Protecting civil liberties and respecting human rights will strengthen rather than weaken our nation because, among other things, it will increase the level of trust in our government, trust that has been seriously damaged and needs to be restored. (For more on what I mean by "trust," click here.)

One specific recommendation: some sort of commission to safeguard human rights and give recommendations on specific issues (perhaps a commission made up of respected, retired judges). Perhaps such a commission could help depoliticize the issue and prevent fear and partisan attempts to use "patriotism" as a wedge issue from leading to further erosions of civil liberties.

IMMIGRATION

I recognize that practical solutions need to be found to the problems of illegal immigration, including the exploitation I have witnessed of undocumented workers. But I believe the solutions must look at the root causes, including economic and social problems and a system so difficult and inequitable that would-be immigrants resort to desperate measures. I strongly oppose immigration policies that forcibly break up families. I favor programs that will help immigrants integrate more successfully into American society. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, we need to recognize that, in general, immigrants are one of the most positive and energizing influences in our culture. Our attitude toward immigrants, legal or otherwise, should not be one of fear or enmity but of compassion, brotherhood, and appreciation. We need to work together as human beings, not divide into us vs. them.

FAMILY/SOCIAL ISSUES

I believe strongly that more needs to be done to encourage good parenting, strong families, and familial responsibility and to discourage abortion. Though I believe there must be reasonable legal allowances for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s well being, I believe that abortion for convenience is socially, morally, and spiritually damaging, deadening our collective sensitivity to the preciousness of life. Given that we are dealing with the state of people's hearts, I believe persuasion and positive examples are at least as essential as legislation in bringing about changes. For me, being “pro-life” is an attitude that should govern my decisions and actions in general, an attitude I want to encourage in others but that cannot be completely mandated by law. Much can be done, however, to encourage and facilitate adoption as an alternative to abortion and otherwise to foster an attitude of reverence for human life. For the official position concerning abortion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (to which I belong), see http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion.

I favor defining marriage legally as a relationship involving one man and one woman. But I also believe that civil unions or other arrangements should allow for non-married couples to have visitation and other rights comparable to some of the rights available to married couples. Though certain behavior and living arrangements conflict with my religious and moral convictions, I believe that those who choose ways of life I disapprove of must be guaranteed the civil liberties and protections accorded to all of us and that I must treat them with respect.

I believe it is wrong and unfortunate when these "hot button" issues become occasions for demeaning and demonizing others and engaging in contentious shouting matches. While people of good will may disagree on these and other issues, I hope that we can work together to do more than simply make abortion or gay marriage illegal but that we can change policies that have a negative impact on families and, even more importantly, change hearts and minds by example and by intelligent, civil discussion.