The personal and political blog of Kaimi Wenger

 
Things are hopping over at Times and Seasons

Wow! In the first day and a half, we've had posts about tithing gossip, about Mormons and the environment, about suing the church (full disclosure: that link is to one of my posts on the topic), and even about the lyrics to "O My Father". (Greg wrote: If some thought is unreasonable, would personified reason just stare at it? Or perhaps reason is just blankly staring into space, totally flummoxed.). In short, the group blog is looking like it's going to be a fun, interesting place to air LDS-themed thoughts, and I will probably link from time to time to interesting posts there.
posted by Kaimi at 7:25 AM

 
New LDS-Themed Group Blog

I am a participant in a new, LDS-themed group blog, titled "Times and Seasons." I expect it to be lots of fun. In the mean time, this blog will probably skew more towards law and politics since religion posts will have a new home.

To visit Times and Seasons, click here.
posted by Kaimi at 3:07 PM

 
Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage -- A Hypothetical

The inimitable Greg Call inquires what I would do in the following hypothetical:

Your name is Mitt and you are a Mormon stake president (I don't know his calling) and governor of a Northeastern state, say, Massachusetts. The high court of the State ruled that the legislature must pass a law dealing with the denial to gays of their fundamental rights to get married under the State constitution. The legislature responds by rapidly passing a gay
marriage bill. It's now on your desk awaiting your signature. What will you do and will you lose any sleep? By the way, someone named Gordon is on line 2 . . .

(Note that the actual governor of Massachusetts has stated on the record that he will sign a bill if the legislature sends him one, but he also supports a constitutional amendment which would prevent gay marriage).

The short answer is that, if I am the governor, I sign the bill (whether or not it says "marriage," rather than "civil union" or similar alternative) and lose no sleep over it. My job as governor is to execute the laws and constitution. The Supreme Court has mandated a solution for a denial of a constitutional right, and I must perform my duty.

The longer answer is that, in this case, I see no reason an LDS governor cannot sign into law a bill allowing gay marriage. The governor is not going to be entering into gay marriage himself, he is going to be allowing others to do so. The governor should not be expected to impose his religious beliefs on the state. In performing his duties, it is not unusual to assume that he may need to sign bills allowing others to perform acts which are contrary to church teaching, such as authorization of alcohol consumption.

Of course, performance of duty may not be a reason to sign laws that egregiously harm others. If a governor has a duty to sign a bill segregating or persecuting a group, he should consider resigning rather than signing such bill. However, the types of bills which would require resignation are a very narrow group, and I am not convinced that an authorization of gay marriage is one of them.

And on the personal level, reconciling church beliefs with such a law, my feelings would, I imagine, be much the same as Mario Cuomo when he discussed to what extent he considered his religious beliefs in his work as a governor. One speech of Cuomo's, which I liked, makes some very good points, and I'm going to quote it at some length here, because I think that he grapples with this issue and his insight is very valuable. Cuomo writes:

I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or nonbeliever, or as anything else you choose. We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might someday force theirs on us.
. . .
There are those who say . . . that by history and practice of our people we were intended to be—and should be—a Christian country in law. But where would that leave the nonbelievers? And whose Christianity would be law, yours or mine?
. . .
My church and my conscience require me to believe certain things about divorce, birth control, and abortion. My church does not order me—under pain of sin or expulsion—to pursue my salvific mission according to a precisely defined political plan. . . . As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created. We thought church doctrine was clear on this. . . . But not everyone in our society agrees. And those who don’t—those who endorse legalized abortions—aren’t a ruthless, callous alliance of anti-Christians determined to overthrow our moral standards. In many cases, the proponents of legal abortion are the very people who have worked with Catholics to realize the goals of social justice set out in papal encyclicals: the American Lutheran Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, B’nai B’rith Women, the Women of the Episcopal Church. There are just a few of the religious organizations that don’t share the church’s position on abortion.

Certainly, we should not be forced to mold Catholic morality to conform to disagreement by non-Catholics, however sincere or severe their disagreement. Our bishops should be teachers, no pollsters. They should not change what we Catholics believe in order to ease our consciences or please our friends or protect the church from criticism.
. . .
I repeat, there is no church teaching that mandates the best political course for making our belief everyone’s rule, for spreading this part of our Catholicism. There is neither an encyclical nor a catechism that spells out a political strategy for achieving legislative goals.
. . .
Are we asking government to make criminal what we believe to be sinful because we ourselves can’t stop committing the sin? The failure here is not Caesar’s. This failure is our failure, the failure of the entire people of God.
. . .
Better than any law or rule or threat of punishment would be the moving strength of our own good example, demonstrating our lack of hypocrisy, proving the beauty and worth of our instruction.
. . .
We can live and practice the morality Christ gave us, maintaining his truth in this world, struggling to embody his love, practicing it especially where that love is most needed, among the poor and the weak and the dispossessed. Not just by trying to make laws for others to live by, but by living the laws already written for us by God, in our hearts and our minds.

We can be fully Catholic, proudly, totally at ease with ourselves, a people in the world, transforming it, a light to this nation. Appealing to the best in our people, not the worst. Persuading, not coercing. Leading people to truth by love. And still, all the while, respecting and enjoying our unique pluralistic democracy. And we can do it even as politicians.

I believe that, in Mitt Romney's place, I would weigh my religious beliefs similarly. And such weighing would, I believe, lead me to sign the hypothetical bill.
posted by Kaimi at 1:00 PM

 
Further blogospheric discussion of Mormons, Utah, and generosity

Several people have posted online about Utah and generosity. There are posts by David Sundwall, here and here, a post by Nate Oman over here, an update by the very busy Matt Evans (who apparently has time to promote a pro-life organization, assist with an international charity outfit, and still post on blogs) here, and a detailed statistical analysis here. (It seems like most of the Mormons and Mormon-discussers have weighed in, though we still need to get Dave and Taint to opine).

I agree with much of what has been said by others. I especially think that David Sundwall's recent post is a nice balance of giving Mormons credit for their giving, while also noting valid concerns with attributing too much in the way of mental state to the tax-return chart.

Is Tithing Really Confidential?

I wanted to disagree, however, with one characterization made by Matt, Nate, and one of Matt's commenters. That is the polite fiction that nobody knows who pays how much tithing. I think this is fiction, of the same variety as many other phrases which church members perhaps wish were true, but often are not. (It is along the lines of "All investigators meet the Bishop or local leaders before baptism", or perhaps "Church basketball games can be a friendly, non-violent way to show a good example to non-members").

The reality is, first, that church members gossip, and one of the favorite topics is who is or is not keeping up. Members are very sharp-eyed, and will often start chatting immediately if a member stops going to the temple with the ward, or is released from a church calling for no apparent purpose. This is compounded by the fact that church leaders gossip. Not the First Presidency, of course, but gossip is endemic among local leaders.

I cannot count the number of times I have been told private, personal information by a bishopric member or elders' quorum presidency member, where is appears that the disclosure is for no reason other than to gossip. (As a member of the Elders Quorum presidency, I am often privy to personal information -- I mean instances beyond where my calling would suggest I need to know certain facts). There are numerous reasons for this, I am certain -- People like to name-drop, they like to show off that they have information, people are not good at keeping secrets. I am certain that I have, at times, engaged in such gossip myself (I don't remember specific instances, but gossip is like that -- and yes, I try not to). Information that I have been told (again, without apparent reason) includes members' tithepaying status. This has occurred in more than one ward (and I haven't been in the Elders Quorum presidency in other wards -- so there was no possible reason I should be privy to such information).

And, related to their gossip, church members ostracize and form cliques. Because of this reality, I am not convinced that social pressure does not coerce tithepaying. The idea that tithing is between the member and the Lord is certainly how things should be, but I think it is often not how they actually are.
posted by Kaimi at 8:41 AM

 
Utah and "Generosity"

My co-religionist and frequent sparring partner Matt Evans has a new post discussing how "Red States" are more "generous" (more on this definition to come) than "Blue States." For the chart that Matt discusses (which was put together by someone else), click here. Matt also notes that Utah and Wyoming have the highest "generosity" totals.

However, as the chart makes clear, generosity is measured by the amount of itemized charitable contributions. I have reservations about a system where itemized charitable contributions are considered the equivalent of generosity.

Generosity can be defined (to use dictionary definitions) as "Liberality in giving or willingness to give", or "the trait of being willing to give your money or time". The term has a definite connotation of being willing to go the extra mile to help others out.

At the very least, many kinds of generosity are simply not reflected in one's itemized charitable contributions. Whether giving money to a homeless person on a street or in a subway, helping out a stranger, visiting the sick, many things are simply not reflected on one's tax return. (One imagines the tax return of a certain Samaritan, writing off "oil and wine, inn lodging, and 2 pence cash paid"; or perhaps a revision of the famous passage in Matthew 25 -- "Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee asick, or in prison, and came unto thee? These things are not reflected in the itemized deductions section of our tax returns!").

The general problems with using tax return data as evidence of generosity are compounded when the data is arguably tainted by other factors. Many residents of Utah, a state Matt lauds for its generosity, are Mormons -- members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (Full disclosure: In case readers have not yet figured it out, I am a church member as well). The church requires that members pay a tithe of 10 percent. There are strong social (and church members believe, spiritual) consequences for not doing so. There is a strong possibility that many members who pay tithing do so not because they want to be generous, but because the Bishop will take away their Temple Recommend if they don't; they may be subject to censure (formal or informal)* and feel ostracized from their community. (This is not to say that such payments are not charity of some sort -- just that they may be less motivated by a true impulse of generosity and more by selfish reasons).

*EDIT/UPDATE: I had originally written that non-payment of tithing might lead to disfellowship (an official discipline), but Matt informs me that non-payment of tithing alone is not grounds for formal disfellowship.
posted by Kaimi at 8:44 AM