Why Is Religious Freedom Critical for Restoring and Repairing America?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is religious liberty and its importance to all people. Religious freedom says that all people have the right to worship who and/or what they choose.

In their article published at The Daily Signal, Jason Chahyadl and Jordan Lorence claim that “Defending religious liberty for all is a timely political issue that can help restore and repair the severed tapestry of American political life.” Their reason is that “A comprehensive defense of religious liberty fosters civic virtues such as charity, restraint, and a willingness to accommodate differing viewpoints.” They also claim that these civic virtues are the foundation on which the “survival of our constitutional order depends.” 

The authors are not the only ones with the above belief. They note that Yuval Levin, in his book “American Covenant,” “discusses how the polity of republicanism requires a type of citizen for its sustainment.” So what is that type of person? The type of “citizen needed to preserve a republican system of government” has “traits like selflessness, restraint, and accommodation.”

Abraham Lincoln shared a similar thought in his second inaugural address: “With malice toward none. With charity for all.”

James Madison wrote in Federalist 51 a statement that is now famous, and the authors paraphrase the statement: “The reason why we need checks on governmental power is because men are not angels, neither are they naturally inclined to pursue such a status.”

Citizens that succumb to selfishness and the desire to dominate political opponents will find it near impossible to properly function in a system of ordered representation and the checks, balances, and compromises necessary for diverse peoples to live together.

The Founders also recognized both the necessity and rarity of civic virtues….

At the same time, the Founders acknowledged that the law is a teacher and can shape the character of its constituents. That recognition motivated the Founders to draft a constitution that could channel human fallibility toward a system of government that promotes liberty and justice for all through the structure of federalism, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights.

Among other virtue-encouraging constitutional provisions, few, if any, are more prominent than the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Protecting our first freedom of religious liberty, the free exercise clause is also a pedagogical instrument for promoting the anthropology of republicanism. For religious citizens, it clarifies that firmly held beliefs and civic accommodation are not mutually exclusive, thus promoting both forbearance and religious formation. One can believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ provide the only way for forgiveness of sins against God and restoration to fellowship with the Father, while still permitting those who disagree, such as Jews, Muslims, and others, to freely worship in their own ways, or to believe nothing at all.

Our constitutional system allows Americans of different religious backgrounds to accommodate each other while, at the same time, strengthening their own religious beliefs, convictions, and practices….

The free exercise clause provides wide latitude for Americans to hold and exercise religious beliefs. Subsequent statutes like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act reinforce this constitutional provision….

Moreover, the free exercise clause and its statutory descendants invaluably protect an individual’s right of conscience and decisions to live out general religious convictions that emanate from the conscience….

The protection of religious liberty necessarily extends to the protection of the individual conscience, or “inner voice,” and beliefs about ultimate questions. The basis for protecting the conscience is the biblical concept that all people are created in the Imago Dei and are thus entitled to liberty in exercising their reason when considering life’s biggest questions.

This is why the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom also affects areligious Americans. Even though they do not subscribe to any religion, areligious people also make decisions based on their conscience and contemplate deep questions about reality and human purpose. Were it not for the free exercise clause, the government would be able to mandate a specific religious viewpoint, and by extension, interfere in the inner conscience and place the intellectual freedom of all Americans at risk.

When the government tries to dictate to citizens what to think, that threatens the whole constellation of constitutional liberties. If the government was allowed to control citizens’ thoughts, there is no defense against a snowballing infringement of external constitutional rights, like the right to bear arms, receive a trial by jury, or by protected from cruel and unusual punishment. That is why the First Amendment is first among equals….

It is with gratitude that we reflect on the Founders’ decision to amplify this message by way of enshrining religious liberty with the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

Did the Testators Seal Their Testimonies with Their Blood?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 135-136 in a lesson titled “He ‘Has Sealed His Mission and His Works with His Own Blood.’” 

The afternoon of June 27, 1844, found Joseph and Hyrum Smith in jail once again, accompanied by John Taylor and Willard Richards. They believed they were innocent of any crime, but they submitted to arrest, hoping to keep the Saints in Nauvoo safe. This wasn’t the first time that enemies of the Church had put the Prophet Joseph in prison, but this time he seemed to know that he would not return alive. He and his friends tried to comfort each other by reading from the Book of Mormon and singing hymns. Then gunshots were heard, and within a few minutes the mortal lives of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum had come to an end.

And yet it was not the end of the divine cause they had embraced. And it was not the end of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There was more work to do and more revelation that would guide the Church forward. The end of the Prophet’s life was not the end of the work of God.

Some principles taught in this scripture block are (1) Joseph and Hyrum Smith sealed their testimonies with their blood (Doctrine and Covenants 135; 136:37-39; (2) Joseph Smith was a prophet and witness of Jesus Christ (Doctrine and Covenants 135:3); and (3) I can help accomplish the Lord’s will as I follow His counsel (Doctrine and Covenants 136). This essay will discuss principle #1 about sealing testimonies.

Doctrine and Covenants 135 was published three months after the assassinations of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. There could have been several reasons for its publication, such as a way to comfort the Latter-day Saints after losing their Prophet and Patriarch, a way to help the Saints make sense of the tragedy, or simply a way to document the experience.

A good question to ask is, “Why would God allow His Prophet to be killed?” This question was clearly answered in Doctrine and Covenants 136:37-39.

37 Therefore, marvel not at these things, for ye are not yet pure; ye can not yet bear my glory; but ye shall behold it if ye are faithful in keeping all my words that I have given you, from the days of Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Jesus and his apostles, and from Jesus and his apostles to Joseph Smith, whom I did call upon by mine angels, my ministering servants, and by mine own voice out of the heavens, to bring forth my work;

38 Which foundation he did lay, and was faithful; and I took him to myself.

39 Many have marveled because of his death; but it was needful that he should seal his testimony with his blood, that he might be honored and the wicked might be condemned.

What Is the Answer to Declining Interest in Marriage?

Individuals and families are happier with healthy marriages, and happy families strengthen their communities, states, and nations. Yet, marriage is in decline, and no one knows for sure how to blame. An article authored by Maria Baer and Brad Wilcox and published at the Deseret News discusses what is behind the decline. 

A recent Pew poll shows that the share of girls who are seniors in high school and are most likely to “choose to get married” some day declined from 83% in 1993 to 61% in 2023. During the same years, the share of young men who hope to marry remained around 75%. The Pew poll is not the only poll showing such findings.

Other polls show similar findings. The Survey Center on American Life recently found that a majority of single women (55%) think that single women are happier than married women (they’re really not – more on that in a moment) whereas a majority (68%) of single men take the opposite view.

There is no debating that women’s confidence in and devotion to marriage is falling. But there is robust debate about whether that’s a bad thing, and what’s causing it. Theories about young women’s declining interest in wedlock typically fall into two camps. The problem is either 1) the boys, or 2) the (feminist) girls.

Proponents in the first camp, usually feminists, suggest women still value marriage; they just can’t find enough marriageable men. Writing for The New York Times in 2023, Anna Louie Sussman said the “state of men today” is too dispiriting for women: too many men are drug-addled, unemployed or underemployed, socially inept and emotionally unavailable. Women who take this view make much of the fact that men are attending and graduating from college at lower rates than women, that they are not working as much as they used to, that many are addicted to porn, and that they often seem unable or unwilling to “engage in a conversation and maintain a normal human relationship.”

This camp will point to the fact that marriage rates amidst the upper-middle class (including liberals!) haven’t fallen as precipitously as other groups. See, they’ll say, women haven’t been brainwashed by the HBO show “Sex and the City” and the #Girlboxx era – they still want to get married! There are just not enough good men left.

This camp has a point. It’s true that too many men are floundering on many fronts – from education to employment – and that a kind of “male malaise” has made a growing number of young men unappealing to the opposite sex.

But there is an undeniable ideological dimension to falling marriage rates, too. Data show marriage has lost its appeal primarily for women on the left, who are much less likely than conservative women to marry and have children, as a new Institute for Family Studies report shows. Liberal women are also much less likely to desire marriage and children than their conservative peers. Another recent poll from NBC News found that liberal Gen Z women rate “being married” and “having children” as among their lowest priorities for a successful life, far below a fulfilling job, financial security and emotional health.

Many feminists no doubt see women’s increasing wariness toward marriage as a welcome sign of enlightenment: they shouldn’t value marriage, they say, because it’s not good for them. In their view, married women are on the losing end of a losing bargain, saddled with the lion’s share of domestic duties and the crushing “mental load” of raising a family while reaping 80 cents on their husband’s dollar for whatever professional work they do manage to achieve….

This theory carries weight too. There is no doubt that marriage can be hard at times, and modern American marriage is hard in particular ways. The 50/50 split is a myth. Women bear a bigger burden at home than do men. It’s hard to afford life on one salary, and it’s nearly impossible to be a working mother and to feel like you’re filling any of your roles as well as you’d like.

But hard doesn’t necessarily mean unhappy. Our research at the Institute for Family Studies routinely reveals that the women in America who are forging the most meaningful and happy lives are married mothers. In fact, married mothers are nearly twice as likely to be “very happy” with their lives as their single, childless peers.

And while marriage rates increasingly fall along ideological lines, female happiness doesn’t: the newest data show that married liberal women with children are now a staggering 30 percentage points more likely to say they are “very happy” or “pretty happy” than liberal women who are single and childless. What’s even more striking is the trend among prime-aged women 25 to 55: happiness among single, childless liberal women has plummeted since “the Great Awokening” of the last decade while it remains high for their peers who have managed to marry and have a family. The tragic irony is that the very group of women who are most likely to think marriage and family are an obstacle to happiness – women on the left – are less happy than their peers on the right in part because they are less likely to be married with children.

The authors question why people are not getting married if marriage and family are truly good for women. Has the feminist movement brainwashed women, or are there no marriageable men? The authors say that there is a common enemy that is overlooked by both theories: Big Tech.

It is not just people cheating online, men playing too many video games, dating apps that catfish. Spending time watching other people do things online pushes “both men and women away from marriage.” Such activity makes men less marriageable, particularly to “liberal women who spend the most time online, to see the point of marriage in the first place.” The internet also makes porn more accessible for men.

Young men’s failure to thrive is one of the tragic consequences of a digital revolution that has distracted them with dopamine hits from socializing, dating, doing well in school and holding down a full-time job.

But the internet also presents problems to women, especially on the left. There’s divorce porn, for instance, where feminist heroines “create whisper networks” of women triumphantly leaving their families and where seemingly every movie, show, book and podcast that brands itself as “celebrating women” do it in the same way: by selling a picture of unencumbered womanhood. It’s also the place where divorced single moms from Brooklyn propagate the message that “Married heterosexual motherhood in America … is a game no one wins.” Messaging like this is poisoning too many young women’s views regarding marriage.

The nature and content of digital offerings are degrading men’s marriageability and women’s, especially liberal women’s, interest in putting a ring on it. Neither sex is developing the capacity to embrace self-sacrifice or long-suffering commitment, precisely the virtues which marriage requires. They’re also what makes marriage so life-giving, character building and personally gratifying. Psychologists have long documented this paradox: deep, lasting happiness is much more strongly tied to meaning than it is to pleasure. The internet calls the kind of virtues that sustain love and marriage “toxic.” The happiness research calls it “the answer.” …

  

When Will Liberals Learn?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the national security need to know who is entering the United States and why they are coming. On Wednesday, an Afghan national is alleged to have shot two National Guardsmen near the White House. He entered the United States in 2021 following the fall of Afghanistan. The troops are part of the surge sent to Washington, D.C. in August to fight the crime problem.

According to the FBI, the two guardsmen are in separate hospitals and are in critical condition.

The shooter is in custody in a hospital and is in severe condition. Carlos Garcia reported the following at the Blaze: 

Multiple law enforcement sources said the suspect was identified as 29-year-old …. He also reportedly entered the U.S. on a Biden administration program called Operation Allies Welcome after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Law enforcement sources told NBC News that he used a handgun in the attack….

Dept. of War Sec. Pete Hegseth said that 500 additional National Guard troops were going to be sent to D.C. in light of the shooting.

“This will only stiffen our resolve to ensure that we make Washington, D.C., safe and beautiful. The drop in crime has been historic. The increase in safety and security has bene historic,” Hegseth said to reporters in the Dominican Republic.

“But if criminals want to conduct things like this, violence against America’s best, we will never back down,” he added. “President Trump will never back down. That’s why the American people elected him.”

Even though a foreign national shot two guardsmen, liberals are blaming Trump. After opposing Trump’s deployment of National Guard units to Washington, D.C. and other cities and claiming that the President is overreaching his authority, they are now blaming Trump for putting the guardsmen “in harm’s way.” 

There were reports that the guardsmen had died from their injuries. Then the FBI said that they had not died. At the time of this writing, there is conflicting information. At any rate, they were shot in the service of America and protection of all Americans; even those people who do not appreciate their service.

 

Should Greta Thunberg Be Allowed to Enter the U.S.A.?

Who would have thought that Greta Thunberg would be unwanted in the United States? Yet, there is a group that has asked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to restrict Thunberg’s entry into the U.S.

Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of energy group Power the Future, made the request because “disruption” follows Thunberg wherever she goes, according to Tate Miller in his article published at The Daily Signal. 

Daniel Turner …: “Secretary [Kristi] Noem and the Trump administration are working tirelessly to keep America safe, and we urge them to take a hard look at whether agitators like Thunberg should be allowed onto American soil.”

Power the Future is a nonprofit dedicated to Americans working in reliable energy sources and sent the letter concerning Thunberg’s entry to the United States.

Turner told The Center Square that “everywhere Greta Thunberg goes, chaos follows.”

“We have enough internal instability from the climate movement without importing foreign extremists who are further committed to unrest,” Turner said.

“Greta Thunberg has aligned herself with organizations like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil – groups responsible for property damage, highway blockades, and dangerous public disorder,” Turner said….

Turner requested in his letter to DHS “a full review of whether professional climate radical Greta Thunberg should be granted entry into the United States in the future, based on a pattern of international disruptive conduct and her role as a known agitator.” Turner wrote that his request “is not ideological.”

Instead, Turner said that his urging “is rooted in the federal government’s responsibility” to protect U.S. infrastructure, public safety, national landmarks and cultural sites, and economic activity impacted by large-scale blockades or disruptions.

“The United States has both the right and the obligation to evaluate whether the entry of a foreign national poses a risk to public order, infrastructure, or significant cultural and historical assets,” Turner wrote.

“Ms. Thunberg’s ongoing involvement in actions that result in vandalism, obstruction, or arrests overseas raises legitimate questions as to whether similar disruptions could occur on U.S. soil,” Turner wrote.

Why Are Democrat Lawmakers Warning Military and Intelligence Personnel?

A firestorm of criticism is roaring about a decision made by six Democrat lawmakers, people with military or intelligence backgrounds. A week ago on November 18, this group of lawmakers -- Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Rep. Chris Deluzio (?D-Pa.), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) – released a short online video titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship.” The Blaze TV Staff summarized the video and the resulting fall out as follows. 

It urged U.S. service members and intelligence personnel to reject “illegal orders” and reminded them that their oath is to the Constitution, not individual leaders. While refusing unlawful commands is aligned with existing military law, the video claimed that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home” and accused the Trump administration of “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens” but provided no evidence or examples of any illegal order.

In interviews following the video release, Crow and Slotkin even admitted that there’s been no illegal order from President Trump or his administration. On November 20, Crow told CNN’s Kasie Hunt, “To be clear, we are not calling on folks right now to disobey any type of unlawful order.” Slotkin followed suit, admitting to ABC’s Martha Raddatz that the insinuation that the Trump administration was issuing illegal orders was completely baseless.

“To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal,” she said.

In other words, they created a video encouraging insurrection by insinuating that illegal orders have been issued, when no such thing has happened.

It’s no surprise, then, that a firestorm of criticism ignited, most notably from President Trump himself, who called it “seditious behavior from traitors” that is “punishable by death.”

Even though sedition is indeed punishable by death under current U.S. federal law and President Trump has explicitly clarified that his Truth Social post was not an execution threat, Democrats are using the scandal they created to play the victim….

Although Slotkin urged members of the military to refuse “illegal orders,” she was later forced to admit that she did not know of any unlawful order. After her admission, she raised a question about the “legal gymnastics” of the Trump administration’s strikes on boats in the Caribbean that are suspected of carrying narcotics to the United States as well as actions having to do with Venezuela. Still not able to name any illegal act, she acted to “stir the pot.” 

Kelly may be in trouble with the Department of War as well as charges of treason with the rest of the group of lawmakers. The following statement about Kelly was reported by Bradley Devlin. 

“The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures,” the statement read.

“This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings,” the statement added.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth weighed in on the development with a post on X. “The video made by the ‘Seditious Six’ was despicable, reckless, and false. Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline,’” Hegseth said. “Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion – which only puts our warriors in danger. Five of the six individuals in that video do not fall under [DOW] jurisdiction (one is CIA and four are former military but not “retired”, so they are no longer subject to UCMJ.”

However, Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ – and he knows that,” Hegseth continued. “As was announced, the Department is reviewing his statements and actions, which were addressed directly to all troops while explicitly using his rank and service affiliation – lending the appearance of authority to his words. Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.” …

Kelly responded to the DOW review in a post of his own on X. “Secretary Hegseth’s tweet is the first I heard of this,” Kelly’s post read in part. “I also saw the President’s posts saying I should be arrested, hanged, and put to death. If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work.”

“I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution,” Kelly concluded.

In its Monday statement, however, the War Department reminded the public that federal laws “prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces,” adding. “Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.”

The War Department also addressed the Democrats’ implication that the Trump administration’s War Department was handing down illegal orders.

“All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful,” the statement said. “A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”

What Is An American?

My VIP for this week is an American. With the help of an article authored by Josh Hammer, this essay will discuss the question, “What is an American?” 

The narrow, legal answer is straightforward: An American is a citizen of the United States, born or naturalized. That definition undergirds equal protection, sets the parameters of the franchise, and helps define the various obligations citizens owe and the rights we enjoy.

But that technical legal definition is unedifying and wildly insufficient. A passport can inform which government recognizes us on paper. But it doesn’t tell us what holds the nation together, what binds disparate strangers into a people, and what shared implicit assumptions make the American experiment workable rather than a “Groundhog Day”-style recurring melee of clashing worldviews.

Since the origins of the republic, the United States has always had a legal identity and a cultural one. The legal identity is broader, permitting more inclusiveness. New arrivals on our shores can relinquish foreign allegiances, acquire American citizenship, and become part of “We the People,” much as the biblical figure Ruth left the nation of Moab thousands of years ago to join the children of Israel. As Ruth said: “Your people shall be my people and your God my God.”

But the cultural identity of the United States – the religiously imbued habits, values and expectations that enable our national creed, “E Pluribus Unum” – has never been infinitely malleable. America has always had a dominant public ethos shaped by a historical Protestant-majority culture. This culture emphasizes individual responsibility, industriousness, respect for the rule of law, the dignity of conscience, and the limits of liberty rightly understood.

The two identities are connected. As President John Adams famously said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Conscience and freedom of religion must be wholly protected and secured in one’s private life, but the very nature of American citizenship and American community are shaped and guided by the inherited tradition of the Protestant majority….

So once again, then: What is an American? It is someone who holds citizenship under our law, yes – but also someone who adopts, respects and participates in the civic, religiously imbued dominant culture that founded and still sustains the republic. That culture is neither rigid nor intrinsically hostile to reasonable diversity, but it is certainly not infinitely elastic either. And it requires conscientious assimilation into a framework that alone makes ordered liberty possible.

Citizenship is a status. But being an American in its fullest sense is something much greater and more rewarding: It is partaking in a common civilization, accepting its responsibilities, and upholding the dominant inherited way of life. That doesn’t seem to be happening in Dearborn – or in far too many other places throughout the country. A free people – and a free nation – lets that trend fester at its own grave peril.

Are you an American? Are you a legal resident of America? Do you accept the responsibilities of being an American as well as the rights and blessings? Do you hold an allegiance to another nation? (Having allegiance to another nation is different than honoring ones ancestry: I come from a Scottish/English background, and my husband is proud of his Norwegian ancestors. However, we are Americans through and through.)

Is a Policy of Open Borders Moral or Immoral?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns open border policies versus morality. Is an open border the only moral immigration policy? Many people in the United States as well as Great Britain and Europe believe it is. Michael Barone writes of this dilemma in his article published at The Daily Signal.

Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, like the George Bushes, professed to want to enforce immigration laws. They decried the flood of illegals that crested in the prosperous decades before the financial crisis, and afterward saw with relief that the flow of illegals slowed.

As I wrote recently, careful projects of the illegal population estimate that it peaked at about 12 million in 2007, fell to about 10.5 million 2019, then increased by about 4 million during the Joe Biden administration, which essentially opened the borders to the point of paying for illegals to live in New York’s Roosevelt Hotel, two short blocks from where Jamie Dimon’s JP Morgan Chase was constructing its $9 billion office tower. The impetus for this policy came from something other than the usual elite economic argument that, as population growth is slowing, advanced countries need more workers to maintain economic growth. That something else can be summarized in the phrase “Orange Man Bad.” If Trump wants to stop people at the border, then we shouldn’t stop anyone there.

There is another element here, seen more prominently in Europe. And that is the conviction that barring people from your country who are different, in ancestry or customs, from the preexisting population is invidious discrimination.

Immigrants to the United States over the past half-century have come mostly from Latin America and Asia form countries that to varying degrees share religious orientations, market economic norms, and cultures of literacy and numeracy with most Americans.

It’s likely true that a flood of mostly illegal immigrants, like those welcomed by the Biden administration, will tend to have a higher proportion of violent migrants than among legal immigrants. And a higher proportion of arrivals with adversarial attitudes toward American mores, traditions and government.

But that is a problem orders of magnitude greater in Britain and Europe, where very much larger shares of immigrants, from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, are Muslims. Many are quite ready to assimilate to European mores. But many – especially the floods welcome[d] by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel starting in 2015 – are not. They want to impose their religion and their culture on the host society, and elite leaders of such nations have been willing to let them do so….

Political parties that campaign for restrictions on immigration are treated as pariahs with which established parties must never allow in coalition governments….

But it’s not apparent that [German] AofD’s policy of restricting the inflow of immigrants, or those of Eastern European democracies like Poland and Hungary, which re decried by unelected European Union leaders, is the moral equivalent of Nazism. Excluding people with different cultures and attitudes from your country is not the moral equivalent of murdering all your Jews.

Those leaders who treat the two as morally equivalent are captive to bad ideas. They have been taught to divide the world into oppressors and the oppressed, to cast immigrants as virtuous victims and their own citizens as culpable oppressors. They have been instructed to see colonialism not as a limited chapter in history but as its dominant theme, and to treat its harms as a kind of second Holocaust.

           From these delusions, most ordinary Americans, including recent legal immigrants and their                   offspring, and large numbers of ordinary Britons and Europeans, seem happily immune. Perhaps             in time, their common sense will dissuade the elites of their “luxury belief” in open borders. 

Why Did God Institute Governments?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 133-134 and a lesson titled “Prepare Ye for the Coming of the Bridegroom.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

In 1833, mobs attacked and destroyed the Church’s printing press. Among the print jobs in progress at the time was the Book of Commandments—the Church’s first attempt to compile God’s latter-day revelations into one volume. The mob scattered the unbound pages, and although courageous Saints preserved some of them, only a few incomplete copies of the Book of Commandments are known to have survived.

What we now know as section 133 of the Doctrine and Covenants was meant to be the appendix to the Book of Commandments, like an exclamation point at the end of the Lord’s published revelations. It warns of a coming day of judgment and repeats the call found throughout modern revelation: Flee worldliness, as symbolized by Babylon. Build Zion. Prepare for the Second Coming. And spread this message “unto every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (verse 37). The original plans for the Book of Commandments were not fulfilled, but this revelation is a reminder and a witness that the Lord’s work will go forward, “for he shall make bare his holy arm … , and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of their God” (verse 3).

This scripture block contains the following principles: (1) Jesus Christ calls me to reject Babylon and come to Zion (Doctrine and Covenants 133:4-14), (2) I can prepare now for the Savior’s Second Coming (Doctrine and Covenants 133:1-19, 37-39), (3) The Second Coming of Jesus Christ will be joyful for the righteous (Doctrine and Covenants 133:19-56, and (4) “Governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man” (Doctrine and Covenants 134). This essay will discuss the fourth principle about governments.

The early Saints’ relationship with government was complex. When the Saints were forced out of Jackson County, Missouri, in 1833, they asked for help from the local and national government and received none. At the same time, some people outside the Church interpreted teachings about Zion to mean that the Saints rejected the authority of earthly governments. Doctrine and Covenants 134 clarified the Church’s position on government.

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments;…

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference….

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief;…

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense;…

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government,…

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies;… They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants,…

The position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints towards governments is further clarified Articles of Faith 1:11 and 1:12.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

How Do We Learn to Follow Promptings from the Holy Ghost?

Families are stronger when individuals follow promptings from the Holy Ghost and put their trust in God. Strong families strengthen their communities, states, and nations. BYU goalie Chelsea Peterson knows how to follow promptings.

Peterson was backup goalie for the Cougars when her teammate Paiton Collins went down on the pitch with a torn ACL in her right knee. Because Collins was out, Peterson entered the game. Dave McCann, sportswriter and columnist for the Deseret News, reported on her journey. 

The turn of events that brought the 5-foot-8 former Ute back to Ute Field to play for BYU could fill the pages of a fiction novel, but the story is very real. Peterson’s journey includes tough decisions, two continents and the courage to follow her feelings.

First prompting

After spending three years as goalkeeper for Utah, which included the combined 2020-2021 COVID-19 seasons, the former Orem Tiger felt the urge to walk away from soccer and serve a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints….

Called to serve in the football hotbed of Manchester, England, Peterson packed her bags, her scriptures and her cleats and crossed the Atlantic….

Peter spent her first nine months proselytizing in Manchester where loyalties are deeply split between football rivals Manchester United and Manchester City. She also spent six months in Liverpool, the home of her favorite team growing up. Peterson’s soccer prowess came in handy with youth groups and older, diehard fans….

Second prompting

After returning home, Peterson decided not to return to the University of Utah and entered the transfer portal to explore her options. Still harboring childhood dreams of playing for BYU one day, Peterson reached out to the Cougars – and was turned away, just as she was in high school….

Accepting the possibility that her playing days were over, Peterson spent last year attending classes as a regular student. However, a text message in early August changed everything.

“Are you still here at BYU?” asked her former club coach and current BYU assistant Steve Magleby.

“Yeah,” Peterson responded.

“We need to talk,” he said.

“OK,” Peterson said.

Third prompting

The two met and Magleby explained how an unexpected departure left the team shorthanded at goalie.

“So, are you in?” he asked.

Peterson was surprised by the invitation. She had been out of soccer for three years, but the answer became quite clear.

“I felt like I should, so I did,” she said. “That’s kind of a theme with me.”…

Return to Ute Field

In a full circle moment, Peterson’s return to Ute Field as BYU’s goalie capped a whirlwind adventure while at the same time, it kickstarted another one – and just as improbable. With help from a valiant group of defenders, Peterson preserved the Cougars 2-0 victory to qualify for the Big 12 Tournament.

Making her first start of the season in Fort Worth, Texas, BYU upset No. 5 TCU. Peterson held her ground 4-3 in a penalty kick shootout. Two days later, the Cougars shut out No. 23 Baylor 4-0 and then they blanked Kansas 1-0 in the championship game. Peterson was named the Defensive Player of the Tournament….

Marathon shootout

Winning the Big 12 Tournament landed a first-round home game in the NCAA Tournament last Friday against Utah State. After regulation play ended in a 1-1 tie, Peterson and Aggie goalie Taylor Rath delivered a joint performance for the ages – an 11-round duel of penalty kicks.

Each attempt required Peterson’s complete focus as one Aggie after another took their shots….

With a sold-out crowd at South Field hanging on every play, BYU faced three elimination kicks, and each time Peterson found a way to keep the Cougars in the game….

Utah State’s final penalty kick went wide of the net and BYU survived 7-6 to advance into the second round. Peterson, 24, believes her current success is directly connected to her mission.

“Goalkeeping is so much based on decision making. I think a little bit of age on me, a little perspective with the mission has really made me better. I think I can think through things a little bit better, make better decisions,” she said. “I think perspective too, that my world doesn’t revolve around soccer, which it used to. The mission gave [me] a lot of perspective knowing there is so much more to our life and so much higher joy than winning. Jesus Christ is the ultimate joy.”

The rematch

BYU (11-6-5) will play UCLA (12-5-3) on Friday at Stanford in the second round of the NCAA Tournament….

With another year of eligibility remaining, Peterson’s playing days appear far from over and her life’s story is just getting started – but what a ride it’s been already and her post-mission, mission remain clear – keep following the promptings

Tom Ripplinger reports the results of the game between BYU and UCLA in an article published at the Deseret News and tells how Peterson came up big again. 

For the second weekend in a row, No. 5 seeded BYU advanced in the NCAA women’s soccer tournament on penalty kicks following a 1-1 draw.

This time the Cougars took down No. 4 seed UCLA Friday night at Stanford, topping the Bruins 4-2 in the shootout and propelling BYU to its sixth Sweet 16 appearance in its last 10 seasons.

Much like the week before, BYU junior goalkeeper Chelsea Peterson came up big for the Cougars in penalty kicks Friday.

Peterson, who became BYU’s starter less than a month ago, blocked the first two UCLA attempts. The Cougars, on the other hand, scored on all of their tries, shortening the shootout to just four attempts by each team.

Despite being outshot on the night 27-17 and giving up 10 corner kicks, BYU kept pace with the Bruins, using an impressive defensive effort to claim the upset….

Ripplinger did not mention Peterson following promptings, but the results of the game show that she played well, blocking UCLA’s first two penalty kicks and giving the shooters a chance to win the game.

Can Democratic Socialism Be Stopped in America?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is that socialism has not worked at any place in the world where it has been tried and would work havoc in the United States. Yet, more and more of the young adults in America  think that socialism is the answer to affordability.

Both New York City and Seattle elected socialists for their mayors just a week ago. Both cities are Democrat strongholds, but who would suspect Utah of following their example?

Brigham Tomco reported on this strange phenomenon in his article published at the Deseret News this week. He used information from a new Deseret News/Hickley Institute of Politics poll. 

A slight majority, 51% of Utah voters who identify as Democrats said they have a favorable view of socialism, compared to 48% of Democrats nationally. Utah Democrats appeared uniquely open to experimenting with socialism across multiple questions.

Whereas 54% of Democrats nationally said they approve of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s plans for office, 65% of Utah Democrats said they approve of the 34-year-old member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Democratic socialism – the political ideology espoused by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders – was viewed favorably by 61% of Democrats nationally. But it was viewed favorably by 70% of Democrats in Utah.

Socialism refers to an economic system where the state owns major resources and industries instead of private firms, and redistributes wealth equally. Democratic socialism is seen as a way to achieve this incrementally through elected officials.

While small Nordic countries like Sweden and Finland have implemented some democratic socialist principles, places that have tried to make socialism a reality have historically devolved into greater authoritarianism and poverty, like the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela and China….

The appetite among the vast majority of Utah Democrats for increased public ownership and expanded social welfare may find an electoral outlet now that the state’s congressional boundaries have been redrawn to include an almost-guaranteed Democratic seat in the U.S. House.

On Nov. 10, a district judge rejected the Utah Legislature’s map, which created two more competitive districts, in favor of a map making a “Democratic-leaning district anchored in the northern portion of Salt Lake” that leans blue by up to 20 percentage points….

Young people struggling to make ends meet care less about “the democratic socialist label,” King said, and care more about policies that address their “basic needs,” like affording housing, college tuition, gas and groceries….

Aside form self-identified Democrats, Utahns are less interested in socialism than the rest of the country. The state’s youngest voters are also less likely to have favorable views toward Mamdani or unfavorable views toward capitalism, the poll found.

Nationally, 31% of all voters approve of Mamdani compared to 24% in Utah. Among Gen Z voters, 39% approve of the millennial candidate nationwide, compared to 29% in Utah. This pattern was repeated across multiple questions related to different economic systems.

Whereas 44% of Gen Z nationally have a favorable view of democratic socialism, 34% do in Utah. The same goes for socialism, which is viewed favorably by 42% of Gen Z nationwide and 37% of Gen Z in the state.

The least popular economic system among Gen Z Americans is capitalism, viewed favorably by just 29% of Genn Z nationwide. But the system of private property , profits and prices set by supply and demand was viewed favorably by 42% of young Utahns….

Among American voters of all ages, democratic socialism was viewed favorably by 34% of respondents, socialism by 31% and capitalism by 49%, the poll found.

There were wide partisan disparities, with almost no Republicans in favor of socialism and 59% of Republicans holding favorable views toward capitalism, compared to 47% of independents and 39% of Democrats….

The results of the Deseret News-Hinckley Institute poll did not come s a surprise to Christopher Talgo, a socialism research fellow at libertarian-leaning nonprofit The Heartland Institute, and a former high school history teacher.

A recent Heartland Institute poll conducted in November by Rasmussen Reports found that a majority of likely voters would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election.

This points to a glaring failure in American civics education, according to Talgo, who said he saw firsthand how teachers often glossed over the shortfalls of socialism, and even spoke highly of it, when teaching students.

But the results also reflect the reality of serious economic headwinds that are pushing young people toward extremes, Talgo said. The Heartland poll found that three-quarters of voters said the cost of housing has reached a crisis level.

The poll identified majority support for Mamdani’s proposals to create government-owned grocery stores and to freeze apartment rents. But these government interventions will likely make the problem worse, according to Talgo.

Leaders must apply simple, free-market solutions that make people’s lives better – like removing “crony capitalist” zoning restrictions at the local level to increase housing options – or else Talgo believes Americans will elect more Mamdanis….

Do Immigrants Have a Statutory Right to Apply for Asylum in U.S.?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear another immigration case. This case is about the ability of the U.S. government to limit asylum claims at the southern border, and it threatens to have “massive implications for the government’s ability” to do so. Katelynn Richardson reported the following in her article published at The Daily Signal. 

The justices agreed Monday to weigh whether migrants who show up on the Mexican side of the border must be allowed to apply for asylum.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien who “arrives in the United States” can apply for asylum. The 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that even migrants who are stopped on the Mexican side of the border qualify as arriving in the U.S.

That interpretation of the law “deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border,” the administration argued in its July petition.

“Before this litigation, border officials had repeatedly addressed migrant surges by standing at the border and preventing aliens without valid travel documents from entering,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the petition. “The decision below declares that practice  unlawful, on the theory that aliens stopped on the Mexican side of the border have a statutory right to apply for asylum in the United States and to be inspected by federal immigration officers.”

Several members of Congress wrote in an amicus brief that the 9^th Circuit “usurped the policymaking authority of the political branches.”

“The Nineth Circuit’s decision below effectively seized that exclusively political power by creating an entitlement to seek asylum for potentially millions of aliens whom Congress never authorized such relief,” they argued.

The United States is a sovereign nation that has the right and authority to determine who enters America. If immigrants have a statutory right to apply for asylum in the U.S., this means that the United States does not have authority over who enters the nation. This is common sense to me.

Besides, only Mexicans should be applying for asylum at America’s southern border because the law states that they have to apply for asylum at the first country. Anyone who comes through Mexico should apply for asylum in Mexico. I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

What Is a Penny Worth?

The Philadelphia Mint made its last penny last Wednesday, ending 232 years of the U.S. making one-cent pieces. President Donald Trump concluded that making a penny costs four cents. Lorenzo Prieto reported the latest news about the penny in his article published at The Daily Signal. 

“Today I attended the final penny strike, symbolizing the end of penny production and the return of common sense,” U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach wrote on X. “Each year the U.S. loses millions producing pennies as their demand plummeted.”

“Given the rapid modernization of the American wallet, the Department of the Treasury and President Trump no longer believe the continued production of the penny is fiscally responsible or necessary to meet the demands of the American public,” Beach explained during the historic moment.

“As public servants, it’s our responsibility to steward public resources with prudence and transparency. However, over the last decade, the American taxpayer has been repeatedly shortchanged,” Beach posted on X last Thursday. “Over the last 10 years, production costs for a single penny have nearly tripled while demand has plummeted.”

Back in February, Trump expressed his plan to end the production of the copper penny, considering that the manufacturing costs to make a singular coin averaged 3.69 cents over the last 10 years.

“For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents,” wrote Trump in the February post. “This is so wasteful! I have instructed my Secretary of the US Treasury to stop producing new pennies. Let’s rip the waste out of our great nations budget, even it it’s a penny at a time.”

“Although today we say goodbye to our copper one-cent coin, let me be crystal clear, the penny remains legal tender,” Beach reassured. “We have over 300 billion pennies that remain in circulation and we encourage you to use them.”