Brother Harry Reid’s statement about the intersection of his faith and his politics has become one of the most powerful rallying cries for Mormons who are not fans of the Republican Party or conservative ideology. In this particular election year, many Mormons are realizing that the Republican Party just doesn’t jive any more with their personal beliefs.
In this post, I recommend articles by several liberal authors whose politics are inspired by their Mormon faith. I also highly recommend the “Why I’m a Mormon Democrat” series over at MormonPress.
It is not uncommon for members of the Church to ask how I can be a Mormon and a Democrat,” he said. “Some say my party affiliation puts me in the minority of our Church members. But my answer is that if you look at the church membership over the years, Democrats have not always been the minority, and I believe we won’t be for long. I also say that my faith and political beliefs are deeply intertwined. I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it.
I feel that same optimism when I think of how the Lord has directed our current leaders to enact laws that have comforted the poor and needy, the sick and the downtrodden. By expanding health care access, they are following Christ’s ministry of caring for the sick. By enacting Wall Street reforms, consumer protections, an auto industry bailout, and economic stimulus, they have brought us back from the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression and are providing economic justice for all. And now by working to raise the minimum wage, increase paycheck fairness for women, and eradicate poverty throughout the world, they continue to follow Christ’s admonition that “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40).
As we pull into the home stretch of a brutal presidential election, Mormons in Utah are wondering whether anyone in politics reflect their values. While Republicans have traditionally relied on Mormons as some of their most reliable religious supporters, this cycle has seen that party champion a man who passionately opposes almost everything Mormons hold dear. The Utah Republican Party, placed in the unenviable position of either opposing their party’s nominee or opposing their state’s values, has decided on their party. The GOP seems to be going out of its way to alienate Mormons.
—Representative Brian King and Dr. Suzanne Harrison
In Clinton, I see someone who relates to the best part of who I am. She has proved her ability to keep calm and carry on under the most strenuous of circumstances. She is a leader who listens, who studies, who works, who never gives up and who has been true to her commitments at every turn. She is prepared to lead with the same balance, thought and fidelity with which she has approached so much of her life. It is my prayer that my friends, my fellow mothers and my fellow Americans will choose the serious, motivated, right-minded option for America and elect Hillary Rodham Clinton as president.
Moreover, Clinton accomplished some important things during that service. While a senator she introduced or co-sponsored bills to encourage American companies to make products in the U.S., regulate inappropriate content in video games, provide broadband internet service to rural communities, aid homeowners in refinancing their mortgages, and help update medical technology. Although a Democratic senator from a traditionally Democratic state, she also reached across the aisle and worked with Republican senators, including Lindsay Graham and Bill Frist.
While I acknowledge serious concerns about Hillary Clinton’s judgment, partnership themes can be found in her rhetoric. Hillary’s policies, platforms and language demonstrate an awareness of our shared humanity and an appreciation for diversity. She actively advocates for women’s rights, family-friendly policies such as FMLA, and shows compassion and concern for refugees and immigrants through putting forth policies that try to balance the law with moral sensitivity. Her book, “It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us,” acknowledges the need for collaboration, partnership and community to meet the needs of children and families. Additionally, research findings suggest that female leaders tend to focus more on issues that directly impact families and vulnerable populations.
Like many of you reading this, I have five kids, am married to a Republican BYU grad, and cherish my faith in the church. In 2009, I received an unexpected offer to serve as speechwriter and senior adviser to Hillary Clinton at the State Department. I had never worked with her, but I had certainly heard a lot of rumors. In the four years that followed, we collaborated on over 200 speeches, traveled to dozens of countries, and had deep discussions about faith and family.
The Hillary Clinton I worked with bears no resemblance to the caricature I had heard described on talk radio. She is a woman of sincere faith. After I joined her staff, one of her confidants took me aside. “If you’re ever unsure how she would approach an issue, remember that Hillary Clinton is, at her core, a Midwestern Methodist.” In virtually every speech, she had us reiterate that her goal is to help build a world in which every boy and girl has the opportunity to realize their God-given potential. Once, when rushing to deliver a draft, I left out the phrase “God-given.” She pointedly wrote the words back in.
In the eight years since we’ve had a pro-choice president, the abortion rate in the US has dropped to its lowest since 1973. I believe the best way to keep this trend going is not to simply make it harder for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies but to create a culture with fewer unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Data suggests progressive social policies that make health care and child care more affordable, make contraception more accessible, alleviate poverty, and support a living wage do the most to create such a culture, while countries where abortion is simply illegal see no change in the abortion rate.
—Rachel Held Evans (the only non-Mormon on the list, but someone all Mormons should be reading)
While I could never vote for Trump, I think you should be embarrassed to publish this post. It’s one thing to vote for Hillary Clinton, but it’s another to justify it with smug “I’m more righteous than conservatives” arguments and quotes from narrow-minded partisans who consider objectivity a sin. When you quote Harry Reid, who intentionally lied about Mitt Romney being a tax-cheat, and refused to apologize when his lie was exposed, you’re not quoting a person renowned for his Christian ethics. (I live in Nevada, and Reid is famous for always seeking the “chief seats in the synagogues”, whether it be in stake meetings or regional conferences. During campaign season, he always has to be on the stand so we won’t forget what a big shot he is. Once in the temple he had to be reminded that he couldn’t dictate whether his personal friend, a former stake president, officiated over his session or recognized his presence in the waiting chapel.) And when you quote one Hillary speech writer quoting a fellow Hillary campaign worker to the effect that Hillary is in essence a “Midwest Methodist,” you’ve now become worse than Giuliani or Gingrich extolling Trump’s virtues. They at least acknowledge some of Trump’s weaknesses (though much less than they should), but for you to portray Hillary as a religious person in any traditional sense, is to claim something even partisan liberals don’t claim. Resorting to intellectual dishonesty in this way discredits your assertion that Christian devotion impels one to embrace Hillary’s candidacy.
If you believe in Jesus’s teachings, you should refrain from using intellectual dishonesty no matter how badly you want your candidate to win. I’m Republican, but because I’m also Christian, I have to acknowledge that Trump is an unrepentant serial adulterer who boasts of his conquests of married women. He’s also extremely materialistic and boastful of his wealth, to the point of lining rooms of his home with gold purely for show, and habitually stiffing creditors when risky business ventures go bad. He lies about inconvenient facts about his life, and he truly only cares about other people to the extent that they idolize him. He fakes religiosity. He is the modern equivalent of the Book of Mormon’s King Noah.
But if you are as good a Christian as you purport to be, you also have to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is a serial liar who long ago decided to sell her soul to obtain power. She justifies her dishonesty with the idea that in order for her morally and intellectually superior vision for America to come to pass, she has to lie about her deeds to defeat her benighted enemies and get elected. She never, ever attends church unless there are cameras and reporters present, she favors government control of religious practices, and has said so, and her closest friends have not known her to pray or profess Christ as her Savior. She’s a Midwest Methodist like Trump is a Presbyterian–not at all.
To achieve your own intellectual honesty, I think you should acknowledge that all Christ’s teachings regarding charitable behavior were directed to private individuals. He never argued for government-enforced charity, but instead, that charity be the result of individual choices made without compulsion by others. Hillary Clinton, a multimillionaire herself who charges up to $750,000 to deliver a speech, argues for state-enforced charity, not trusting the exercise of free-will. (Trump doesn’t care much about any kind of charity, I acknowledge.) Her idea of private charitable giving is making high-profile donations from the Clinton Foundation, which she accumulated through the donations of other people to her. Have you ever wondered how much she gives to, say, the Methodist Church? Intellectual integrity requires you to think about things like that when you’re touting her religious devotion with quotes from her campaign workers.
And last but not least, next time, before you write yet another “we liberals are more Christian than conservatives” post(this one isn’t the first one you’ve written, as you know), it would be good to read some actual studies on this point. The last study I read showed that conservative Christians give, on average, three and a half times as much to IRS-recognized charities than liberal Democrats do. But of course, to brag about such a statistic would be un-Christian.
This was a joke, right? Like a pure troll post? If not, this website seems to have become part of the clinton machine. I hope you are getting well compensated for your (propaganda) marketing… if the prophet himself endorsed clinton, I would vote for Darth Vader instead.
Scott,
Just a few comments:
#1 So if liberals share how their religious beliefs fold into their choice to be a Democrat it means “I’m more righteous than conservatives?” But isn’t that exactly what Republicans have been (explicitly) saying about Democrats for many years?
#2 Did there exist a democracy during Christ’s sojourn on earth–where people chose and voted for representatives to enact laws? I can’t recall a scripture where Jesus said it was evil for govts. to “force” people to pay taxes for aid programs to assist the poor, elderly, disabled and children. (Btw you are not “forced.” You have choices/agency but of course, those choices come with unpleasant consequences as do many choices).
#3. “Have you ever wondered how much she gives to, say, the Methodist Church?”
Well, I looked at their 2014 tax return (processed in Ogden UT as are all private foundation tax returns). They have a family foundation–the Clinton Family Foundation” (separate and apart from Bill Clinton’s “Clinton Foundation”) which disbursed contributions to many different charities including $5000 to First Congregational Church of Chappaqua, $10,000 to
United Methodist Church of Mount Kisco, NY (page 37 of 38), $10,000 to United Methodist City Society and $100,000 to New York-Presbyterian Fund Inc.
Total charitable contributions: $3,767,000.
Lois,
In response:
Regarding Hillary’s charitable giving: The context you omitted is this: In 2014 she and Bill made $28.3 million. Of the $3.767 million the Clinton Family Foundation claimed as charitable giving, $1.8 million of it went to The Clinton Foundation run by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea. The New York Presbyterian Fund, Inc. is a hospital, not a church (but still a very worthy recipient of charity, of course). So $25,000 out of $28,300,000 went to New York area churches ($20k to Methodists), less that one-thousandths of the Clintons’ total income for that year. All truly charitable giving is commendable, but since Swift has included in his post quotes from a Clinton speech writer that Hillary is in essence a Midwestern Methodist, one might assume that her donations to the Methodist church would exceed $20k given her enormous income. Devout Methodists give ten percent. But if you look at the total amount given by the Clinton Family Foundation to all charities after subtracting the huge portion given to the The Clinton Foundation, it doesn’t add up to even 10 percent of their vast income, and the amount to churches is less than 1/1000th. And, it should also be mentioned that in 2014, the CFF listed assets of $5.3 million, so a huge amount of money in the family charity fund remained unspent that year. The church allotments were minor outlays, even in the lead-up to a run for president. I think these figures, when considered in context, make my point. The evidence that Hillary is worthy of one’s vote because of her religiosity just isn’t there, either in word or deed. Would Rational Faiths publish an article touting Mitt Romney’s, or Mike Huckabee’s, or Ben Carson’s religiosity, and then argue that Mormons should vote for them because they’re religious? No, they’d be offended by such an argument, even though all admit that these men were truly devout in their practice of Christianity.
Though you’re right that Jesus didn’t live in a democracy, this point doesn’t help your argument. When he taught the Nephites, he was teaching a people who were newly self-governing. So at that point, he could have argued for government-required charity, because he was speaking to those who had the ability to enact his recommendations. But he didn’t do so. He specifically reiterated what he’d taught among the Jews–charitable giving should be voluntary, private, secret, and seen only by God. See 3 Nephi 13: 1-4; see also Matthew 6: 1-4.
You take issue with my use of the word “forced” to describe government-required charitable giving. You admit that there are penalties for non-compliance, though. Those penalties, which you don’t mention, include prosecution, fines, imprisonment and a loss of civil rights as a convicted felon. My use of the word “forced” is reasonable, I think, but “coerced” would perhaps be a better word. But the fact that you make an issue out of this, even parenthetically, perhaps shows your discomfort with the sober facts. The charitable donations the government takes out of our paychecks without our consent takes money from us that we could have used for the poor, elderly, disabled and children, all of which is the kind of charitable giving Jesus talked about. I don’t think you would have quibbled over the word “force” if the government were currently using tax dollars to support the KKK. You’d think the term appropriate, because you wouldn’t agree with the practice. The fact that you agree with government-coerced charity doesn’t mean it’s not coerced.
Regarding whether the post has an “I’m more righteous than conservatives” slant: The point of the article is straightforward, not nuanced. Religious folk (everyone quoted in the article, except one, purports to embrace Mormon Christianity, and all those referred to on the MormonThought website do as well) are led to vote as liberal Democrats, and specifically for Hillary Clinton, because of their adherence to religious beliefs. And, by definition, those who adhere to religious beliefs are the more righteous among us. So yes, the point of the article is that a vote for Hillary is a more righteous choice than any would make who aren’t voting for her. And lest we think it’s okay to be a conservative Democrat, Swift only recommends articles by “liberals.” He uses that word; I’m not paraphrasing. This allows him to throw in an argument for abortion rights in one of the quotations, just so we understand what his claimed moral superiority entails.
Finally, you claim that Republicans have been doing the same thing (asserting religious views as the reason for being Republican) for years. You don’t cite to specific examples, but I do agree that in private conversations among conservative Republicans, this undoubtedly gets said a lot. However, another thing that gets said in such circles these days is how out-of-step Trump is with traditional Christian sensibilities, and how his views disqualify him as a supportable candidate. To acknowledge that requires a willingness to lose the election if that’s what’s required to maintain principled integrity. One can’t do this if he or she takes a win-at-all-costs mentality. But Swift is content to remain entirely partisan, giving no mention of any of HC’s weaknesses. For a website that calls itself Rational Faiths, with the word “rational” in boldface, shouldn’t we expect better? In this and prior posts, he assumes superiority, mocks his opponents, and in discussing a topic, never explores both sides of an issue. Hence his quoting of only Hillary supporters to persuade us that she and the Democratic party are the right choice of devout Mormons–objectivity be damned.
Scott,
What is your source for the your claim that Hillary ONLY attends church if there is a camera?
Here is a link that might be of interest to you:
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/we-know-plenty-about-clintons-religion/
And one regarding (Bill) Clinton’s public foundation (not to be confused with the Clinton Family Foundation):
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
You don’t count the donation to the Presbyterian Hospital as going to a church? Okay, but how much of my tithing then qualifies as going to a church, since some portion of it (no transparency there) goes to BYU and other educational–non church–institutions?
To sum it up,
In 2014 the Clinton’s donated $3 million to charity on an income of $28 million. (More than 10% of their income that year). But if the bulk of that money isn’t to a church one obviously is not truly religious?
“You don’t cite to specific examples, but I do agree that in private conversations among conservative Republicans, this undoubtedly gets said a lot.”
The “Religious Right” Jerry Falwell, evangelicals, have long existed and claim the “moral” ie religious high ground in the political arena.
And, well, it is more than just in private between Republicans. For many LDS Republicans, Ezra Taft Benson serves as fertile ground for justifying conservative Republican quotes and stances. The Church owns Deseret News–a right-winged conservative newspaper with one (Prof Richard Davis quoted above) liberal op-eds/columns. I’ve heard sacrament speakers quote Pres. Reagan or conservative chain emails and teachers (adult as well as youth classes) who touch on conservative political stances. One ward I lived in someone approached the 2nd counselor in the bishopric concerned about a car in the church parking lot with a bumper sticker supporting John Kerry for president. Political material (Six Consequences) not church curriculum–was taught to adults and youth 12 yrs and up the third hour of Sunday services throughout our stake during the Prop 8 campaign. Just yesterday a member I called about subbing for me, assumed I was Republican and was encouraging me to visit the “great” local Republican Party headquarters. I could go on….
And finally,
Paying taxes doesn’t preclude one from paying tithing, fast offerings etc–“voluntary” and private charitable donations that helps others, right?
The whole climate has become too political for anyone’s good. Being a Democrat or a Republican means diddly squat when it comes to loving and serving others. If anyone thinks it makes a difference there’s a moat and beam problem. Giving more love through service is the key.
If we glean anything from this questionable election season, neither party can claim the upper hand. Hubris and corruption seem to be the rule of the day on either side of the aisle. As a people we should be separating ourselves from this swamp of nonsense, not arguing how one color of moss is better than the other.
As Christ taught, we need to be serving those around us: Improve the world by making ourselves whole, then our families, then our communities. No one cares whether they received help from a D or a R, or a Mormon for that matter. And frankly, I don’t think God is very concerned with it either.