BYU Political Review - Latest Comments

Re: Selected Planks from Joseph Smith’s 1844 Political Platform

zastrong — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:05:18 -0000

If you'll notice, the candidate running today that is closest to these views is Ron Paul. If we as Latter-day Saints truly understand and value the Constitution and Liberty, we'll support Ron Paul.

Re: Behind the Curtain: Grading NGOs

Papa Bear Walker — Tue, 01 May 2012 10:40:52 -0000

What an incredible insight! Interestingly enough, I think Professors Mike Findley and Dan Nielson are working on some RCTs that have to do with standardized accountability and effectiveness. I really think this is the future of the development sector, though a lot of it hinges on whether we can get donors on board. I think the donor side of the equation would be a fascinating realm for future research.

Re: Selected Planks from Joseph Smith’s 1844 Political Platform

Karl Nordgren — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:37:14 -0000

"It is one of the first principles of my life, and one that I have cultivated from my childhood,
having been taught it by my father, to allow every one that liberty of conscience.
I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find
with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.
Although it provides that all men shall enjoy religious freedom, yet it does not provide the
manner by which that freedom can be preserved, nor for the punishment of Government officers who
refuse to protect the people in their religious rights, or punish those mobs, states, or communities who interfere with the rights of the people on account of their religion. Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. It has
but this one fault. Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get
along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the
merciless rage of popular fury. The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment; and then the president of the United States would not say, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you,” a governor issue exterminating orders, or judges say, “The men ought to have the protection of law, but is won’t please the mob; the men must die, anyhow, to satisfy the clamor of the rabble; they must be hung, or Missouri be damned to all eternity.” Executive writs could be
issued when they ought to be, and not be made instruments of cruelty to oppress the innocent,and
persecute men whose religion is unpopular." -Joseph Smith (TPJS page 325-326) The part I find Ironic about this statement is, "The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment"In the position of both mayor and Lieutenant General, Joseph Smith was an "officer of the Government". Considering he commissioned the destruction of his 2nd counselor William Law's press, a protection guaranteed in the constitution, Joseph by his own policy was to receive capital punishment. http://mormonstories.org/podca...

Re: Invisible Children Needs to Kony Up

BrycePJ — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:48:36 -0000

bryce

Re: Invisible Children Needs to Kony Up

Kyle Durfee — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:35:22 -0000

I'm grateful that you did additional research beyond just watching the video, but you seem to have just jumped from one bandwagon to another: first to the Kony 2012 wagon, then to the wagon of people criticizing it. Neither side covers the issue very well.

First, Charity Navigator gives IC 2 stars NOT because of their use of funds. I'm putting the link to their statement on IC below, but I'll summarize it here too. The annual salary of the top executives is not that high (the average for a nonprofit CEO is $150,000 a year, much higher than $85,000) and considers 80% of IC's funds as going to their programs. The reason that Charity Navigator gives them only 2 stars is because they have only 4 instead of 5 people on their Audit Oversight Board. This is due to a recent transition of administration which should be fixed in the coming year.

Charity Navigator also says that IC spends 80% of their revenues on programs because the main part of their program is awareness raising. Many believe that the issues related to child soldiers and modern slavery is still in the claims making stage, and if you want to help with that, IC is a good place to go. Their primary focus is NOT to do nothing but bring money and resources to Africa, but get a more widespread foundation of American citizens behind it as well. If you like that, IC is a good place to put your money. If not, there are plenty of other organizations to choose from.

Also, having a lot of Net Assets isn't unethical. Often times it's necessary to do big, great things. We keep looking at our charities and demanding that they work off of pennies to solve all the problems that make us uncomfortable. If you want to see the world change, real resources must go into it. And Assets will include donation pledges that haven't been paid yet, unsold merchandise, their buses, buildings, purchased plane tickets that haven't been used yet, and many other things. It's not like their hoarding cash for the sole purpose of hoarding cash.

The claim that IC advocates direct military involvement is somewhat misleading. They don't look to a large scale war, but to a small, directed operation. Is this a good idea? That's up to each of us to decide for ourselves, but many seem to claim that IC wants Uganda to engage in a full blown armed conflict that will decimate the entire region.

To be honest, IC is not my favorite nonprofit, and I have not donated to them as such. But it's just as wrong to jump on the bandwagon of criticism as it is to jump on any other bandwagon.

Get both sides of the issue. IC responded to a lot of these criticisms:
http://www.invisiblechildren.c...

Here's Charity Navigator's publication on the IC issue
http://www.charitynavigator.or...

Re: Closer to Home Than the Grammys: Increasing Awareness of Gender-Based Violence

Lisa Avalos — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:50:01 -0000

Taylor, thank you for this important article. You've done an excellent and thoughtful job debunking some myths about sexual assault. We need to encourage more honest discussion of sexual violence, and we need to insist, as a community, that perpetrators take responsibility for their own behavior.

Re: Romneycare for the Economy? Why Mitt is No Economic Superman

Jason Aldo Zippro — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:23:20 -0000

I agree with what has been said by Jordan, Trevor, and Nick. Also, Alex, your article has a few assumptions and logical fallacies. To name a couple, you assume that "to slash the corporate tax rate . . . in the hope that the money will 'trickle down'" is only affecting "profit-rich corporations" is off. The #1 job creator in America is new businesses, start-ups. For them, taxes are a huge deterrent for hiring needed help when they have little to know capital to begin with. And as for your assertion that "Romney's plan does nothing to compensate for this loss in revenue" is just plain false. Check out http://www.mittromney.com/issu... from Mitt Romney's own website where he delineates exactly how to reign in spending to help alleviate the loss in tax revenue. It isn't perfect, like Jordan said, but it is something.

As for your assertion that America's jobs are "requiring higher levels of skills" is true; however, you completely leave out Romney's plan for this too (http://www.mittromney.com/issu.... Nothing is as irresponsible as not doing your research.

These are just a few of the things you forgot to mention Alex. As for your request that Romney "include hefty specifics rather than a hefty resume to sell the idea that he is the best leader to turn the economy around," I suggest reading what he has published since September 2011 (http://www.mittromney.com/jobs... and his book "No Apology: Believe In America." Both of these resources, although they aren't hundreds of pages of details, are far more than anything that has been put out or even hinted at by any of the other candidates (and even the current President himself).

Re: Contra-Conceptions: Reversing the Stigma of Family Planning

Sheldon Shumway — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 01:16:20 -0000

The author of the article is surprisingly uninformed about Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the worlds largest provider of abortions. In fact the founder, Margaret Sanger, coined the term "birth control". It is pretty apparent that birth contol is very frequently a euphemism for abortion in the Planned Parenthood world and many other places as well. I don't understand how any student at an LDS university would consider abortion as an effective means of family planning. It appears to me that abortion is almost always the lack of real family planning. Planned Parenthood is not the business of providing real family planning its mission is to provide abortions whenever possible.

Re: Contra-Conceptions: Reversing the Stigma of Family Planning

Gary Ashcroft — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:35:34 -0000

Jordan,
Thanks for your comment. We welcome all dialogue on this site, regardless of whether it aligns with our political opinions (which span a broad spectrum of ideologies). In regards to requiring Catholic organizations to provide contraception, such a mandate makes sense from an economic standpoint. Having a baby is expensive, and very high fertility rates place a burden on our healthcare system. By making contraception easily accessible, regardless of whomever the employer is, we should be able to drastically decrease costs. Not only this, but your assertion that higher use of contraception leads to more abortions is patently false. Many independent studies (i.e. those not funded by organizations on the Religious Right) seem to confirm this fact. Furthermore, contraception is not used just for preventing pregnancies; it can be used to treat a wide variety of symptoms. For example, Sandra Fluke, whom the "esteemed" Rush Limbaugh has recently been branding a slut, cited in her testimony to Congressional Democrats the case of a fellow female Georgetown law student who needed contraception to treat polycystic ovary syndrome. Catholicism's stance on this issue harms the public good and public health and runs contrary to the views of a majority of its adherents (whom polls have shown overwhelmingly employ contraceptives). When a religion's tenets run contrary to established public law, safety, and order, the government is perfectly within its rights in circumscribing religious liberty. This fact has long been established, ever since the ruling in Reynolds v United States upheld the constitutionality of anti-polygamy legislation (see also Employment Division v Smith). Contraceptive coverage is all about fostering an environment of personal responsibility in which people are able to take control of their lives and minimize the burden they place on society. It is also about giving young couples and women the means to plan their lives in such a way as to avoid crushing poverty and the foreclosure of opportunity.

Re: Selected Planks from Joseph Smith’s 1844 Political Platform

nick — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:12:32 -0000

I'd vote for him

Re: Romneycare for the Economy? Why Mitt is No Economic Superman

nick — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:10:41 -0000

I'm sick of this "low levels of enthusiasm" garbage. The whole thing was media created and is continuing because of the media.

Also, I assume that Romney would know a lot more about how taxes affect corporations seeing as he worked with them IRL for decades.

Bottom line: Romney is by far the most qualified candidate to run for president in a long time, especially in terms of economics.

Re: Closer to Home Than the Grammys: Increasing Awareness of Gender-Based Violence

Gabriel Meyr — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:22:35 -0000

I loved the article. I like that you articulated how carelessly using slang terms like "ho" and "rape" perpetuate social expectations that contribute to the problem of sexual assault.

Re: Closer to Home Than the Grammys: Increasing Awareness of Gender-Based Violence

Guest — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:15:13 -0000

It's haunting to me that people would say that they weren't raped "badly enough" to report. It seems hard for most people to come to grips with rape and sexual assault, but it does seem that religious communities have a particularly tough time of it. So much is invested in the idea of honor, family honor, individual honor. We have some communities (both Muslim and Christian) basically laying the blame almost totally at the woman's feet and acting as if the family's honor cannot be restored in the wake of rape. In Italy, until not so long ago, rape was a crime against “public morality” not against individuals. That's part of the reason that, in many cases, women were more or less obliged to marry the rapist in the old South. With marriage, public morality was no longer damaged. The crime has been put right and literally ceased to exist at that point. Is downplaying the seriousness of rape a way to get this same outcome? To deny that it existed? To rename it as something else? If so, what are the other names that victims give this to deny that they were, in fact, sexually assaulted?

Re: Closer to Home Than the Grammys: Increasing Awareness of Gender-Based Violence

Scott — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:40:33 -0000

Taylor you hit on some extremely important points in this article. It was more than disheartening to read all of the posts of Facebook talking badly about a victim of rape. Let our indignation and outrage be pointed at the perpetrators and not the victims. Sexual violence has been a taboo topic in most societies and that taboo is usually perpetuated more so in religious enclaves such as we live in. I hope that we can see virtue for what it is, that it cannot be taken from us. And you're right, this is about power and seeing women as equals, capable of making equally important decisions about intimacy. Well written, thank you.

Re: Romneycare for the Economy? Why Mitt is No Economic Superman

TrevorReed — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:39:09 -0000

It always concerns me when I hear someone under 40 talk about things being too archaic or inadequate for our "complex" times. That tune has been sung before and it does not end well.

Also, anyone that thinks corporate taxes come out of the wallets of the rich is fooling themselves. Corporate taxes are paid for by the "struggling worker" and the consumer--that is a historical and economic fact.

Finally, if we do have a symbiotic relationship with China (and I believe that we do) then they are also dependent on us (and they most certainly are). Then we should and can expect them to treat us fairly. It is foolish to appease a bully, but it's outright stupid to concede to a beneficiary.

Re: Closer to Home Than the Grammys: Increasing Awareness of Gender-Based Violence

BYU Student — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:42:17 -0000

Great article, Taylor. Women dressing modestly is NOT the final solution (or even a solution at all?) to the problem of sexual assault. Primary prevention can include recognizing unhealthy relationships. Good info here: https://wsr.byu.edu/relationsh...

Re: Romneycare for the Economy? Why Mitt is No Economic Superman

Jordan — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:24:30 -0000

A lot of good, interesting facts. I'm curious however what your viewpoint is on what should happen. Do you view another candidate or current president's plan more effective? It's not too hard to find something wrong with anyone. Being a problem pointer doesn't necessarily mean a problem solver.

Re: The Myth of the Golden Era of Immigration

Steven Bannister — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:56:39 -0000

Well, this column was written about 6 years ago (it's 2012 now) and how is that "illegal immigration" working out for you Mr Waters? You say "last time I looked, California was the richest state in America and has a booming economy." Ha - you better look again! California is now BANKRUPT and if you think illegal immigration had nothing to do with that, I've got some swamp land in Florida I would like to sell you.

As it stands today, the number of illegal immigrants entering (and permanently SETTLING) in the United States is about 1 Million per year - almost 3 times the population of Minneapolis EVERY YEAR! Now, throw in another 1 Million LEGAL immigrants per year and you are looking at a MASSIVE demographic shift that will eventually overwhelm our national resources, our energy production and our environment. By the way, in case you were wondering - during the "Golden Era" of immigration last Century, we only took in about 250,000 legal immigrants per year and that was considered very generous by the standard of any nation. For the sake of the American worker (and the American forests) we need to turn to these "traditional" levels as soon as possible

Re: Civil Pacts in France: A Pro-Family Argument for Gay Marriage?

Andrew M — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:46:09 -0000

Your link to the PRFRC is dead, so I don't know what evidence has been given there, but the research that I've looked at has concluded that children of same-sex couples do just fine, and that children of / raised by Lesbian couples surpass their peers in social adjustment. See "How does the Gender of Parents Matter?" by Biblarz and Stacey in Journal of Marriage and Family 72.1 (2010): 3.

Re: Pulpit Politics

Katie — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:17:03 -0000

There's no doubt in my mind that if Romney became unpopular once in office, it would cause many people to view LDS people less positively.

Re: Collision Course? Mormon Liberals and a Romney White House

Katie — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:10:33 -0000

These may be tangents, but this is my reaction:

I do have to say I believe the truth of God will go forth truly, nobly and unhindered regardless of our president's religion. That he protects free religion is all that is required.

I appreciate that Professor Gilchrist didn't make assumptions about what a Mormon in office would do for Church members or the Church's image. Let's be honest with ourselves, every coin has a flip side and it's possible that if Romney became unpopular in office for purely political reasons (and righteous ones in our eyes), people's opinions of Mormons could really go down.

I personally think that the Church's neutral political stance is one of the best ways to maintain it's positive image. People from all political veiws can freely appreciate all the good the Church and its people do, without getting caught up over the fact that the Church has a differing political stance.

And let's not be childish and assume a Mormon president is necessarily in our best interest (Professor Gilchrist did not imply this, this is just one of my thoughts). Let's think the issues out ourselves and decide who will be the best president, because let's face it, there's a whole lot of morally spectacular people who would not be the best president, or even a good president - my saintly mother being one of them. In fact, although I can't think of a more worthy and noble woman, she'd be a terrible president of the United States! Love you mom!!! Let's see it with a little humor.

Re: Anneke Majors: Asking the Right Questions

Guest — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:25:50 -0000

A wise college professor of mine once said the most important thing you learn in higher education is how to distinguish bad information masquerading behind rhetoric and faulty reasoning from good information.

Re: Civil Pacts in France: A Pro-Family Argument for Gay Marriage?

Guest — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:40:27 -0000

Isn't that obvious? What rights would you deny them? Adoption? Well, they can already do that in many more states than they can get married.

Re: Selected Planks from Joseph Smith’s 1844 Political Platform

blogaha — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:02:53 -0000

Is there a full platform available? I love the part about encouraging lawyers to repent and preach the gospel LOL! Some good stuff in there.

Re: Civil Pacts in France: A Pro-Family Argument for Gay Marriage?

AP — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:25:55 -0000

This is dumb: "Children, psychologically, do better with a parent of each gender in the home" because there are not reliable physicians that support that argument."