[Warning: Sensitive political question]

In my state, we actually had Libertarian, Constitutional, and other party candidates on the ballot. While I agree that we need some reform, I think the bigger issue is grass roots campaigning. The masses believe that they only have the Republican and Democrat parties to choose from because of this idea of "feasibility".

It is the internet that could prove to change the whole game. People everywhere are starting to see things with a much more informed view because answers to their questions are usually a click away.

It is indeed a shame that the masses did not see in Ron Paul what he really is. I often have people tell me he is a "kook". I ask: "How so?" They never have an answer. They just say: "He's kooky." I ask: "What does he do that is kooky?" They never seem to know.

The reality is that the media tried very hard to portray him as kooky. It was awful. There was a GOP debate with FIVE candidates. The news coverage and advertising only showed FOUR. During the recaps after the debate, he was briefly trashed by the commentators and then not mentioned again. He was stronger in the actual primaries than Giuliani and yet he got no coverage while Giuliani was constantly on television. He was even not allowed to attend one debate because he was deemed "unfeasible", all the while he was doing better in the primaries than some of the "feasible" candidates who were allowed to debate.

The fact is, he knows what he is doing and the others were scared to death of him. But nobody is more scared of him than big business elites who want to keep their hands on the throat of Washington. The internet is changing everything. The television will soon not mean quite so much. I have good hope for the future return to constitutionality.

-a-train

[Guy Fawkes - Terrorist ???]

Guy Fawkes was found guilty at trial of treason along with one other member of the gang, the others plead guilty so did not stand trial

-Charley

I understand, but your question about whether he was a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" brings up the issue of perception. Governments have long made pronouncements regarding a given person in order to control public perception. We can choose to fear or adore based on those pronouncements, or make our own decisions.

As for Fawkes, I am not making any determination.

-a-train

[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]

I think he is fundementally wrong also. I do think he does have a valid point about the violence of religion in the past (and present), but I do not think he is being intellectually honest when he plays one hand against religion, and then ignores the scientific communities culpability in many scientific "disasters". Whether it be a purposeful "attack" on mankind (Hiroshima) or accidental (Chernobol). I think, bottom line, Dawkins suffers from a fundemantal lack of honesty.

O43

Lets not forget that fantastic science of Eugenics! Perhaps I will live to see the day when Eugenics advocate John Maynard Keynes is completely laid to the dustbin of folly with his phony theories of economics too. I can't forget W. K. Kellogg who also supported Eugenics and whose brother publicly advocated circumcision as a cure to masturbation, at least they gave us the corn flake.

-a-train

[1 Nephi 2:11]

I do not expect to get a call late at night to remove my family to the wilderness, but I have long felt the peace and comfort availed only by doing those things taught by the prophets.

-a-train

[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]

My memory of schooling on the subject of biology began in about 3rd Grade when our teacher explained that it was once believed that burning a bail of hay produces lizards, snakes, mice, and other small animals as it appeared evident by their running out of the flaming mass. She outlined the superior understanding that later prevailed as science demonstrated that these organisms were only reproduced by the natural means: the propagation of the species. Even in my youth I doubted the likelihood that man ever believed the notion of snake birth by fire.

It was my great shock that only a few short years later the same educational system would attempt to tell me that the origin of all life was theorized to be in some event similar to the striking of lightning or some other natural spark that set off the first organic life from once non-living material.

I was also told of the folly of man in once believing in all sorts of myths that gave way to higher knowledge such as the four elements of earth, water, wind, and fire. To me, it made sense that man had made such estimations.

It would seem that with all the schooling man has advanced over all these years science is still trying to vindicate the old birth by fire story and it now tends to hide the fact that it once disbelieved in the four phases of matter as it teaches solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.

-a-train

[a response to a-train, but anyone is welcome]

Actually I don't see plural marriage working in a secular environment. But that's probably taking this thread down a tangent. Back to SSM.

I see the word "work" used in this manner frequently. I even see people argue about whether or not something "works". People are arguing about whether or not socialism "works", whether democracy "works", whether reading the scriptures "works", whether prayer "works". There seems to be a missing qualifier. The debate is whether or not something "accomplishes". "Accomplishes" what? Isn't that qualifier necessary to answer the question meaningfully? Otherwise the answer is "yes/no".

It is surely a different subject, but now you've given me a riddle. I have to imagine the differences between plural marriage in a secular environment and a non-secular environment to see if I can discover the issue that concerns you. So far, I am bereft of any answer.

-a-train

[a response to a-train, but anyone is welcome]

What if three people, say two women and a man, or vis-versa, wanted to form a union and raise children and have a family with three parents... or four, or five, would there be a problem then? They have a father and a mother, and even more, so isn't that even better than a typical heterosexual couple?

It should be easy to gain traction for plural marriage among Mormons, but most of them are scared of it. I personally would quickly endorse plural marriage. We actually already extensively have it in America. Many children live with their father and a step-mom while seeing their biological mom on the weekends.

Would I legalize plural marriage in America? Immediately.

If that happened, would Mormons engage in plural marriage? I doubt it.

-a-train

[a response to a-train, but anyone is welcome]

Fair enough. When viewing an argument such as this, I look at it in the context of "all else being equal," but if the reasons why disparity exist are removed, then that is the same, in my view, as removing the disparities, at least in terms of this argument. Whether employee benefits should extend to family is, indeed, an entirely different discussion, and one that I do not know enough to argue one way or the other about even if I wished to.

The analogy here is in two parties wherein one causes damage to the vehicle of the other rendering it inoperable. One ideology would promote the repair of the damage at the cost of the malefactor, the other would offer the victim the right to inflict the same damage upon the vehicle of the defendant. I happen to be an advocate of the former and if I understand you correctly you agree.

However, it becomes an issue when the government makes laws that affect one career more than another. I would take issue if, say, it was decided that music was not considered a valid career choice, and so all musicians lost the rights to their music, to the ability to even try to sell it.

Homosexual couples are not attempting to obtain access to the free market and indeed they already have it. If the couple is likened to a group of musicians they are a band incapable of making music. While they can fiddle with their instruments, they can't produce any creation. (No pun intended .)

While their practice sessions may be enjoyable to them and their performances enjoyable to others, they have no music or capability to create music over which to have any right of claim. In the event that one of them joins with necessary members to make music, he/she together with the third party possesses the rights of ownership attributable thereto and together they have the capablity and legal equality to avail themselves of the legal contracts that will oblige the public to so consider their union as such.

Homosexual couples do not have the same rights over their children, or even their property, that married heterosexual couples do. Only one member of the couple can be the legal guardian of the child; if they separate, that one parent gets to make all custody decisions; if the child is sick, only one parent gets to make medical decision; if that parent dies, all of their property and the child goes to next of kin, and not the person who has lived them with and raised the child.

The individual who possesses no custody over the child has none because they are not a parent of the child. The various legal considerations of property ownership, next of kin, and so forth can be solved by legal instruments suited and devised for the purpose and indeed they already are. The argument is made that the poor are thus subject to additional abuse via the expense of such instruments, but the question is whether society is obligated to make such services affordable.

What is stopping a "gay" lawyer or group of lawyers from providing these things at extremely low costs? Also, divorce is extremely expensive and the poor have long been in dispair with respect to it. Should we for that purpose make divorce an inexpensive device offered by civil government?

The reason that is impossible extends from the natural disorder associated with divorce. If the couple is in agreeance in all things and their obligation to society and society's obligation to them was inherent, perhaps we could offer it for virtually free as we do a marriage contract. But that is not the case with divorce, nor the case with homosexual couples.

Expensive legal considerations are demanded by the situation of the homosexual couple, especially when we arrive at the subject of adoption. And if a low rate of adoptability in a society with a very low birthrate is troublesome already among hetersexual couples, I see no reason to argue, albiet the barren status of homosexual couples, that automatically adding them to a pool of potential placement families will greatly reduce the problem. In fact, improvements in that statistic could only be short term if at all, seeing the fact that so many couples will seek children at least of natural birth of one of them as do heterosexual couples.

Even considering all of that, it comes to an argument of whether the ends justify the means. Perhaps putting rights where they do not rightfully belong will seem to alieve many pains, but it is only a shifting of the problem, not a solution. The effort is akin again to the man whose damaged car awarded him the right to destroy the vehicle of the malefactor.

When the only choices for a child are to grow up in a orphanage or be raised by a loving gay couple, which would you call for? Still, then, should we not allow it? What about single-parent adoptions?

I can see little difference between the orphanage and the single household or the homosexual couple outside of material differences. Whether the child goes without parental figures of a given gender in the orphanage or without seems to be moot. The issue is not what claim the children have on their rights, but on what claim homosexual couples have to obligate society to issue them a marriage instrument.

I argue that gays can form a family. Does it really matter that that family isn't formed by a sperm going into an egg?

But it WAS. The two individuals came naturally into the world and have a natural family.

Since heterosexuals are not denied marriage, then, without any family beyond their coupling, where is the distinction for homosexuals?

The appropriation of a marriage contract is not the result of reproduction but the formulation of legal preparations therefore. Perhaps there are those married couples whose intent is never to birth children, but this is of no matter. They hold the rights to reproduce or not to reproduce whether respected by society or not. The homosexual couple has no such right, for nature did not see fit to extend it and society is inept in offering it. Perhaps it may seem bigoted to some, but the substance of my view is that homosexual couples are NOT equal with heterosexual couples and cannot be rendered so.

When the obvious equality of blacks as humans beings to the rest of America became obvious, the extension of civil rights was felt an obligation that to deny would lack integrity. We now hear the cries of homosexual couples for certain civil rights upon which their natural right must be asserted and understood by society if society is to feel any obligation to extend them. I feel as though I am being asked to read between the lines, but all I can find is blank space.

As a side note, a-train, it is rare for me to find intellectual debate with someone with whom I so profoundly disagree, and I thank you for this opportunity. Even more than that, it gives me insight into the argument against gay marriage, which is the main reason I began posting here.

I cannot pretend to offer the arguments that matter to the whole of the movement engaged in protecting the right to marriage, I can only offer mine. Thanks for giving ear.

God Bless

-a-train

[Founding Fathers = Christian men?]

I will quickly agree that designating a man a "Christian" is in truth a right only of his own. That said, the real issue at hand with respect to the Framers is those principles upon which they did the framing. It has been said that these principles are Christian and indeed they are. However, inasmuch as these same principles are found in Islam or Judaism, or Mormonism, or Catholicism, (and a great many are) they can also be so designated.

-a-train

[Moving to Independence?]

The Salt Lake temple was dedicated to stand "through the Millennium". I have not seen any real indication from Church leadership that Salt Lake City will in someway suffer annihilation.

-a-train

[a response to a-train, but anyone is welcome]

I will attempt to draw an analogy for you.

The basics of human life -- food, shelter, and clothing -- are all that is natural for us to produce and all that are necessary. And so it makes sense that the right to the production and possession of these things would follow.

Let us not forget that the right of life itself must by extension include the right of reproduction and the familial rights connected thereto. Just as society is obligated by the right of property to respect an individual's or a family's ownership of a home, society is obligated also to respect the family unit as claimed by it's individual members.

An example of this obligation is manifest in society's protection of parental rights. No man has the natural parental rights and connected obligations to children not his own. While indeed a parent may bestow those rights on another wherein all parties are agreeable, a violation of those rights is considered kidnapping.

Please understand that I am not an advocate of state control over the lives and relationships of individuals. I am a very strong advocate of liberty. I personally find much of the state control over marriage to be repugnant.

Adjacent, and in many ways in the middle of the issue of "gay marriage", are the legal obligations placed on employers to provide certain benefits including health insurance to the spouses of employees. My view of equality does not promote me to advocate "gay marriage" in order to make fair such a system, but rather to remove those obligations and allow employers to make such decisions. The conversation about those legal obligations, whether they be the natural obligation of employers, and their effect on health care coverage and costs is too off topic to enter into here. But suffice it to say, I do not support the legislation of employee benefits or their extension to the family of individual employees.

Should, then, we honor only those professions that directly lead to these ends? Should all others be considered unnecessary and frivolous? Should they be considered sins? Should they lose the protections that those needed for survival are afforded? Should they not have the same respect?

What is natural about a mathematician, a religious leader, a musician? A philosopher or a politician? Should we not honor their works? Only those that stem out of nature?

The right to choose one's occupation and to enjoy and control the fruits thereof, are and indeed should be protected. However, society should not be obligated to ensure the prosperity thereof. Individuals are not constrained to support any particular business enterprise. I as an individual and we as a society are not naturally obligated to purchase paper airplanes any less or more than we are naturally obligated to purchase wheat or oats.

Perhaps a given religious group shall certify a man a priest, or a university will certify a man a mathematician, but we as society are not under any natural obligation to recognize that certification nor to attach any particular rights thereto.

You talk about familial rights. What of a homosexual couple that adopts a child? Do they not deserve the same respect and treatment as a couple that has a biological child? What about a single person who adopts a child? And what about a heterosexual couple that adopts a child? Can you make non-arbitrary distinctions here?

The question is not whether a homosexual couple after having received from the state the rights to a child through adoption, possesses those rights. Certainly they do just as the slave owners possessed the rights to their slaves as recognized by the law of the land under British colonialism. The question is whether or not they possess any natural right in the first place whereby society is somehow obligated to consider them likely candidates for the placement of the child, just as was the question with respect to the natural right of the slave owners to have such ownership.

And before you argue that a child needs a mother and a father, consider a child who loses a parent... how is that any more of a family than the one that never had that second parent? What about a child that loses both parents... should he or she not be allowed any parents unless they are a male and female couple? Is life in an orphanage with no parents a better solution?

Where can you draw meaningful distinctions here?

Being a child whose father was murdered while I was six, and growing up in a single parent household, and having a mother who is an active "lesbian", I can honestly say the subject is near and dear to my own heart. Certainly, I would not advocate the removal of children from their natural single parent in such a case. While I do not know the statistics, or whether they are available, I would wager that many individuals involved in homosexual relationships have, from a previous marriage, childen in their home. My mother has the children of her lover still in the home wherein she resides and I have known personally many in such circumstances.

I perfectly understand that children may come of age without benefit of mother or father or either in the home. However, we must not institutionalize such a scenario. Real equality is not possible. There are children who despite our best efforts will not have what other children have.

While adoption and the placement of children is again adjacent to the topic, it also can derail us from the core subject. I will say that the natural course of child placement is certainly with next of kin. Grandparents, aunts and uncles, and other kin are good candidates and I would even say that a single grandparent could be preferable to strangers. But if it is determined that placement outside the family is best, the standards for that placement must be very high and especially for younger children must include a stable married man and woman.

My course of thought through which I arrive at the question of whether or not there exists any natural obligation upon the human race to civilly establish familial rights for homosexual couples starts with the question of whether or not there is any obligation on society to establish a marriage contract for any couple whatsoever.

The basis whereupon I see evidence that we are obligated to provide a marriage contract for couples is the natural right of the human family. It does appear self-evident that compacted within the natural right of life is that of the family. Indeed, the right of life comes through the natural order of the human family.

While arguments have been raised to the end that reproduction is not the basis of the human family, I am not yet convinced. While a step-father or step-mother indeed can be a tremendous benefit to a human family, there cannot be one without reproduction.

I honor and respect the right of homosexual couples to cohabit, to share property, to engage in their relationships as they see fit and to freely pursue happiness as it is understood by them. But I cannot find any natural obligation of society or of any third party to grant the same legal distinction provided for the legal consideration of the human family.

Respectfully

-a-train

[Moving to Independence?]

D&C 57 will get you started.

Brigham Young said:

Before we were driven out of Missouri I had a vision, if I would dare to say that I had a vision, and saw that the people would go to the east, to the north and to the west; but we should go back to Jackson County from the west. When this people return to the Centre Stake of Zion, they will go from the west.

-a-train

[freemasonry and mormons]

2. No one that I know believes that God lived on this earth. Where do you read this?

What? The scriptures as a whole testify that God came to this earth, lived out the human condition, suffered and died, and rose again.

Mosiah 3:5-8

For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men. And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

-a-train

[What is the significance of the Temple that will be built in Kansas City?]

If we are looking to get at the question of whether or not this temple fulfills prophecies made long ago concerning the region, I'd say not really. The temples to be built and activities to be accomplished as outlined in our scriptures and in the prophecies of latter day oracles do not include with any specificity this temple.

Regardless, it was not until 1976 when the extermination order of 1838 was rescinded. In the previous 32 years, the growth of the church in this area has been dramatic. There are now stakes were there were branches. This temple is the culmination of many years of hard work and diligence in the area.

The time will ultimately come wherein the Church headquarters will move to Independence, but we still have much to accomplish before then.

-a-train

[Founding Fathers = Christian men?]

So Aesa,

What are you saying? We understand that the Framers were skeptic disbelievers concerning priestly activities, miracles, revelations, prophecies, and so forth. They used reason to conclude the will of God in nature and among men. Some honored Jesus and some did not.

What are you trying to say here? To the LDS, this is celebrated. The LDS believe that the Framers were indeed surrounded by a fallen and lost religious world: one filled with misconceptions and falsehoods. We share their skepticism and honor their ability to demonstrate their faith while maintaining a seperation of Church and State.

We further recognize the natural human right to worship Allah, Krishna, Jesus of Nazareth, Jehovah, Ra, or whatever diety the individual may believe in. Further, for those whose life paradigm does not include any Supreme Being and whose ambition in life does not include any imitation of any divine characteristics of any diety, they are under no compulsion to engage in any worship or profession of religion.

We acknowledge the self-evident natural rights of man as presented by the Framers. Be they the bestowal of the Christian God or the Big Bang, they are regardless in place and immovable by any effort on the part of society. Certainly we believe their origin is in God Almighty and that through Jesus Christ, but we also acknowledge that the individual is under no obligation from society to profess it. In fact, among those rights is the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, and to deny that right is to indeed deny God.

-a-train

[Guy Fawkes - Terrorist ???]

If a person is charged with a crime, they should stand trial and are innocent until proven guilty. To say that someone is a "terrorist" without a trial is either a foolish name-calling game or a pronouncement of guilt without a trial, neither is desirable nor a sign of prudence in the accuser.

Let the accused be tried for their crimes and the meaningless scare tactics of threats of "terrorism" cease.

-a-train

[Non-member wife doesn't want me to go to church]

You need to find out what her concerns are if they are ever to be addressed.

-a-train

[Homosexuality...]

You are 100% right about the origin of same gender attraction being completely inconsequential. It is just as the origin of liking cars, gambling, skiing, fishing, money, you name it. Perhaps someone's favorite color is red. Perhaps someone has strong urges to drink alcohol. Perhaps someone can't seem to stop thinking about science. The origin of likes and dislikes has no effect on morality, on social propriety, on our rights as human beings.

I can say that there are many activities that I would engage in if I were not LDS, activities that are tempting. I don't think anyone goes without temptations to break the commandments of the LORD. In fact, I know that no one goes without tempation, not even the Saviour lived on this earth without temptation.

Does the origin and nature of that temptation matter? Does it matter if I am tempted to break the word of wisdom rather than skip out on paying tithing? What if I am tempted to cheat on a test, is that worse than the temptation to shoplift? Can we really quantify temptation? Can we put a greater value on one temptation than another? Does the intensity of that temptation act as a multiplier or is its function more complex? Does any of that even matter?

The standard which the LORD has set does not change and is fixed regardless of the temptations we suffer.

I think the special consideration given to tempations of same gender attraction have come into being through bigotry and pride. The many years of contempt for those so tempted has built up the issue. Perhaps parents with good intentions have perpetuated the hatred for same gender attraction as a hopeful cure to its effects in their children, I have seen parents take up such an approach. The myths about it being so completely inhuman are what has so many looking for a "gay gene" or some other fundamental defect or characteristic.

We need to get over it. Tis human. It goes all the way through man's history to antiquity. And although the first murderer is documented and loathed in our scriptures, the first "gay men" were not considerable enough to demand mention. Perhaps that is because it, like so many other temptations, is so typical. It takes a real deviation from natural human nature to kill an innocent man for worldly gain. But to be attracted to others and to desire affection is almost universal.

We can rest assured that homosexuality will be alive and well in some form or another till the end of the end. From the looks of it, it will be more socially apparent and perhaps more commonly indulged in. But I can't say that is any different for a multitude of worldly pleasures of which we have been commanded to avoid.

My strongest advice to a married man tempted with same gender attraction is to be mindful of this lie:

"You can't be happy in this marriage because you are gay and thus incompatible with this woman."

Do not fall for that. It is the very SAME lie that is given to straight men who leave their wives for, or cheat on them with other women. The only difference is that they feel incompatible for other reasons, that's all. Men attracted to other men are not the only ones who find themselves more sexually attracted to people other than their wife. The allure is the unknown. The imagination portrays something exciting and different, whereas the wife of a lifetime seems the same. All of this is the Devil's trick, for all the while, your very wife is the object of another man's fantasy.

I find little difference between sexual temptations regardless of the object of that temptation. Don't give certain temptation's too much credit. That's how they get the best of us.

-a-train

[United Order and distribution of wealth]

Just wanna make sure I understand you correctly...you would like to see welfare be a purely donation-type system? (I don't)

I would completely do away with ALL federal social welfare programs. They are NOT designed to benefit the poor and they DON'T. They only benefit the most wealthy.

Do you support tax relief for the poor and a little more tax responsibility for the uber rich?...to alleviate the stress on the middle class? (I do)

MAJOR TAX RELIEF. If we are talking about federal income tax, I support a complete repeal of the 16th Amendment. The whole income tax is one great mess that is simply another means by which the most wealthy and connected confiscate more wealth from the masses. It is completely unnecessary and our great Union expanded and rose to a mighty world power for 136 years without it.

Social Security is only a tax on the poorest Americans. It is only levied on the first $106,800 of income. So, a man making $1 million, a man making $10 million, a man making $100 million, and a man making $106,800 will all pay the same dollar figure in 2009 for social security taxes. Every American making less than 106,800 will pay 12.4% of their taxable income to social security, right down to every last single mom making minimum wage at Taco Bell. So while she pays 12.5%, the man making $10 million pays .00125% (yes, about 1/10th of 1 percent). While he makes about 625 times more than her, he only pays about 6 times more social security.

That is only the beginning of inequality dealing with social security. In short, I would abolish it. Medicare and medicaid would also both be done away. Health care costs in this country would almost collapse. Affordability would suddenly seem miraculous.

What has been perpetrated is that the greed of the unwealthy has been used to create a system that actually perpetuates the inequality. It is the wealthy that is pushing all of this. They hire a politician to go out on stage and tell the people that he is going to give them money out of the pockets of the super rich and the masses sign off on it while the whole complicated mess actually takes from the poor and gives to the rich. That is the simple cold truth of the matter.

You have more confidence in those most capable to give than I do. Throughout history, the wealthy has not been a source of charity, but rather tyrany and oppression. Generally this social class is not a class of Christlike characteristics.

You misunderstand me. The super wealthy are not going to give a penny to the poor and that is exactly why I support a 100% repeal of the income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, and all federal direct income taxes. These schemes rob the poor and give to the rich.

We have seen this in action in the past 8 years with the tax break for the wealthy. I have seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I didn't see these people "freely donating" to the needy. Seeing what "non-government people of power" have done in the stock market and housing market...I suspect the charity thing would be just as screwed up as the government has it right now, only it would happen a lot faster.

Bush is an actor on a stage. With the lights up high and the props in place, he fights valiantly against foes. When the curtain closes, the make-up comes off and he and the other actors go out and have a drink and enjoy the profits from their show.

The mega-wealthy are trying to break the backs of the liberty loving people and convince everyone that socialism is necessary. Bush was used to make the masses pray for socialism and it is working. People everywhere are thinking the same thing you just said. They want our government to tax those wealthy people. And the legislation to that end is coming. And with that in place, it will not seem so bad when they give us another round of tax hikes, that's all this really is.

I think independent charities are a fantanstic option for people and I am so glad that they are out there. What a lot of people don't realize is they receive money from their state and federal government in the form of subsodies and grants every year. Without government contributions, many of them would go belly-up.

Unfortunately these independent charities are always one of the first things to go when the economy weakens. I have seen a dozen charities forced to close their doors in just the past two months...where are the people to swoop in to "freely give" right now? They're holding onto their money tighter than ever to maintain their quality of life. Then the government's assistance is inevitable and because we live in such an unChristlike world, the governemtn has to even increase their help (for example, the extension of unemployment benefits, opening more homeless shelters, etc).

This is all part of the inflation/deflation scam. The Federal Reserve builds bubbles until they burst. Then the people cry for intervention, sometimes we get the intervention whether we want it or not (nationalization of banking and the bailout for example). It is a hoax.

Where did the government get all that money for the recent bailout? Did they tax the rich? They simply create more money out of thin air. Where does the value come from? It comes from the value already held in dollars in circulation. Thus, prices go way higher. Everything you buy over the next several years will have that tax included in the price. It is the inflation tax. The mega wealthy only pay a tiny portion because this is a tax on the dollar itself, not dollar denominated assets per se. The cash poor asset wealthy mega-rich don't really even pay it. Meanwhile, they directly benefit from it.

Thus, the mega wealthy push for these socialist programs and tax schemes by funding slick politicians who cry about how evil and nasty those mean old rich people are and how they are going to tax them and help the poor. It is a scam.

They cry about a shelter that will close without taking money from everyone. Perhaps we wouldn't even need it if we didn't take everyone's money and give it to the rich.

This country raised the standard of living for millions of people who came from all over the world for centuries before there was any federal social welfare programs. Today it continues to do so in spite of those programs, not because of them.

-a-train

[Warning: Sensitive political question]

Bush's stance on issues like abortion and gay marriage were a significant factor in his reelection 4 years ago. I think it's safe to say that he let some people down. Personally, I think that there are far more important issues at stake when I go to the voting booth. I have my own personal opinions on abortion and gay marriage, but they are a very miniscule factor in who I vote for.

Exactly. The Christian right is being bamboozled. It floods to the polls to vote in someone who has no real care for it and its principles only because he/she pays lip service to pro-life and pro-family: GEORGE W. BUSH.

Then, the Christian right seems to have nowhere to turn because the Democrats are the only alternative. The only thing holding them back from a third party victory is their own disbelief.

-a-train

[Are you a racist!!]

I think that "racism" is used for political purposes often. I have heard many say that if a white man didn't vote for Obama it is because he is racist. Various pieces of legislature that have been proposed over the years have been called "pro-minority". Legislators and their constituents who do not support such bills for one reason or another have often been labelled "racists".

Today, the Church is facing charges of bigotry at the steps of her temples. The truth is that the prophets are not bigoted against individuals attracted to members of the same gender. The reasoning for support of Prop 8 is not "anti-gay" but "pro-family". But the trick is to say that those not supporting "gay-rights" can only have one reason: BIGOTRY.

This is an old tactic. It is shaming people into submission. It probably goes back all the way to antiquity. It is used on the issue of abortion with "pro-lifers" calling "pro-choicers" "murderers" and "pro-choicers" calling "pro-lifers" "anti-women's rights". It is used on the subject of welfare. It was used both ways on the subject of slavery.

A reasoned approach to a given subject is thrown out the window and the proponents of the reasoning are projected as bigots hiding behind excuses.

How can we avoid all of this? What is to be done? We base our vote, our support, or advocacy on good reason and the natural human rights of the individual and refrain from accusations. Everyone agrees that mudslinging in campaigning is nasty and uncalled for. And yet we keep voting those same mudslingers into office.

I can remember seeing anti-McCain, anti-Huckabee, anti-Romney, anti-Obama, anti-Clinton, and virtually every presidential candidate last year. I can remember each candidate continually telling the public the flaws and sins of the others. I can remember all of this and one striking exception: RON PAUL. As far as I can tell, his campaign spent not a dime in negative attack adds. I never once heard him say that the other candidates were bad or had committed various sins. He spoke on reason. His example was tremendous.

"Candidates like that can't get elected a-train!" Yes, I understand that as long as the people keep buying those same old tactics, your right. But if we ever intend to get to real business and get past all this muck, we are going to have to start voting on principle and not partisan politics. Even now I could be scorned and accused of scorning and accusing the politicians who make attack adds.

"Racism" is one of an assortment of weapons in the arsenal of ridicule. It is just another finger of scorn pointing from the great and spacious building.

-a-train

[United Order and distribution of wealth]

Elder Romney: "Notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

"At the end of the year [1965] parties affiliated with the [socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland; constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society."

This whole process is the aim and goal of Fabian Socialists. Fabian Socialism is this notion of implementing socialism through a slow gradual means, one piece of legislation at a time. The original Fabian Society used a turtle as its symbol and named itself after the Fabian strategy of Fabius Maximus who defeated Hannibal by wearing his troops down slowly over time while avoiding any direct and decisive battle.

This is the main reason I am such an opponent to small units of socialism, because they lead to more and more and more. I have my posterity to think about.

-a-train

[United Order and distribution of wealth]

I agree with some of your perspective, although you and I have different concepts of the term "slave".

There must be a way to help our needy and eliminate the likelihood of slowly adding and growing that system. (moderation in all things) I think our own system has been slowly plundered and corrupted over the years. I would like to see it get back to what it was originally intended to do.

Back in the days of the scriptures...church and government were far more intertwined than it is now. There was generally one religion for a people, so their government was also their faith. In this nation with so many different faiths, having faith rule government is not a possibility...so how else are we to help the needy? Do we just let them starve and die?

Of course not. We help them, directly. We get people to help out in supporting both with time and means the work of helping the poor. There are hundreds of charitable organizations in any given metro area which have all come about privately. They are all competing for donations and volunteers. The taxed-to-death middle class could afford to give a lot more support to these institutions if they were not so taxed.

With a multitude of various organizations, whether they are faith based or community based, many different ideas will be tried and tested. We call that a free market of ideas. The efficacy of any one notion will be much more easily tested against other ideas than in a system where only a selected group of ideas is enacted by a single monolithic bureaucracy.

Plus, if you decide that a given organization is more effective than another, you have the agency to give of your time and means to that one, thus empowering the better institution. Such a possibility does not exist in a single government monopoly on helping the poor.

We are constantly being preached to by proponents of big government that without given government programs people will starve and go homeless and naked. It is a hoax. On any given night I can walk into any one of over a dozen shelters in my metro area and get food, clothing, and a place for the night, no questions asked.

Try this. Use the internet and locate as many such organizations in your area. Perhaps someone already has a website with links and information about metro organizations. You may be shocked to see just how much is available. That is the true spirit of Christianity.

James put it this way:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

Look at verse 25 above that. He calls the gospel "the perfect law of liberty".

One major conflict of interests that results from government welfare which was feared by the framers is that if allowed to exchange votes for money, the voting decisions of welfare recipients could be manipulated. In other words, people on welfare will be more likely to vote in favor thereof or for candidates that promise it.

The original intention of the Framers was evident in their writings and in the Constitution. They respected the right to property and believed in the people to care for one another. They did not trust the care of the poor to politics. They felt the matter best handled locally and certainly did not advocate federal welfarism as that was deemed unconstitutional.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

This view was shared throughout the 19th Century. In fact, the Supreme Court upheld that such actions were unconstitutional until 1937.

[i must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded. - President Franklin Pierce while vetoing a bill that granted federal social welfare, 1854

What is the "whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded"?

Dallin H. Oaks wrote:

I see divine inspiration in these four great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution:

• the separation of powers in the three branches of government;

• the Bill of Rights;

• the division of powers between the states and the federal government; and

• the application of popular sovereignty.

The reason for such principles? The natural rights of man, also known as LIBERTY. Read The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson.

Elder Oaks also said:

U.S. citizens should follow the First Presidency’s counsel to study the Constitution. They should be familiar with its great fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. They should oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals.

Also, look at this. I saved this Ensign booklet and have it this day. It is on my bookshelf, it is 21 years old. It teaches so plainly: "To keep our freedom we must obey the LORD and obey the Constitution."

Big Government bureaucrats who wish to enrich themselves at the cost of our liberty (the definition of slavery) make promises of prosperity and wealth through unconstitutional means. They lull us with the notions of prosperity and they scorn us with accusations of contempt for the welfare of our fellow beings. Many even stoop so low as to accuse the framers of caring not for the poor.

This re-writing of history needs to stop. We need to see through the lies and follow the prophets.

One of the arguments for federal welfare is that many rich self-interested people will not help the poor and thus it is necessary to tax them to obtain the funds needed to help the poor. This makes no sense to me. If it is true that these big-business types don't want to help the poor, why would we give what money we have for the poor to politicians that only seek out the interests of these greedy people?

The Framers, the scriptures, the Prophets, and most importantly the Saviour Himself, all show us the same proper method for caring for the poor and not a single one advocates transferring our individual obligation to any government bureaucracy.

-a-train

[United Order and distribution of wealth]

Mosiah 18:27 And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.

4 Ne. 1: 3

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

Notice that Alma did not command the Church to shift their obligation to the poor over to some bureaucracy. You will not find that notion in our scriptures, Jesus taught by word and deed the methods by which we should help the poor. Among those methods were not found the notion of petition to governments to tax the general populace and undertake the work of welfare. The cold heartless halls of government cannot build up the poor and give to them those things which are truly needful.

The whole notion of poverty solved by government is a fake. The swindling politicians and bureaucrats are looking out for themselves and for the rich that support them, not for the poor. They pay a mountain of lip service to their help and give but a penny. Meanwhile they take as much as the general public can tolerate and spend it in wars and government programs designed to benefit but a tiny privilidged minorty. All the while, our power to truly help the poor is limited by the burden of taxation for these insidious schemes.

How do we know who to trust? Anyone asking us to sacrifice liberty is the first suspect.

-a-train

[United Order and distribution of wealth]

I love reading your posts A-Train...they're always so well written and you make a lot of sense.

BUT, I have family that are in Sweden... they're not Slaves. Their quality of life is better than most of ours here in the states. (I'm not socialist, I'm just sayin)

Thanks. And no, the Swedish people are not slaves to the extent as were the African slaves of the colonial British Empire, and neither are Americans or even Russians. That reality is used by the crafty methods of fabian socialism. The people living in NAZI Germany leading up to the war saw tremendous increases in the general standard of living.

But what does all that matter? You know as well as I that politicians will always blame one another for poor economic conditions and take credit for good, regardless of whether the circumstances either negative or positive were caused by government at all. What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to give people liberty or government benefits at the cost of liberty? Jesus proclaimed liberty. Take a look at Jeremiah 34 and read about what happened to the Jews when they forgot to proclaim liberty.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty god! I know not what course others may take; but, as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! ---Patrick Henry

-a-train