Sure enough, a bit of research revealed George to be my grandmother’s first cousin, although he was born just a few years before my mother. My grandparents, like George, had been born and raised in Malad, but they moved away. My mother was born and raised in another state and never had the chance to meet her older second cousin. In fact, she wasn’t even aware of him.

During World War II, while my mother was in high school, George joined the Marines. At age 19 he fought the Japanese on Peleliu Island. If you’ve ever seen the HBO series, The Pacific, you will have an idea of the horror this young man faced. He was killed in action.

I’ve never met any of my Stocking relations who, for all I know, are ordinary people. But I’m sure George’s family was devastated by his untimely death. Here was a promising young man – the last of six children – who would never marry or have children or enjoy the most satisfying experiences of family life. (Seeing George’s grave also made me think of my own son, currently serving as a Marine in Afghanistan.) My mother, by contrast, has enjoyed a full life. She turned 84 a couple days ago. Last week we had a family reunion for her descendants and more than 40 people attended. It was a wonderful event, made possible in no small part by the freedoms secured by those whose blood has protected this country – patriots whom are easy to forget.

We should try to remember the many George Morgan Stockings who made us free.

First, Americans are rightfully outraged by the regulatory foolishness that contributed to the problem.  For example, I understand the two quasi-government agencies that played a major role in this catastrophe — Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac — offered NINJA loans.  These are loans that required No Income, No Job, and No Assets.  What kind of foolishness was this?  Should we be surprised that many of the recipients of these loans have defaulted?  Should we be surprised when healthy banks are required to buy these mortgages that they become financially sick too?

Second, some of the leaders of lending institutions profited enormously, some might say profanely.  Some leaders are well connected within the Washington DC political class.  They are members of both parties and have made monetary contributions to both parties.  For example, Franklin Raines, now an advisor to Barack Obama, pocketed $50 million (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html)

Third, this problem is of bi-partisan creation.  Members of Congress in both parties pushed the legislation and regulations, which evolved during the administrations of President Bush and past Presidents.  Some people trace the origin of our current regulation back to Bill Clinton’s administration, others as far back as Jimmy Carter. In any case, members of both parties thought the regulations were a good idea.  For this reason, I doubt we will see Enron-type Congressional hearings into this fiasco because it would embarrass sitting members of Congress.

Finally, the mess was made possible by government leaders who acted out of good intentions.  They wanted to make home ownership (‘the American Dream’) more accessible to low-income Americans.  But their good intentions backfired when the system ran amok by offering NINJA loans and other ridiculous practices.

Regardless of where we pin blame, it seems clear that despite America’s enormous wealth our finances are not unlimited.  We simply cannot afford to give everybody anything they want, whether it be cheap home ownership, free health care, free transportation, or whatever.  The solution to poverty is education, not subsided loans or free housing or socialized risk.

The book is wonderful and moved me to tears. The stories illustrate what faith in God really is and that ordinary people can have their Job-like trials. I highly recommend it to all my LDS friends.

This is news?

The article also provides a lengthy rehash of McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five Scandal in which McCain and four other Senators were censured by the Senate in 1991 (the Times fails to mention the others were Democrats). Years ago McCain openly acknowledged his mistakes in the Keating scandal and applied the lessons learned to a renewed commitment to ethics in government.

In my opinion, the Times piece isn’t news but a smear job. The theme is that McCain has an established pattern of making questionable decisions. But only by carefully reading and re-reading the article to dig out the facts do you realize its narrative is based entirely on ancient political history, rumor, and innuendo.

Should we believe everything we read? I learned many years ago to be generally skeptical of journalists, particularly when they report on politics or religion.

As a teenager in 1972, I worked for Richard Nixon’s re-election by delivering campaign literature door to door in my California hometown. I was rewarded by being bused to a rally of young Republicans at a downtown Los Angeles hotel. The rally offered food and music and a chance to mingle with other young people. I think there was something like two thousand of us there. The highlight of the rally for us was President Nixon’s flying in by helicopter and waving to us as he disembarked and entered the hotel. At some point during the event, I got bored and wandered to the front of the hotel with a few other rally attendees. On the opposite side of the street we saw less than a dozen anti-war protestors. A shouting match ensued between us and the protestors, and rally organizers hastily ushered us to the back of the hotel.

The next day, I was eager to see what the Los Angeles Times reported about our rally. After much looking, I finally found a tiny paragraph buried somewhere in the middle of the paper. But to my astonishment, there was a front page story talking about thousands of anti-war protesters choking the streets. Where were these legions of protestors and why had I not seen them?

Since then I’ve been skeptical of journalists, particularly when they have an agenda. It’s amazing how little reporting of direct factual observation occurs, and how much time is devoted to repeating what others said happened, or even more subjectively, what others say an event means. Unfortunately, people are so busy these days that they tend to simply accept what they hear or read without questioning it. We would all do well to ask ourselves, where are the hard facts that support this story?

I’m not a big McCain fan. But this hit piece does more damage to the sagging reputation of The New York Times than it does to John McCain.

One article by Lee Cary states Obama’s spiritual mentor was Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright who in turn was heavily influenced by Dr. James H. Cone, a strong proponent of Africentric theology and radical Black Power. Cary wants the public to understand that “while Barack is the softer, social justice side of black liberation theology, Michelle is the harder anti-white-supremacy side.” Cary thus associates Michelle Obama with black hardliners who fundamentally distrust and devalue whites and anything they may have accomplished. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain and the liberation of Kuwait are allegedly dismissed as the victories of (white) racist capitalist America over other equally corrupt systems. The evidence cited for Mrs. Obama’s views is a recent public comment that “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Another article by Kyle-Anne Shiver quotes The Audacity of Hope, in which Obama states,

…whatever preconceived notions white Americans may continue to hold, the overwhelming majority of them these days are able – if given the time – to look beyond race in making their judgments of people.

Shiver then states, “The question now… [is] whether Obama can measure up to the same standard he sets for white people.” Shiver shares her impressions of a personal visit to Trinity UCC in Chicago. Shiver found (as did Cary) that the sermons and bookstore were exclusively Afro-Centric. Shiver not only questions why a candidate for President does not worship in a congregation that includes all races, she implicitly questions whether Trinity UCC is too overtly politicized to be considered a religious organization at all. (I also heard comments to this effect in a radio interview with her this afternoon in Seattle.) Shriver notes:

Now, I have worshipped hand-in-hand with my black brothers and sisters in my own Catholic Church, as well as in predominantly black congregations of protestant denominations. It is our one faith in our one Lord that holds sway in our hearts and minds.

I would like to respond to these two articles. First of all, I’m white, Mormon, and tend to vote Republican. I don’t have a dog in this fight except for the idea some might consider me a racist due purely to the fact that I am a white, Mormon, Republican. There is no point trying to reason with people who think that way, and that’s not the issue I want to address here anyhow.

I would like to respond to the idea that there is something alarming about a political candidate who attends a church that relegates God to the back of the bus in favor of radical, social activism.

It is reasonable to ask whether the candidate adopts the political teachings of an organization such as the UCC. For example, does Barack see the world through the lens of class-warfare such that whites are the source of all evil? How should the government address racism? What responsibilities do all races have for combating the problem? Those are legitimate questions that I hope Barack answers. In the meantime, I acknowledge that his remark about whites looking beyond race strikes me as positive, not negative. Acknowledging prejudice to be a human problem (not just a white problem) is being realistic. And acknowledging racism as an issue for a black Presidential candidate is not the same as pinning all the world’s problems on white oppression.

But some people are raising another question which I think is wrong. That is: Can a candidate who belongs to a political-activist-centered church really have God in his or her heart? I assert that this question is politically irrelevant.  Isn’t weighing a candidate’s faith just another way of judging the candidate’s religion against the yardstick of our own? “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7) I take that to mean humans are not good judges of religious purity. Our founding fathers wisely inserted Constitutional stipulations against religious correctness for office holders.

Mitt Romney’s candidacy was at times driven to distraction by comments and questions about Mormonism. On the political left were some of the very people who claimed Bill Clinton’s extra-marital affairs had no bearing on his performance in office, and yet they suddenly insisted on discussing details of Mormon theology and history. And on the political right were some very people who worry about surrendering US sovereignty to a one-world-government, and yet they seem to expect other Americans to conform their relationship to God to some kind of majority rule.

Let’s not repeat such irrelevant, foolish and un-American behavior.

When looking at a candidate’s religious background, it is important to consider universal qualities such as honesty, fidelity, a sense of justice, and guiding principles of political ideology. I would be alarmed about Barack’s religion if he encouraged voters to think he was God’s chosen candidate. Thankfully, he doesn’t.  And I don’t care whether he believes in God in exactly the same way as I do. What matters is how the teachings of his faith would most likely influence his actions in government.

The movie whetted my appetite for more on the subject. After reading a few book reviews, I purchased The Godless Constitution by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. The authors review the events leading up to the “godless” separation between religion and government that has become our legal tradition. (Some argued in 1789 against adopting the Constitution, calling it “godless” because it did not officially recognize Christianity.) The authors discuss John Locke whose ideas would become the foundation for religious freedom in America. They describe Roger Williams who, to the consternation of his contemporaries, established a government in Rhode Island that had no church connection. Williams was deeply religious and felt government’s involving itself in church business was sacrilege. Even though Williams had major theological problems with other faiths, he was firmly committed to the principle of religious freedom for all. The authors also discuss Thomas Jefferson and his famous letter with the “wall of separation” phrase and his statute of religious freedom in Virginia which led to our Bill of Rights. The founding fathers recognized that unless someone’s faith generated public harm, the state should not be involved. I enjoyed the book and recommend it. I just hope my friends don’t see the “godless” title and dismiss the work as anti-religious without reading it.

I am now looking for another good book on the subject with a differing point of view.

The Islamofacist bigotry that led zealots to hijack and crash airliners into buildings is clearly something Americans must not tolerate. President Bush’s response has been to replace terrorist-sponsoring governments in Afghanistan and Iraq with democracies, hoping that the new governments will become models for other troubled Islamic nations. The hope is that if Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and other peoples with diverse and conflicting religious views (as well as a violent past) can learn to live together peacefully in a democracy, then other nations will follow suit. It’s a wild gamble –a gamble perhaps worth taking — but a gamble nonetheless.

Democracies by their very nature cannot be stronger than the character of their people. The Weimar Republic failed in Germany after World War I and led straight to the Third Reich. We still don’t know where the democracy in Russia will lead. History suggests it takes more than one generation for people to learn to value the ideal of democratic fairness more than their own uptopian dreams. Americans got off to a great start in 1789 with the Constitution, but by then they had been working steadily at principles of self-government for a hundred and fifty years. I don’t know how long it will take for the people of the Middle East to learn to live peacefully together, but it may take a long, long time. Look how long it took for white man and red man to learn to get along! On the other hand, post World-War II Germany and Japan seem to be flourishing as peaceful democracies.

The foundation of democracy is the conviction of the citizenry that it is better to be fair than to be right. This is basically the Golden Rule set in a political context. Citizens must love their neighbors’ rights as much as they love their own. In a nation of political equals, the rights of all are indistinguishable.

Religious bigotry is something we will always have with us, even in America. We have yet to see, for example, a Jewish President of the United States. It may be many years before we have a Mormon President or an Islamic President. We must expect a certain level of religious bigotry in any free country.

But when bigotry in America raises its ugly head, we have a right and a duty to challenge it. But not with bullets or bombs. I think John F. Kennedy gave us the pattern for combat in his 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Challenging anti-Catholicism, then Senator Kennedy stated,

“If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.”

Substitute the word “Mormon” for “Catholic” and “5 million” for “40 million” and you have a powerful weapon for combating Mormon haters. What made Kennedy’s speech so powerful was not just its eloquence but it’s irrefutable logic.

If it’s true that after two centuries of democracy, America is not ready for a Mormon in the White House, what message does this send to the Middle East? We have work to do.

Prior to my interest in Romney’s candidacy, I had considered America a “Christian” nation, called by God to play an important role in the world. And since the majority of Americans are (more or less) Christian, I simply accepted the claims of the Religious Right that America is a “Christian nation.” But to be honest, I didn’t think about the subject very deeply. I certainly didn’t know what they meant by the phrase.

The events attending Romney’s campaign revealed that many in the Religious Right are openly prejudiced against Americans who do not fit their definition of “Christian.” This disturbed me and motivated me to rethink the subject.

I have recommitted myself to the principle of separation of church and state. I still believe that God inspired our (imperfect) founding fathers to write the Constitution. The Constitution was not and never will equate to holy writ. But if there is any divine spark in that document, it lies in its guarantees for relgious freedom. I am deeply appreciative of the Constitution’s rigidly neutral stipulations regarding religion. Maintaining strict separation between civil law and religion is the only way to allow Americans to worship as they please.

Government must consider as irrelevant all religious issues that do not pertain to the here and now. Excluding others from full civil participation based on tests of religious correctness is unconstitutional, wrong, and un-American.

Is America a “Christian Nation”? No! — not in the sense that the “Christian” faith (whatever that is) should enjoy special privileges in Government. All faiths in America (including atheism) must be treated equally before the law.

Should the Republican Party strive to be America’s “Christian Party”? Again, the answer is No!