Polygamists Consider Who to Vote for

      Enjoyable bit of campaigning today, as I received a call and follow-up email from the polygamist community, asking my views concerning them.

      One question they asked was, "Do you believe government should have the right to prohibit consenting adult relationships among those who practice polygamy?

      My answer was: "If no harm is being done to others, then I say it is a matter of religion, even protected as such under the Constitution. I do, however, see it as a protection of youth that they should not be included, especially since there appear to be times when they are assigned to husbands, as opposed to reaching on their own, without direction, a decision as to who they marry. Coercion should also be considered. If the adult women are being coerced to marry, that is wrong. Perhaps we should get rid of the laws against bigamy, but replace them with laws against coerced marriages." 

If Child Porn Bad, So is Adult Porn

Is anyone opposed to laws against child pornography? Where is the person who says child pornography should be allowed?

Yet, a portion of those who say no to child porn argue adult porn is a right that should not be invaded. The idea of putting someone in jail for looking at a picture is revolting and stupid, they argue.

Me? I do not see the difference. If we would protect children from being victimized by pornography, why would we not also protect adults from being victimized by the same thing?

Women are as important as children. It could be argued that to not protect them is discrimination on the basis of age.

Tax 'Em All

Angry, angry. There are those who are upset with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for weighing in on civic matters while maintaining tax-exempt status.

Yank that tax-free status, they say.

Well, then, maybe we should. Now, churches are not alone in having tax-exempt status and yet weighing in on political issues. Some organizations are set up for that very purpose. They are set with the intent of wielding political influence. There is a movement against corporate personhood, for example, and some of those entities are set up as non-profit. There very purpose is political. The church of Jesus Christ is not. It is a religious organization. That is its purpose. It just happens to get involved in ballot initiates and matters that are legislated because they are not only political, but moral issues.

So, certainly include all other non-profits if we are to change the law.

What can we do? Leave their income tax exempt, except for the income they use to campaign and lobby with. If  they advertise or campaign for or against abortion, corporate personhood, or whatever, tax 'em. Tax 'em all.

This would not keep them from speaking on social matters, or moral concerns. A person can express his or her opinion in public in other ways than advertising. Let them continue to do so, without being taxed. It is only when they expend money on their cause that their income would be taxed.

Well, this solution is not perfect. It does have a flaw. As soon as they are taxed, these organizations are going to suggest their freedom of speech is being taxed, it is being limited. Would the Court hold that the income is being taxed, or would it say it is free speech that is being taxed?

As the law now stands, we cannot contribute to political causes and write our expenses off our taxes. It could be argued, by the same reasoning, our free speech is being taxed.

Planned Parenthood in Same Boat With Churches on Taxes

So, Planned Parenthood and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have the same problem. If they involve themselves in politics in the wrong way, they are going to lose their tax-exempt status.

Our beloved tax code says a tax-exempt organization "may intervene in political campaigns as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare."

I guess arguing for or against abortion, for or against same-sex marriage, and for or against gambling all fit in the "social welfare" category.

But, if the entity endorses or opposes a candidate, they might be in trouble. Says, the same section of the tax code: "The promotion of social welfare does not include participation in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any political candidate."

So, the Church of Jesus Christ cannot endorse Mitt Romney. But, what of an advertisement from the Planned Parenthood Action Committee saying, "Mitt Romney is just wrong for Women." The below link says that ad is okay. I read the link, and am still cannot tell why the ad should be considered okay.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/06/01/planned-parenthood-action-fund-ad-does-not-viol/173178

http://www.doughroller.net/taxes/are-political-contributions-tax-deductable/

Wondering Whether We Needed Mr. Maughn

I wasn't alive back then, and I admit I've not studied much on what the schools really were like. But, I picture a one-room building with one teacher for all the students in it.

No principle. No janitor. No bus driver. No lunch cook. Just the students and their teacher.

Of course, that would be a school on the frontier. I imagine in 1850, a school in Boston might have offered a few more classes per building. The big cities might have even had school principles. Or, did they call them school masters, or head masters?

The point I would like to make, is that we've added a lot of administration since those days when it was just the school marm and the kids. I believe that now almost half a school's budget goes toward administration.

Should some of that be cut? Should we be laying off administrators? We probably need bus drivers, and school cooks, and janitors, but . . .

How about those guys at the top?

As I write, I search the Internet, and find in an npr.org article by John O'Connor about Florida's education.

"There is no bigger target for school criticism than what disticts spend on administrative staff and other overhead," O'Connor writes. "Joe Taxpayer wants to cry 'waste!' when he sees a bunch of bureaucrats bringing down six figures at his expense."

Well, I confess, I think back to my days in high school, and wonder if the school really would have been reduced to chaos if Mr. Maughn had not been there as principal. What if we just cut him out?

Just wondering. Just wondering.

Fix the Immigration Problem

I hear Doug Wright on KSL say he knows of no one who does not believe our immigration system needs reformed.

Indeed, both sides believe it does. Some say it wrong that it takes years to become a citizen, or years to even come to the U.S. This should surely be fixed. On the other side, some say it is wrong that foreigners are taking jobs from Americans. Why does not Congress do something about this, they ask?

My thought, as I consider that there simply isn't anyone who doesn't think our system is broken, is that this is not an issue Congress should be placing on the back burner, not an issue to wait until after an election, not an issue that we should not be facing up to.

No, my thought was more than that. It was that we elect leaders to answer problems, to come up with solutions, and massive messes deserve massive attention, as in, fix it, now, don't wait.

Well, I know it is because this is such a devisive issue that it is not quickly solved. It is an issue that divides our nation. How do you muster the resolve to go one way or the other when neither side has the public clearly on its side?

I remain of the though, though, that we should not let the issue lie, due to the division. If everyone thinks the system broken, then fix it. If it is clearly a broken system that it takes so long to become a citizen, or to come to the U.S., then fix that. If it is a broken system that allows foreigners to work here (and it might be my bias, but I do not see that as so clear cut), then fix that.

We elect leaders to fix our problems, not sit on them.

Not the Answer We Would have Given

Perhaps my favorite story from the life of the Christ takes place not during his mortal life, but after His death. Indeed, though it be my favorite story from His life, it has not yet even taken place.

It takes place at the His Second Coming. Turn to Zechariah 12:6.

"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

One of the reasons I like this scripture is that it shows Christ being kind. We -- humans all -- might have responded, "What do you mean what are these wounds? Your people did this to me. Don't play innocent with me like you don't know what these wounds are all about." Instead, He responds with love, saying, "Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."