A New Beginning

I am a very open person with my thoughts and feelings. I love to write and learn from others, it’s a passion I learned as serving a mission for the LDS Church (also known as the Mormon Church, to learn more look at my about page). I met so many people from so many different backgrounds and it was so interesting to teach them about Christianity. A lot of them rejected us but the few and elect were the ones I was able to truly love. I believe love, or charity (the pure love of Christ) is the moving force for goodness. My mission was a life-changing event for me and I will cherish it for the rest of my life.

I am a very blessed person and I grew a lot from my mission in terms of a reality check. We see things as high schoolers and we get home and see the world in a different lens. I see the world differently and I see such a need for the gospel of Jesus Christ and the need for righteousness. Lots of do things for personal gain, for example, “I want this because I will get this _____ amount of money.” Or “I’ll do this because I want to get famous.” There are many driving forces on why people do things, but inherently we should do things because it is the right thing to do. We must be moderate in our dealings, switching and glancing in between our meter of justice and mercy.

I want this to be a new beginning for me and for the world. To set aside our differences and just talk and not be afraid of the future or the tough issues. We should never be afraid, we should be filled with faith. I love the quote said by a Mormon Apostle, Elder Jeffery R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

Let us hold on to that truth that we need to keep walking and trying. We are making new discoveries as a human race everyday. But at the end of the day, things will work out and everything will be ok. Hope. Faith. Charity. Those are the driving forces to a better and improved world. May we hold on to those principles and let it be our driving force to do what is right. The world needs some hope and it sure needs some faith, but most of all it needs some charity.

-HT

The Causes of Populism: The Mexican Presidental Election of 2018

 

By Hunter Avilio Thomas and Marisa Gonzalez-Mabbutt

April 17, 2020

Introduction

Developments in the definition of populism in the past decade have frequently presented the ideology as a discourse, prescribing it with a set of ideas including a dualistic vision of the world, a will of the people, and anti-elitism. Following this ideational theory, populist attitudes remain latent in societies until they are activated. This activation depends on multiple factors, including the message and organizational framework of a populist politician as well as a political environment that includes corruption, political unresponsiveness, and “widespread failures of democratic governance that can be attributed to intentional elite behavior.” Unlike existing literature that discusses the causes of populism, including the Durkheimian mass society theory and the Downsian rational choice theory, ideational theory takes an ideological approach to populism and attempts to address its causes at the individual voter level.

Though ideational theory provides a distinct lens through which voters can be understood, the application of this theory to different case studies remains scarce. In order to assess the validity of this theory more closely, we examine the case of the Mexican presidential election of 2018. We test the ideational theory by examining the salience of populist attitudes preceding the election. We also posit that this activation of populist attitudes can be primarily attributed to the strategies and rhetoric of populist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and the political climate in Mexico during the time of the election, including mass disdain for corruption, political unresponsiveness by previous parties in power, and widespread failures of democratic governance by the elite, especially concerning increasing violence and economic disparity. In our case study, we explore the components of AMLO’s campaign and character to see where his clear message of populism was expressed to the public. In addition, we employ surveys on public opinion regarding crucial issues relating to failures of democratic governance by the elite to determine what may have triggered the activation of populist attitudes by the public during the election.

Literature Review

Existing literature examines causes of populism through large processes such as globalization and modernization, seeking to understand activation of populism at a collective level rather than an individual one. Mass society theory is particularly geared to address situations in Latin America, as it describes how isolated individuals are attracted to extreme movements, especially when there is a lack of strong political party identification. The main part of the theory argues that modernization and globalization produce a fractured society with no sense of identity. As disunity grows into dissatisfaction and society discovers that there is no outlet through which to mobilize and voice their discontent, they turn to charismatic leaders who frame an identity for them. This can also be exacerbated by the influence of the media, who may sensationalize the spectacle of the populist message.

Rational-choice theory instead views populism from an economic perspective, positing that the relationship between candidates and voters is essentially one that maximizes material self-interest for voters. In essence, rational-choice theory describes a candidate filling a supply “hole” in the market of politics for voters, especially in cases where these “loser” voters are pushed to the fringe of mainstream parties who favor globalization and market-oriented policies that have created these politically and economically unfavorable circumstances for these “loser” voters. While voters are searching for another option, a candidate acting according to this theory would cognitively craft his message to appeal to this untouched demand. These conditions are often related to other aspects of democratic failures, such as weak governance and long-term corruption. Rational-choice theory also identifies the contribution of the electoral arena, especially when parties are dismissive of issues that voters find important.

While the rational choice and mass society theories each contain important insights, there are several critiques to each. Both work within a particular field of study that fails to completely capture the political underpinnings within elections. In addition, each theory approaches populism using globalization and modernization, which is a post-modern and globalized society, fails to account for the perseverance of populism in both Latin America and the world. The most serious flaws of these theories is their “failure to address populism at the individual level…[and] their failure to grapple with populism’s ideas.”

Recent literature on populism dives into populism’s ideas and its effects on behavior, and we believe that this helps best explain the results in the 2018 Mexican presidential election and the victory of AMLO.  The ideational theory revolves around the idea of a Manichean discourse where the elite is evil, the common people are good, and the will of the people has been subverted by the conspiring elite. Ultimately, this theory emphasizes that the populist’s formation and voter’s support of the populist message is due to an appreciation of the message. This set of populist ideas or “attitudes” remains latent within a population until activated. Activation of these populist attitudes occurs primarily when “policy failures can be traced to systematic malfeasance by traditional politicians,” including corruption. Naturally, this activation must also be initiated by clear communication of a populist message by a populist candidate in both discourse and organization.

Case Study 

Case Selection

After decades of control by the PRI and twelve years of the PAN, Mexico decided to elect a political outsider for president. Though Mexico was following the recent resurgence of populism in Latin America, the activation of latent populist attitudes which encouraged voters to elect López Obrador in 2018 was especially apparent in Mexico. Analyzing this populist activation requires an examination of both the framing of the populist message from the political candidate as well as a look into public opinion surveys to evaluate voter sentiment and populist attitude activation. We note that we lack a vote choice model to analyze the elections, which severely limits our findings. Even so, we chose to evaluate the election by analyzing “voter frustration with chronic poverty and inequality, rising violence, and public corruption,” which constitute the main reasons for AMLO’s win in 2018 and were the three largest issues for Mexican voters heading into the election season.

Background: Mexico Before the Election

The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ruled Mexico for nearly a century. The PRI rarely stuck to a single ideology─rather, their goal was re-election while adjusting to the country’s needs over time; however, the party was not above corruption. For years, candidates from opposition parties tried to contest the PRI in elections but were never successful. Even with the formation of the National Action Party (PAN) in 1939 and the Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD) in 1989, wresting power from the PRI seemed impossible. As for many countries Latin America, the 1990s proved to be a time of formative change for the nation. The assassination of presidential candidate Luis Colosio and an economic downturn in 1994 finally dislodged the grip of the PRI. Mexico grew increasingly tired of the promises from the party and with their style of governance. In 2000, Vicente Fox from the PAN was elected. Fox brought some change to the country, including the seguro popular, but failed to address corruption and rising violence. After Calderon’s election in 2006, Mexico realized that it was tired of the experts and the elites, no matter the party. When AMLO made his presidential bid in 2006 and 2012, politics began to shift in Mexico. A former governor of Mexico City with a celebrated record, AMLO was a campesino, un hombre del pueblo from Tabasco who was promising radical and institutional change. He was what Mexico was looking for: a leader with a fresh new vision and the “fourth transformation” of Mexico. 

The Populist Side: Framing and Organization of Populist Ideas in the Campaign

AMLO designated himself as a principled political outsider well before the start of his third presidential campaign. Though he was the former leader of the PRD, he left the party in 2014, criticizing the party for compromising its values after supporting a PRI-led reform package that raised tax and gas prices. He then formalized his National Regeneration Movement (Morena) into a party, maintaining the purity of his ideas and incorporating a reminder of the representation he sought for darker-skinned Mexicans within the party name. AMLO’s creation of a new party a mere four years away from the following election was a particularly interesting move because of what it denotes about López Obrador’s trust in populist ideals. Though two unsuccessful campaigns with the PRD could have conceivably provided reason for the party switch, it was also quite a risky move. Hugo Chávez waited nearly 15 years before his movement translated into electoral wins on a widespread, national level. For a candidate in his mid-sixties, he could not have been sure whether the party change would lead to the height or beginning of the end of his political career. Moreover, this move challenges the part of Downsian theory that claims that populism occurs with open electoral rules as they relate to party organization. The formation of Morena put AMLO “at a considerable financial and advertising disadvantage” based on Mexico campaign laws for new parties, indicating that the creation of a new political party brings its own challenges. Taking the amount of risk into consideration, breaking away from an established party to solidify his own movement required a significant amount of individual belief in the ideas AMLO was publicly supporting. 

A crucial step following the formation of his new party would be the elucidation of the party and its leader’s platform. López Obrador repeated his views from previous elections, promoting “government representation of all, the rich and the poor, the majorities and minorities, the believers and the non-believers,the populace from the fields and from the cities, for Mexicans of all social classes, of all sexual preferences and from all cultures.” His main policies involved battling corruption and inequality, especially for the marginalized, rural populations in Mexico, and also addressed insecurity and violence. He promised to fight corruption by cutting the salaries of government officials, prohibiting public officials from working at companies and stopping the construction of the Mexico City airport.  AMLO targeted his message to indegous groups in Oaxaca, Chiapas, Gurrero, and other rural states in southern Mexico. He also promised to nationalize PEMEX and end the drug war by building the economy and giving checks to lower classes. His positions gave power to the pueblo and not to the political elite. 

Additional samples of his rhetoric show consistent and strong amounts of ideational populist discourse, including the Manichaean struggle and the will of the people. Moreover, he presented himself as an outsider of the Mexican political class. His pedigree was different: he was from Tabasco and grew up in a middle-class family, he didn’t speak English or graduate from Harvard like his predecessors, and he promised to get rid of the Mexican presidential plane by flying coach as well as driving to work. When he returned home, he talked to his old friends and neighbors as if he were one of them instead of a presidential candidate. AMLO was authentic and said what was on his mind. He was simply an ordinary Mexican, willing to do the people’s will. It is important to note, however, that López Obrador’s charisma strays from the Durkheimian charisma of the Weberian sense. AMLO stressed his working-class roots above almost all else, and though many of his critics aspire to paint him as Venezuela’s Chavez, his supporters, though fiercely loyal, tend to keep away from any godlike characterizations.

Another essential part of AMLO’s campaign organization consisted of his policies, message, and party, which consisted of purist, left-leaning ideas that the country had not seen in many years. Most Mexican political parties capture the right (PAN), the center (PRD), or are variable (PRI). While a Downsian perspective may induce us to think that AMLO was attempting to capture an untapped demand for a left-leaning politician, political preferences in Latin America would indicate otherwise. Overall, Latin Americans remain fairly conservative in their political ideology. Pushback on ideational theory might note that ideology might be secondary to populist attitudes. That is to say, perhaps AMLO cared more about carrying a populist message in his speech over his political ideology. Even with that thought, researchers show that populism “does not override traditional ideology.” Consequently, we are left with the notion that not only did López Obrador care about carefully crafting his populist message, he believed that this message and his left-leaning campaign promises would lead enough voters to realize and act on their populist attitudes─maybe, not in those exact terms, but he stood by his platform and trusted voters would as well.

The Public Side: Public Opinion and Failures in Democratic Governance

Economy

In 2016, an enormous 82% of Mexicans felt that the economy had worsened, with 53% believing their personal wealth had worsened within the last year. Mexico’s GDP growth staggered between 1% and 2.5% during Peña Nieto’s presidency, a low number for a large economy with plenty of growing room. His fiscal reforms consisted primarily of allowing foreign investment into the oil industry, which reversed the status of the traditionally state-owned enterprise. Despite the international acclaim for his policies, 57% of the country opposed the move, and only 37% of respondents thought the economy was being managed well. Levels of economic disparity remain high in Mexico and are most noticeable along the urban-rural divides. General discontent with the economy within this context shows how mass society theory fails to explain some aspects of the causes of populism, primarily because the theory focuses on social causes over other factors. Though workers could be defined as the fractured society without an identity, there is plenty of indication that this division has not come solely from modernization or globalization but based on the belief of the mismanagement of the economy by elite politicians in a post-modern society. 

Economic perceptions do not always align with reality, either. From 2012 to 2014, GDP went up in Mexico. In fact, the GDP in 2014 was the best year Mexico had in that decade. While the economy was doing relatively well in 2014, 67% of Mexicans still believed that the economy was doing poorly, which had risen from 2012. This tells us that Mexicans have a different perception of reality. Perceptions in Mexico come from citizens’ current economic situations, and these may not necessarily follow overall economic realities. Many Mexicans felt that they were not doing better economically in 2014 than any other previous year, even though GDP was rising rapidly. This shows that the average citizen may not make rational, economic decisions based on economic realities since perceptions and situations are different from realities. As such, expecting individuals to make rational, economic decisions going into the elections may not entirely hold, and the components of economic theory may not entirely explain election results. This also shows that Mexicans aren’t knowledgeable about economic statistics such as GDP. The truth is, the economy has remained stagnant for a long time and has actually gotten worse under AMLO. AMLO’s approval ratings have remained high not because of his focus on GDP but because of his initiatives to help everyday Mexicans with their basic needs. This was seen with the becas estudiantiles that were finally given to Mexican students, a program that various Mexican politicians had promised for years, but never was implemented until AMLO got to power. 

Moreover, AMLO’s platform on economic policy catered to the lower-class and threatened wealthy individuals with investments in the markets he was set on nationalizing. Despite this, López Obrador maintained broad level support among all socioeconomic levels, with 36.8% of the lower-class, 37.2% of the middle-class, and 38.5% of the upper-class preferring AMLO. This may indicate that Mexicans took their personal economic situations into account more than the candidate’s economic positions. It may also mean that though economics played an important role in the elections, the “material self-interest” of Downsian theory did not apply in this case. We feel that the democratic failures that were ascribed to the elite and the allure of AMLO’s populist message better explained the situation, as the cause of the election results come from individual circumstances rather than large-scale processes.

Violence

Violence and crime affect approximately 1 out of every 3 Mexicans, with 43% of respondents reporting that their neighborhoods did not feel safe. A majority feel that this crime is related to drug trafficking. Mexico’s war on drug trafficking organizations has only resulted in more deaths since policy changes in the early 2000s and many Mexicans consider the police to be less trustworthy than Congress. In addition, only 12.6% of respondents reported: “a lot” of trust in the criminal justice system. The concern over violence carried into the election results. Policies passed by the government before the election included heavy-handed military maneuvers that attempted to crack down on drug cartels but often resulted in more deaths. In addition, articles investigating previous presidencies found evidence that the Mexican government was purposefully lenient on certain cartels, prompting cries of corruption. The public had many reasons to believe that violence was at least indirectly connected to purposeful failure in democratic governance by traditional, elite politicians. This disdain for political inaction may have been a considerable factor in activating populist attitudes in voters. 

Mass-society theory cannot address what about violence triggers populist attitudes. All candidates in the election placed violence as one of their top priorities. Though two parties had been tested and had failed to appease the public with their policies, three other candidates maintained platforms that would have provided the necessary identity for voters to work through. Therefore, it was not the absence of identity but rather an identity against traditional politicians (among other factors) that moved voters from latent to active populism. 

Rational-choice theory largely addresses maximization of material self-interest with regard to changing socioeconomics, corruption, and electoral rules. Though violence connects to corruption in the government, violence apart from corruption–which comprises the majority of it–is not explained by the Downsian thought. Weak governance, on the other hand, is addressed by rational-choice theory. It is possible that government inability to combat violence pushed people to a populist option, as they felt they had no other option. Though it is a compelling thought, there were two other candidates besides AMLO who had not had a party that had failed the people yet, and one was an independent who wouldn’t even have carried a negative party association. Moreover, 70% of voters identified with the phrase “I’m voting for the candidate who will move the country forward,” prompting the idea that the majority of AMLO’s supporters in the election felt that he was the best choice, not merely the only choice. This could also support that his populist platform, combined with dissatisfaction with the elite parties, had triggered an activation of populist attitudes in voters.

Corruption

Corruption is another factor that likely influences voter behavior during this election. In 2014, 72.5% of Mexicans agreed that corruption existed in the government, and in 2016, one-third of respondents reported that corruption had affected them. Government institutions, including Congress, the court system, and civil servants, are consistently given the least amount of praise in their evaluations. Half of all survey respondents said that these groups had a negative impact on the country. Corruption continues to be one of the large hurdles for Mexico politically, and the electoral dissent that emerged beginning with the 2000 election of Fox may have signaled that the country was attempting to push back against corruption. 

Mass society theory might claim that corruption leads to weak party identification and could consequently lead to a fractured sense of identity that brings people to a populist candidate. Though AMLO’s votes consisted significantly of crossover votes from other parties, the majority of voters voted within the same party that they voted for in the election prior. This may suggest that party identification remained strong within parties even with party dissatisfaction. Part of this crossover of votes for AMLO may have consisted of another motive entirely, which could have been a strong party bias against the PRI.  59% of people reported that removing the PRI from power was important in this election cycle, suggesting that party identification was perhaps not fluid but geared toward a greater purpose against the PRI. Overall, this suggests that the link between corruption and the mass society is, at best, a weak explanation of the election outcomes.

While mass-society theory doesn’t explain the existence of corruption, rational-choice addresses failures of democratic governance and corruption within its theory, stating that: “where corruption is widespread, citizens feel unfairly treated by authorities and are persistently dissatisfied with the functioning of democracy.” We found this to be true on both counts in Mexico, where respondents felt that their civil rights are not properly being upheld and where 62% are completely dissatisfied with the way democracy functions in the country. Despite this evidence, there are a few items that weaken the mechanisms of the economic theory. First, even support for AMLO across socioeconomic levels meant that those who are benefitting at the highest levels from corruption still planned on voting for a candidate who actively campaigned against parts of the system that benefited them. In addition, every other candidate, especially those not associated with the corruption of the PRI or other elite, traditional parties, campaigned with the same anti-corruption stances. Again, we found that though AMLO might have been perceived as the lesser of the evils (which again, according to surveys, may not have really been the case), he was not the only option when it came to candidates that were labeled as outsiders and had similar stances on these key issues. While Downsian theory does explain some aspects of this part of the election well, it does not clearly describe what happens at the individual level. Meanwhile, democratic failures relating to corruption and how they affected people on an individual level can be explained by the ideational theory, which proposes that populist discourse and intentional elite collusion would activate populist attitudes instead.

Conclusion

Our case study finds significant evidence to support ideational theory to explain the outcome of the presidential election, although this evidence is not as persuasive as a vote choice model analysis. Overall, Mexico’s societal division caused by economics has progressed beyond any effects that may have come from modernization. Socioeconomic division seems to be perpetuated by recent decisions made by politicians rather than deep-rooted processes. Furthermore, lack of trust in traditional, elite politicians could likely have activated, to some degree, the populist attitudes of voters. These same principles seem to hold for violence and corruption as well, in that we can fairly say that mass-society struggles to explain the individual aspects of these issues that became central to the presidential election, and that rational-choice theory also struggles in its scope to convey the required individual changes that determine the course of an election. Ultimately, more research would need to be performed for more conclusive results. We still maintain, however, that the combination of populist discourse and organization on the part of AMLO, when mixed with a political climate of discontent and desire for change, may have worked together to activate populist attitudes in the presidential election of 2018.

Works Cited

Agren, David and Tom Phillips. “‘AMLO’: The Veteran Leftwinger who could be Mexico’s New President.” The Guardian. Last modified May 7, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/07/who-is-amlo-mexico-andres-manuel-lopez-obrador-election.

Burnett, John, Marisa Peñaloza, and Robert Benincasa. “Mexico Seems to Favor Sinaloa Cartel in Drug War.” All Things Considered, National Public Radio. Last modified May 19, 2010. https://www.npr.org/2010/05/19/126906809/mexico-seems-to-favor-sinaloa-cartel-in-drug-war. 

Encyclopedia Britannica. “Andrés Manuel López Obrador.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Accessed January 9, 2020, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Andres-Manuel-Lopez-Obrador.

Felbab-Brown, Vanda. “Andrés Manuel López Obrador and a New Era of Politics in Mexico,” Order from Chaos, Brookings Institute. Last modified July 3, 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/07/03/andres-manuel-lopez-obrador-and-a-new-era-of-politics-in-mexico/.

Greene, Kenneth F., and Mariano Sánchez-Talanquer. “Latin America’s Shifting Politics: Mexico’s Party System Under Stress.” Journal of Democracy 29, no. 4 (2018): 31–42. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/latin-americas-shifting-politics-mexicos-party-system-under-stress/.

Hawkins, Kirk. “Chief Executives MASTER Final Scores.” Google Sheets, Google. Accessed January 9, 2020, docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cw_qRD1tWYryX4rlR2iPYdT4hAotaald250Q6FyLvHo/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=101331114584646197907.

Hawkins, Kirk A. “Is Chávez Populist?: Measuring Populist Discourse in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Political Studies 42, no. 8 (August 2009): 1040–67. doi:10.1177/0010414009331721.

Hawkins KA, Rovira Kaltwasser C, Andreadis I. “The Activation of Populist Attitudes.” Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics X (2018): 1–25. doi: 10.1017/ gov.2018.23.

Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira, Paul Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, Pierre Ostiguy, Kirk Hawkins, Madeleine Read, and Teun Pauwels. “Populism and Its Causes.” In The Oxford Handbook of Populism: Oxford University Press, 2017-10-26. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803560.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198803560-e-13.

La Jornada. “Mensaje Íntegro De Andrés Manuel López Obrador En El Zócalo.” La Jornada. Last modified September 10, 2012, http://www.jornada.com.mx/2012/09/10/politica/003n1pol.

Latin American Public Opinion Project. “Preliminary Presentation.” LAPOP, Vanderbilt University. Last modified June 2019. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/mexico/AB2018-19_Mexico_RRR_Presentation_W_09.25.19.pdf.

Lee, Briana, Danielle Renwick, and Rocio Cara Labrador. “Mexico’s Drug War.” Council on Foreign Relations. Last modified October 22, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-drug-war.

Lopez, Mark Hugo, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Jens Manuel Krogstad, and Gustavo López. “Latinos and the Political Parties.” Hispanic Trends, Pew Research Center. Last modified October 11, 2016. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2016/10/11/latinos-and-the-political-parties/.

López Obrador, Andrés Manuel. “Discurso AMLO al iniciar campaña en Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua.” Transcripciones. Last modified April 1, 2018. https://lopezobrador.org.mx/2018/04/01/discurso-de-amlo-al-iniciar-su-campana-en-ciudad-juarez-chihuahua/.

López Obrador, Andrés Manuel. “Documental ‘Esto Soy.’” Youtube. Last modified December 15, 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=TClF8dK7EE0.

Martin, Eric. “How AMLO’s Plans to Transform Mexico Ran into Reality.” Quick Take, Bloomberg. Last modified July 24, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-25/how-amlo-s-plans-to-transform-mexico-ran-into-reality-quicktake.

Pew Research Center. “Mexican President Peña Nieto’s Ratings Slip with Economic Reform.” Global Attitudes and Trends, Pew Research Center. Last modified August 26, 2014. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/08/26/mexican-president-pena-nietos-ratings-slip-with-economic-reform/.

Seelke, Clare Ribando and Edward Y. Gracia. “Mexico’s 2018 Elections: Results and Potential Implications.” In Focus, Congressional Research Service. Last modified July 17, 2018. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10867.pdf.

Vanden, Harry E. and Gary Prevost. “Mexico.” In Politics of Latin America: The Power Game, 317-341. Oxford University Press, 2018.

World Bank. “GDP Growth (Annual %) – Mexico.” Data, The World Bank. Last modified 2018. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=MX.

Zissis, Carin. “Poll Tracker: Mexico’s 2018 Presidential Election.” Democracy and Elections, American Society Council of the Americas. Last modified June 27, 2018. https://www.as-coa.org/articles/poll-tracker-mexicos-2018-presidential-election. 

 

Latinos and Religious Freedom

By Hunter Avilio Thomas

April 15th, 2020

Introduction

I’ve always been aware of two things in my life: my religious affiliation and my ethnicity. Being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Hispanic has given me the lens through which I see the world. Growing up in New Mexico, I was surrounded by people who had Spanish heritage and were predominantly Catholic; I was in the ethnic majority and a religious minority. When I moved to Utah for school, I was suddenly in the religious majority but also in the ethnic minority. Another experience that impacted me was living in Oaxaca Mexico for two years. I was no longer surrounded by Latinos in the United States, but Mexicans who viewed religion differently than I had experienced. Growing up, my mom would always tell us her conversion story to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and how it was growing up in the Catholic Church. She wasn’t very devout, but she remembers going to mass and seeing the graphic paintings of Jesus on the cross. Living in Mexico taught me that religion can sometimes be more about culture than anything else. All of these experiences and assumptions all come to a head.

Latinos are the fastest-growing demographic in the United States. Some measures say that by the year 2045, nearly a third of Americans will be of Latin American heritage (Brookings, 2018). Latinos also have a long tradition of being socially conservative due to some part of their Catholic heritage. To many political pundits and strategists, a candidate who is relatively socially conservative will win over Latino voters. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama (when he opposed same-sex marriage) won over many Latino voters due to their socially conservative stances. But Latinos aren’t a monolithic group. Mexicans have a very different culture from Chileans or Puerto Ricans. The same is seen with religious ideology. Most Latinos are Catholic due to a long history of Spanish colonization of the Americas. Most Latinos come from a predominant Christian theology and are mainly Catholic. More specifically, 77% of Latinos who live in the United States come from a Christian theological background. 48% of Latinos in the U.S. are Catholic, 19% are Evangelical, 5% are Protestant, 2% are Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the rest are from another Christian denomination (Pew Research Center).

In 2015, same-sex marriage was legalized across the country. Abortion laws in some states have become increasingly either relaxed or strengthened. Because of the ongoing culture war in the U.S. and the rapid growth of Latinos in the United States, I was curious to see how Latinos view religious freedom. As previously mentioned, the majority of Latinos are Catholic and believe in Christian theology. Many of them reject legalized abortion and same-sex marriage. I wanted to see if their religious affiliation and hot button social issues were correlated with how they viewed religious freedom. Is motivation for an increase of religious freedom due to culture, religious ideology, or something else?

From my research, I concluded that Latinos care deeply about their religious beliefs. They also care about social issues that affect society and in areas where they may feel oppressed. However, they do not care much about religious freedom and if they do, it is based on their religion and religious commitment. Quite simply, Latinos don’t see religious freedom as an urgent issue. Latinos sometimes cite their culture as the basis of their viewpoint on religious freedom, but religious ideology, religious commitment, and personal experience are even greater factors that mold their viewpoint of religious freedom.

Qualitative Analysis

The early and mid-1900s were a transformational period for the United States. The U.S. saw a huge influx of European immigrants due to World War II. At the time, the country was predominantly conservative: couples were having lots of children, changes in the economy allowed for the middle class to grow, and institutions such as marriage and religion were central to American society. These institutions were not just central to American society but for many nations as well. It wasn’t until the 1950s where the U.S. saw another influx of immigrants, but this time from Latin America (Stevens-Arroyo, 1998). Latino culture and identity continued to support these institutions in the United States. Like the rest of the county, Latinos were predominantly conservative. It wasn’t until the 1960s were the United States saw another transformational change due to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. As part of my research, I analyzed a 1960s study of Non-Hispanics, (including Caucasian, African Americans, Asian-American, & Native Americans) first-generation Mexican immigrants, and other Latinos residing in the United States. When asked if they would consult God in an important decision, 70% of Non-Hispanics said they consulted God. 90% of Mexicans who lived in urban and rural areas reported that they consulted God in a decision, and 91% of other Latinos living in the U.S. reported that they did the same (Loomis and Samora, 1965). A majority of Mexicans and other Latinos both reported that they always consulted God when it came to an important decision, while only 18% of Americans reported that they did so (Loomis and Samora, 1965). Although this study was conducted back in the 1960s, and some Latinos have become more secular, patterns of this same religious behavior is likely found in their respective ethnicities today. A more recent survey shows that in the U.S., more Latinos oppose abortion than non-Hispanics do (Pew Research Center, 2019). Overall, this shows a pattern, Latinos generally have a religious tradition that has influenced how they view God and his role in society today.

From a recent study, Latinos who were asked how much religion was important to them, whether Catholic or Protestant, a majority said that religion was very important (Pew Research Center). Religion is also important to Latinos and their identity. 58% of Latinos pray daily and 59% have an absolute certainty that God exists (Pew Research Center). Other statistics show that 75% of Latinos believe in heaven, 38% read the scriptures daily, and 39% attend church weekly (Pew Research Center). It is important to note that Latinos may not be very committed to scripture reading or attending church. I also gathered research on Latinos’ opinions on other hot topics such as abortion legalization, same-sex marriage, cohabitation, divorce, and casual sex (Ellison, 2013). The evidence was clear. Latinos who were more religiously committed, such as going to church frequently or scripture reading, were more likely to be more socially conservative. Take abortion as an example. In the study conducted by a group of professors at the University of Texas, Protestant Latinos were most likely to be against abortion legalization while Catholics were least likely to be against it (Bartowski, 2012). Other Christian denominations such as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were right in the middle of these two groups. This translates to Protestant Latinos who attend church frequently are more extreme in their pro-life stance while mainstream Catholic Latinos are not as extreme. The only factor that shifted a Catholic Latino to move towards their Protestant counterparts was religious commitment such as going to church services frequently. An interesting observation was that a Catholic Latino who attends church services frequently; was more likely to be against abortion legalization than a Catholic who doesn’t attend church services frequently (Bartkowski, 2012). Another example is same-sex marriage, it is reported that 49% of U.S. Hispanics that are Catholic agree with same-sex marriage compared to 25% of U.S. Hispanic Protestants (Pew Research Center, 2014). There are obvious divides among religious ideologies when it comes to hot button social issues like the legalization of abortion and same-sex marriage.

The same thing was seen with other social issues such as divorce or casual sex (Ellison, 2011). Protestant Latinos were more socially conservative when it came to these social issues than Catholics. Again, Catholics who attend church frequently were closer to Protestant Latinos. However, Catholics are wary when it comes to religious commitment. This is because many Catholics are tied to Catholicism due to a long tradition within their family. Catholicism is often seen as a cultural norm. The lack of personal religious attachment is related to some Catholic Latinos’ picking and choosing what they hear and follow when attending mass. They may not agree and accept what their priest claims when it comes to an issue like abortion since they are not completely personally tied to their religion. Their political views are not of the same position of the Catholic Church. On the contrary, more Protestants take their religion very seriously. They often see the Bible as a literal document and view their pastor as someone who speaks the mind of God (Bartkowski, 2012). Protestants tend to be service-oriented, and rather than attending instead church services only twice per year for Easter and Christmas, they are more likely to do their best to live what they hear and read (Bartkowski, 2012).

On the other hand, Latinos have varying opinions based on generation, country of origin, experience, political ideology, and culture. One of the dividing factors among Latinos are generational differences. For example, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden were running to be the 2020 Democratic nominee, but Bernie Sanders recently dropped out. While President Trump is currently polling with Latinos higher than originally thought, 70% or more of the Latino vote will likely go to the Democratic nominee. Younger Latinos found Bernie Sanders a more attractive and viable candidate than Joe Biden. Sanders is a son of an immigrant and is a bold progressive who promises institutional changes such as free public education and healthcare. This message resonates with Latino voters, especially younger ones who have seen the effects of living in low-income, often urban areas where their parents struggle with finances. This is the immigrant story. To younger Latinos, Sanders is promising a better future to Americans compared to the reality that was available to younger Latinos and their families. Young Latinos tend to be more educated and learn English at higher rates than their parents. On the other hand, older Latinos see Joe Biden as a more viable candidate because of his decency and civility. To get one thing straight, older Latinos aren’t very politically ideological when compared to their children. Their children who have lived in the U.S. are forced to take a political position, whereas in Latin American nations, most people are apathetic to political parties. Joe Biden is practical and good enough to bring the change older Latinos want (New York Times, 2020). Issues that most older Latinos are concerned about are education, affordable healthcare, and helping small businesses grow. Older Latino voters are not looking for someone to tear the system down, they simply want more affordable education or health coverage. What you are seeing is a battle between experiences and ideology.

The same generational breakdown is apparent with religion. Younger Latinos will have to decide if they want to continue the religious traditions they were taught in their respective homes. Many religious scholars within the Evangelical community are seeing how generational differences are changing Evangelicalism. Many young Latinos who continue to be religious are becoming more socially moderate and fiscally progressive. This translates to how they worship and what issues are most important to them. As Samuel Rodriguez stated in the journal article called “The Latino Transformation of American Evangelicalism,” this generation of younger Latinos are creating a religious tone similar to that of Billy Graham and Martin Luther King Jr. In my opinion, Rodriguez hit the nail right on the head (Rodriguez, 2008). Younger Latinos are keeping the pro-life movement alive in Evangelicalism but are also putting issues such as poverty and healthcare as top priorities and often in the same category of protecting the unborn. The same is seen with same-sex marriage. While younger Latino Evangelicals believe in traditional marriage, they wish to end homophobia and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Many Evangelical Latinos want to base the immigration debate not on what Rush Limbaugh is saying, but what is said in the Bible (Rodriguez, 2008). Younger Latinos support fair immigration policy and wish to stop criminals from entering the country. They are also aware that their parents or ancestors that immigrated to the United States are human beings and should not be demonized. The Bible teaches us is to love one another regardless of who you are. In short terms, young Evangelical Latinos want to bring a human element back to their religion (Rodriguez, 2008).

All of this evidence led me to evaluate what do Latinos think about religious freedom. Is religious freedom being threatened in today’s society? Is religious freedom defined as a way to justify discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community? Is religious freedom necessary? These were some of the questions I took to my peers within the Latino community here in the United States. I decided to interview eight individuals who had either grown up in or immigrated to the United States. I also interviewed individuals that did not come from a Latter-day Saint background. Those I spoke to were converts to the Church or from another religious denomination. I wanted to have a good balance of women, men, and Latinos from varying age groups. My questions were focused on three areas: religious background, social issues, and questions based on religious freedom. My interviews were either conducted in Spanish or in English, depending on the person I was interviewing. I also recorded each person so that I could quote them. I will not be using the names of those I interviewed.

Interviews

The demographics of those I interviewed were four women and four men. Of the eight I interviewed, two were Catholic and the rest came from a Christian denomination, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Three out of the eight interviewees were over the age of 30, the rest were under the age of 30. Five out of the eight respondents were immigrants to the United States, while three were born in the United States. I interviewed a diverse group of individuals expecting to hear different opinions and viewpoints. While I did hear diverse opinions, there were obvious patterns from those I interviewed.

Interview Questions

As I mentioned above, I asked three areas of questions: religious background, social issues, and questions based on religious freedom. The first area was to get to know the individual, see what they thought about important issues, and what they believed concerning religious freedom. Some of my questions were, “tell me about your experience here in the United States as a Latino,” “how often do you attend church,” and “tell me about your experience being a religious person.” I then asked each respondent if they supported abortion and same-sex marriage. I finished asking if they have felt discriminated against for expressing their religious beliefs and if they saw a need for religious freedom today.

Religious Background

Out of the eight individuals I spoke to, the majority of them were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The most interesting conversations I had were with two Catholic Latinas. One of them was a devout Catholic that went to mass every Sunday, while the other one wasn’t religious at all and considered herself Catholic because of tradition. In terms of their religious experience, what they had in common was their devotion to praying frequently. Both Catholics prayed every day and considered it essential to their worship. While their church attendance varied, and their scripture reading was both infrequent, they were proud of their religious upbringing as Catholics. The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were more committed to their religion than the Catholic individuals I interviewed. All of them went to church every Sunday and prayed to God. Scripture reading varied among the group, but they were at least studying the scriptures a few times a week. There was a clear pattern among the religious individuals, seven out of the eight went to church services every week. Six out of the eight expressed that they read the scriptures at least once a week, none of the Catholic members were among this group. Prayer was the biggest factor this religious group had in common, they all prayed frequently to God.

Social Issues

I asked all eight individuals whether they agreed or not with abortion and same-sex marriage. I decided to ask about these two issues since they are most commonly known to Latinos. Seven out of the eight individuals were against abortion, one respondent was undecided on her position. Four of the eight individuals were against same-sex marriage while two respondents agreed with it. One of the respondents was undecided on his position while another respondent was sympathetic to those who wish to marry someone of the same-sex but ultimately said he does not agree with same-sex marriage. Overall, there was more unity against abortion from those I interviewed and more division when it came to same-sex marriage.

I divided each individual’s response of the two social issues I asked about between sex, age, religion, country of origin, and immigration status. I wanted to see if there was a connection between their response and one of these demographics. Sex was the first thing I evaluated. When it came to abortion, both men and women were against abortion. There was no division among men and women when it came to this social issue. The same was seen with same-sex marriage, both men and women were either against or for same-sex marriage, there was no correlation between sex and same-sex marriage.

Age was the most consequential factor I evaluated. I had three respondents over the age of 30 that were both against abortion and same-sex marriage. The rest of the five individuals were students, under the age of 30. Only one of the young respondents was both against abortion and same-sex marriage, while the rest of the four had mixed opinions about both issues. I spoke to one individual who was against abortion but thought that same-sex couples should still marry because it was fair. She even said that same-sex couples should marry but not adopt. Another respondent said she agreed with same-sex marriage because she was considerate of her friends who were gay. Two of the other respondents had the same mixed feelings about same-sex marriage due to personal experience. One of the respondents was reluctant to answer because he ultimately didn’t know how he felt about same-sex marriage. He was worried about being inconsistent, he believed it was unfair to allow a fetus to live but not let someone marry who they love, even if they are of the same sex. I found this very interesting. I concluded that younger Latinos have had very different experiences growing up compared to older generations. Younger Latinos have been exposed to the internet, social media, economic downturns, wars, poverty, violence, among other issues. I find that the younger generation is more tolerant, sympathetic, and even willing to denounce what they have been taught religiously at a young age when it came to sensitive issues like same-sex marriage.

Comparing Catholics to members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints was another consequential factor. It was clear that the two Catholics I interviewed have moderate views on abortion and same-sex marriage. One of the individuals believed that abortion should only be allowed depending on the situation. She was undecided on her viewpoint on abortion and believed that having unprotected sex resulting in a pregnancy versus a woman getting pregnant of no fault on her own should be taken differently. Another way to put this is she believed that abortion should be done on a case-to-case basis. She was also pro-same-sex marriage. The other Catholic was also pro-same sex marriage. On the other hand, the majority of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were against abortion and same-sex marriage. While there were a few in this group that had some mixed opinions on same-sex marriage, as a group they were pretty consistent in their viewpoints.

Finally, I evaluated both country of origin and immigration status. My initial hypothesis was that respondents that were born in the U.S. would be more moderate on abortion and same-sex marriage, compared to those who were not born in the U.S. I thought the same thing of U.S. citizens versus naturalized U.S. citizens versus international students. My hypothesis was correct, the three U.S. citizens that were born in the United States had mixed opinions about both social issues. Four of the other respondents that were originally from Mexico and one was from Colombia. Those who immigrated to the U.S. were more socially conservative than the respondents that are from the U.S.

Religious Freedom Questions

My last batch of interview questions was about religious freedom. Although my main question was if there is a need for religious freedom, I wanted to ask other pertinent questions. I asked those I interviewed whether or not they believed that President Trump was doing a good job protecting religious freedom and whether they had felt discriminated against expressing their religious beliefs. A majority of those I asked about if they had felt discriminated against told me that they hadn’t. One Catholic member who lives here in Provo Utah said she has never felt obligated to change her religion or discouraged to not express her beliefs. Another individual I asked who as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spoke to me about his experience as a convert to the Church. Although he has felt judged for being a member of the Church and hostility for being a Latino, he is proud of who he is. He said, “Every decision I make … may determine my destiny.” I found this very compelling that although this young man had felt judged for his religion and for being Mexican, he was going to stick up for his beliefs. I spoke to an older gentleman and his wife and they described to me how grateful they are to be a religious person in today’s day and age. They told me their experience of being baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and how it has changed their lives. I was also impacted by their statement of how religion should be separate from the state. They described how the Mexican government got involved with religion which resulted in many deaths. I found this very interesting coming from an older couple.

I found three patterns among those I interviewed when it came to religious freedom: 1) religious freedom is not an urgent issue, 2) Latinos aren’t very educated about religious freedom 3) Latinos haven’t developed a firm opinion about religious freedom. Latinos believe that everyone should have the right to express themselves, religious or not. While the majority of those I interviewed found a need for religious freedom and acknowledge it as an issue, there was no sense of urgency about religious freedom from the Latinos I interviewed. The older couple I previously mentioned first said in the middle of the interview that religious freedom wasn’t very important, but when I asked them at the end of the interview, they believed that religious freedom is still necessary. This also led me to another discussion, many Latinos have an inconsistent definition of religious freedom. For example, I asked a young woman what should be done to further religious freedom and she told me that religious freedom was necessary in all of the world and not just in the United States. She proceeded to tell me that non-Muslim women in Middle Eastern countries should not be forced to wear head coverings. The older couple was more concerned with their personal experiences in Mexico and how the mix of church and state resulted in bloodshed. Another indicator that Latinos have an inconsistent definition of religious freedom was when I asked the respondents what President Trump was currently doing to protect religious freedom. All of the respondents said that they had no idea what the President has been doing to protect religious freedom.

This brings me to my last point which was mutual respect. Practically all of the respondents I interviewed mentioned that everyone should have the right to express their religious beliefs, even if they didn’t agree with those religious beliefs. One young woman told me that “religious freedom does not mean that someone can physically harm or threaten others on the basis of religious freedom.” I believe that she was referring to secular groups or the LGTBQ+ community and how religious freedom should not be used to discriminate against them. I found it interesting and impressive that Latinos are calling respect among the religious community and to be aware of those who think differently than you or may disagree with your beliefs.

Analysis

Many Latinos don’t see religious freedom as an urgent issue. One of the reasons is because Latinos often come from countries where religious diversity isn’t prominent. Catholics are the dominating force in many Latin American nations and the Catholic Church has even influenced governments. For example, 40% of Catholics live in Latin America (Pew Research Center, 2014). Compared to the United States, its founding fathers quickly proclaimed that it was never going to have an official state religion or a presumed one either. For decades, the Catholic Church was the presumed state religion in some Latin American countries. I believe that many Latinos have never been faced judgment or discriminated against for being religious. Many Latin American nations come from a deep religious tradition. Statistics give clear evidence that Latinos overwhelmingly believe that God exists and that there is a heaven (Pew Research Center). Religion in the past and present have been essential to Latin American societies. The Pope often visits Latin American nations, where thousands of people gather to listen to him and even try to receive a hug from him. I would also add that many Latinos happen to be immigrants to the United States. Their main concern is not religious freedom, rather they are issues such as health care, the economy, and immigration that are more important.

I believe that the most dominating reason why Latinos don’t see religious freedom as an urgent issue is because they are often inactive in their religious circles. Many Catholics say that they are Catholic but, they are simply religiously affiliated with Catholicism. The typical Catholic probably goes to church twice a year, for Easter and Christmas mass. In fact, the Catholic Church is losing its touch with many of its members. Since the 1970s, there has been a steep decrease in membership. In 2014, it was reported that Latin Americans made up 69% of Catholic members, a 23% decrease from the 1970s (Pew Research Center, 2014). This shows that many Catholics are leaving the Church. 77% of U.S. Hispanics were raised Catholic while 55% are currently Catholic (Pew Research Center, 2014). Another example is that many Latinos who converted to another religion were previously raised Catholic. To be more specific, 47% of U.S. Hispanics that are now Protestant grew up as Catholic (Pew Research Center, 2014). Because many Latinos have grown up or identify as Catholics and are not active in the church, they don’t see a need for protecting their religious freedom. They grew up in a society and a church where their beliefs were often shared with others by religious ideology or tradition. In fact, six out of the eight people who I interviewed were either Catholic or converted from Catholicism. The two Catholics I interviewed, only one frequently attended mass and both hardly read the scriptures.

From my qualitative analysis, I concluded that religious ideology, religious commitment, and personal experience influence how Latinos view religious freedom. From my interviews, I confirmed the same thing. Although many Latinos don’t find religious freedom as an urgent issue, I found that among religious ideology this was different. Take members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints versus the Catholics from my interviews. Both of the Catholic Latinos I interviewed were aware of religious freedom but had not much to say about it when I asked. In fact, for both of them, I had to give a definition of religious freedom. When I interviewed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there were fewer times that I had to define religious freedom and from my perspective, those of the LDS faith seemed to have a more developed opinion of religious freedom. From my interview, I believe that Latinos who are in the religious minority know more about religious freedom because they are faced with more questions when it comes to their beliefs. Catholics are a religious majority and have never faced much backlash for their beliefs. I also believe that Catholics tend to have less of a religious conviction. The top reason why Protestants converted from Catholicism was because that they were seeking a better connection to God. Other top reasons Protestants left Catholicism was because they enjoyed their new worship services and “wanted [a] greater emphasis on mortality” (Pew Research Center, 2014). In other words, Catholics often stay Catholic due to tradition and not because of conviction. I would call this the conversion effect. Protestants, Evangelicals, and especially members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tend to be more converted compared to Catholics. Once you are more converted to religious beliefs, the more you are willing to defend them against those that find them strange or unique. The older couple I mentioned in my interview section kept on repeating how grateful they were to find the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and how much they know it’s the true church. They said the most important thing to them was standing up for their religious beliefs. I saw this same thing with social issues. The Catholics I interviewed were the least socially conservative compared to the rest of my interview group. Religious ideology influenced opinions on social issues.

Religious commitment was another factor in how Latinos view religious freedom. From my interviews, I found that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all went to church regularly, prayed frequently, and at least read the scriptures multiple times a week if not every day. With the Catholics I interviewed, the pattern I saw was that none of them engaged in scripture reading regularly. I mentioned this in my qualitative analysis, many Protestants engage in scripture reading more and were found to be more socially conservative than Catholics. I also see the connection with scripture reading and religious freedom. Fewer Catholics in my survey knew about religious freedom compared to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Religious commitment or religious intensity I believe is a key factor in how someone views religious freedom. This is not just with scripture reading, I am using a pattern seen from my survey. In other surveys, many Catholics attend church services less frequently than other religious groups. Many religious people receive education from their church and especially from scripture reading. To many people, due to their religious commitment, they view their religion as a lifestyle and not something they simply proclaim. Catholics do not see their religion as a lifestyle but rather as a tradition. Many Catholics are often skeptical of their religious leaders due to their complicated history. This complicated history includes the recent scandal within the Catholic Church, of priests who molested young boys and the decades of church services conducted in Latin with no translation of the Bible from Latin. In fact, the rebellion against Catholicism was due to the “eliteness” of Catholicism which resulted in the Protestant reformation, which was trying to push the Church to translate the Bible into languages other than Latin.

Personal experience was one of the non-religious factors I found to explain how Latinos view religious freedom. First off, Latinos often come from immigrant families or are immigrants themselves to the United States. A lot of them never received a formal education and are looking for better opportunities here. The next generation is the one who normally breaks the chain and goes on to graduate from both high school and college. The top birth country for immigrants in the United States is Mexico, which heralds 11.2 million immigrants (Pew Research Center, 2019). 54% of foreign-born immigrants from Mexico have less than a high school education (Pew Research Center, 2019). Only 7% of foreign-born immigrants from Mexico go on to receive a bachelor’s degree or more (Pew Research Center, 2019).  This tells me that many Latinos and their lack of education especially at the higher education level will affect how they view the world. Religious freedom is not going to be high on their list of priorities. I would also mention again that Latinos aren’t a monolithic demographic like African Americans. Latinos come from over 30 countries that have different cultures, lifestyles, histories, foods, and accents. I evaluated country of origin in my interviews and found that foreign-born immigrants were more socially conservative than Latinos who were born in the United States. I believe this is because there comes with different experiences living in a Latin American nation than growing up in the U.S. Not every Latino is going have the same experience growing up. An example of this was from some of the individuals I interviewed. Many talked about how they had friends who were gay and felt sympathetic towards them. Because of their view of same-sex marriage, this influenced their view of religious freedom. Another example was the older couple that told me about how the Mexican government intervened with the Catholic Church that resulted in bloodshed. These are some of the many examples that the Latinos I interviewed talked to me about. These perspectives and experiences that they shared with me, influence their view of religious freedom. In fact, personal experience is often a stronger factor than religious commitment and religious ideology. I spoke to a young man who I will call Pablo who gave me an interesting insight when I interviewed him. He talked to me about how he was totally against same-sex marriage before serving a two-year full-time mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Upon coming home from his mission and being back for a few years, his opinion on same-sex marriage was changing. This was due to the many friends he knew within the Church and outside of it that were gay and saw how difficult it was for them. Pablo, in a sense, rejected his previous notion of religious ideology that is against same-sex marriage and was leaning towards being for same-sex marriage.

Many good-intentioned people often assume that Latinos are directly affected by their culture which influences their view of religious freedom. I previously thought the same thing. From my interviews and other surveys, culture was not the strongest factor in how Latinos view religious freedom. I was thoroughly convinced by this when I spoke to a young woman who I will call Maria. She is a non-active Catholic who is studying English here in Utah. When I asked her opinion about abortion, she instantly responded that she disagreed with it. I decided to press her and ask what influenced her to think this way, her religion or her culture? Maria concluded that although culture affected her viewpoint of the world and maybe even her religion, she knew that her personal experiences affected her more than anything. I am not discounting culture as a factor, but it does not fully explain how a Latino views religious freedom. Her view on abortion and same-sex marriage, something she was in favor of, was based on her personal experience.

As I have mentioned, Latinos are the fastest-growing demographic in the United States. They will change how we worship and view religious freedom. Their opinion is valuable and should be evaluated. Immigration is the real reason why worship and religion are changing in the United States. Since the 1950s, thousands of Latinos have left their home countries and immigrated to the United States looking for better opportunities (Steven-Arroyo, 1998). They have changed the face of Catholicism in the United States. Many Catholic congregations in urban areas have been forced to adjust to their Spanish-speaking members. Mass and other church services are offered in Spanish. When many Puerto Ricans immigrated to New York, much of the clergy within the Catholic Church wasn’t Latino (Steven-Arroyo, 1998).  They had to adjust as well due to the influx of Puerto Ricans. Soon after, the Latino congregation became the leaders of the Catholic Church in New York (Steven-Arroyo, 1998). This has changed institutions within the Catholic Church in the United States. Irish Americans and Italian Americans that are often Catholic have already been surpassed by the number of Latino Catholics. The same has been seen with Latinos who are Pentecost, Evangelical, Southern Baptists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses (Steven-Arroyo, 1998). These congregations are small, and Latinos are having their influence over these congregations similarly seen within the Catholic Church in the United States (Steven-Arroyo, 1998). Latino culture and identity are changing these congregations for the better.

Not only have Catholics changed American Catholicism, they have also changed Evangelicalism as well. Latino Christians see life and poverty as both valid priorities. Within the Evangelical church, Latinos are pushing these issues to the forefront. Samuel Rodriguez, the author of “The Latino Transformation of American Evangelicalism” said, “Hispanic immigration will transform American Christianity by forging a platform of righteousness and justice, injecting the prophetic element of the Gospels, and activating a call to goodwill and love of neighbor” (Rodriguez, 2008). No doubt that Latino influence is changing congregations around the country. Their viewpoint on religious freedom is important and valuable. It will change how we defend religious freedom and how we can incorporate our Latino friends into our large and multiethnic, multicultural religious communities.

Policy Recommendations

From my research, I believe that the concept and excitement about religious freedom can be fully incorporated in the Latino community. There are three ways I suggest that can help Latinos become more aware and view religious freedom as a more urgent issue. It can be done through education, focusing on issues important to the Latino community, and taking care of the Latino community’s needs.

As previously said, many Latinos come from families or nations where education is not very prevalent or emphasized. Other needs to be met first before education. A policy recommendation I would give is for churches, nonprofits, and religious groups to sponsor education programs where the principle of religious freedom can be taught. The main thing that needs to be emphasized is why religious freedom is important. Another thing is teaching how to read and speak English. Not only will learning how to read and speak English will open up many opportunities, it will also help create natural educational methods such as reading the news or a book where religious freedom is mentioned. Many Latinos may know how to read well and speak English proficiently. Churches could refer Latinos to educational sources where they could access information not only about religious freedom but about other important and relevant topics. All of these programs could help create a culture of education within the Latino community, but nothing substitutes a formal education. Some Latinos have already gone to high school but decided that a college or university education is not for them. Churches should help Latinos see the importance of higher education and assist those who desire to go to school and who can’t afford it. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offers a new robust program called BYU Pathway. This is a new approach for communities that don’t have easy access to education and can take affordable college courses online. Pathway offers programs to receive an associate’s and bachelor’s degree. Other religions may offer similar programs. Knowledge is power and more access to it, especially offered by civil societies and churches would be beneficial to the Latino community and how they view religious freedom.

The Latino community is influencing congregations across the country today. It is not an if but a when, when many other congregations will be influenced as well. Catholicism in the United States was completely changed in the mid-1900s and Evangelicalism is seeing significant changes while church services are becoming more multiethnic and multicultural (Rodriguez, 2008). Latinos care deeply about culture and identity. Issues like poverty and healthcare are important to the Latino community. Protecting life and marriage is also important to Latinos. They wish to find solutions to alleviate poverty but protect the sanctity of life. Latinos don’t like the nativism that some white Evangelicals share when it comes to immigration. Latinos, especially younger Latinos, wish to see a more inclusive church that takes them as they are. Churches need to be willing to market and even shift their message to be more inclusive, especially about issues that are important to Latinos. Churches that would focus on more issues important to Latinos would then be able to open up the conversation about religious freedom. If Latinos see that churches are invested in them, they will see the urgency in protecting religion and expression of beliefs.

Many Latinos are more worried about their current situation than anything else. While the Latino community traditionally is religious and socially conservative, religious freedom is a backburner issue. As I mentioned, the economy, jobs, healthcare, and immigration are a higher priority than religious freedom. I know many Latinos who are first-generation immigrants where their main worry is paying for the bills or putting food on the table. Children of immigrants face the same issues as well, even if they have more opportunities than their parents. Primary needs to be met first before anything else. Churches could help with giving employment advice such as reviewing resumes and cover letters. Some churches have a designated a person who helps with finding employment. Other churches have specific programs, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that offers self-sufficient programs where participants learn about creating a small business among other principles to become financially successful and independent. Many churches offer programs to help pay for food and rent to alleviate financial strain during a difficult time. What I am suggesting is to take the Latino community as they are. They are some of the hardest working, happiest, and loving communities. If their needs are met, they can focus on important issues like religious freedom. If they see churches offering help during some of their hardest moments, they will see religion as a beacon of light. In essence, that is pure religion, serving and helping one another. That will go a long way and open up doors not just for the community but also in defending religious freedom.

Conclusion

When I started this paper, I was anxious to see what I was going to learn. I am deeply interested in the Latino community not just in the United States but outside of it as well. Latinos are a fast-growing demographic that needs to be taken more seriously. Hearing what they had to say about religious freedom is a good start in how we can include this community in our homes, our neighborhoods, and churches. The Latino community is often misunderstood and misrepresented. Many people see them as foreign and so different from American culture. That is quite the opposite. They love their families and work hard just like many Americans. I hope my research has helped open up another door into the Latino community and how they can be better understood. Me being both religious and Hispanic, I am concerned about the Latino community and how it is viewed. I am even more worried about my own deeply religious beliefs. Religious freedom is the way to protect our expression of beliefs and how we worship. Even though we may be black, white, or brown, even though we may be poor or rich, we all at the end of the day share the identity that we are children of God. We need the Latino community’s voice when it comes to the issue of religious freedom. Although it may not seem as an urgent issue right now to them, it can become a more important issue as we seek to understand and help the Latino community. From my research and suggestions, I hope this can become a reality. That is my hope and aspiration, that we can be a more unified, multicultural community of believers in God, free to express and worship as we wish.

Bibliography

1. Frey, William H. “The US Will Become ‘Minority White’ in 2045, Census Projects.” Brookings, Brookings, 10 Sept. 2018, brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/.
2. Taylor, Paul, et al. “V. Politics, Values and Religion.” Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, Pew Research Center, 30 Dec. 2019, pewresearch.org/hispanic/2012/04/04/v-politics-values-and-religion/.
3. Bartkowski, John P., et al. “Faith, Race-Ethnicity, and Public Policy Preferences: Religious Schemas and Abortion Attitudes Among U.S. Latinos.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 51, no. 2, 2012, pp. 343–358., http://www.jstor.org/stable/41681789. Accessed 8 Feb. 2020
4. Rodriguez, Samuel. Yale University.“The Latino Transformation of American Evangelicalism.” The Reflections, 2008, reflections.yale.edu/article/who-my-neighbor-facing-immigration/latino-transformation-american-evangelicalism.
5. “Bernie’s Big Bet.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Jan. 2020, nytimes.com/2020/01/17/podcasts/the-daily/bernie-sanders-latino.html.
6. Ellison, Christopher G., et al. “Attitudes Toward Marriage, Divorce, Cohabitation, and Casual Sex Among Working-Age Latinos: Does Religion Matter? – Christopher G. Ellison, Nicholas H. Wolfinger, Aida I. Ramos-Wada, 2013.” SAGE Journals, journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192513X12445458?casa_token=9xh3APZ0Oo4AAAAA:3LY7cNVmChnVJWIS3Td37d85RtNwu4-3iNOmil0bpeglKB-5Xo8u8D_hdGJRJZcV6Eak51LAuvDD#_i10.
7. “Religion in Latin America.”Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 31 Dec. 2019, http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/.
8. Radford, Jynnah. “Key Findings about U.S. Immigrants.”Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 17 June 2019, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/.
9. Stevens-Arroyo, Anthony M. “The Latino Religious Resurgence.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 558, 1998, pp. 163–177. JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/1049111. Accessed 9 Feb. 2020.
10. Loomis, Charles P., and Julian Samora. “Prejudice and Religious Activity in Mexico and the United States: A Note.” Sociological Analysis, vol. 26, no. 4, 1965, pp. 212–216. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3709921. Accessed 8 Feb. 2020.
11. “Latinos – Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics.”Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 11 May 2015, http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/racial-and-ethnic-composition/latino/.

 

 

 

A Babe Upon Its Mothers Lap

Joseph Smith said to a group of priesthood holders in 1834, “You know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother’s lap. You don’t comprehend it…”

You’ve probably heard this quote many times and even more so when it was further fulfilled this past weekend. Last general conference the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints had expanded its membership to 16 million members all over the globe. Something I focused on last conference was the call of the first Latin-American and Asian-American apostles. Yesterday afternoon, the church announced 12 new temples- the majority of which are outside of the US. The church has always put temples all over the world, but why is this so huge? Never in the history of the church has there been an announcement to build 12 temples. That is simply amazing. As a son of two converts of the church and a returned missionary, these announcements were a myth just a few years ago- now they’re a reality. One of the biggest feelings I have felt since the death of President Thomas S. Monson that never before has there been a call so urgent to prepare for the second coming of Jesus Christ. His coming is near. We don’t know when but church leaders are calling us to prepare. Changes are being put into place- from ministering to 2-hour church. Conversion is the message to church members.

While I served as a missionary in Oaxaca Mexico, I was able to meet amazing, converted Saints who sacrificed everything for the gospel. On the other hand, there was a lack of true conversion. While I was serving as a local leader for a group of missionaries in a jungle area of my mission, I was able to see this with my own eyes. This area was known for finding lots of people to teach that lead to many baptisms. What I had learned, just because more people were willing to listen to the gospel didn’t mean that there was more conversion. In fact, with the only 2 stakes in that area, there were over 2000 active members with 10,000 listed as baptized. That is appalling. I was very concerned and overwhelmed with that number. I knew that with a group of 20 missionaries that would be practically impossible to reactive everyone within a few months. I had asked and trained local leaders to help us with visiting and reaching out to those who were outside the church. Although lots did not change overnight, that area has created a new district and continues to baptize new members and bringing those back to the fold. It seems that this was the core message throughout the conference. Elder Holland and Elder Soares continued to ask church members to reach out to those who are different and forgive those who have done wrong to us. On the other side of the coin of conversion, President Oaks sent a bold message of conversion to all of us about hot social issues.

True conversion is based on this phrase taught by President Ezra Taft Benson, who also served as Secretary of Agriculture for the Reagan administration while also serving as an apostle. “The living prophet tells us what we need to know not necessarily what we want to hear.” Regardless of our social status, we are called to join the cause of Christ. This past weekend we heard many things that we wanted to hear yet some were not willing to accept that we needed to hear. “Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject… You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. … Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow… Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.” Whether in 1820, 1972, or 2018- this teaching has not changed. We are called to listen to the prophet and accept his counsel. No matter where we come from, or what education level, and yes even our political views. Just as much as we are called to love those equally from unique backgrounds, we are called to equally listen and heed the counsel of our prophets. We simply don’t pick and choose what message or apostle we like more and disregard the ones we don’t. We are called to humble ourselves and understand. President Benson ends with this, “How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.”

One of my first zone leaders from Argentina and I had an interesting discussion about different government systems. This Elder told me about his journey back to the church and how many of his viewpoints contradicted what the church had thought on certain issues. His journey back did not stop him from moving forward. From this, he later decided to go on a mission and serve. This experience allowed me to reflect how different the world is from where I have lived. At the end of our conversation and as we talked about various ideas, he told me that he still had to make adjustments to his thinking in terms of the gospel and what its leaders taught. My friends, I am simply stating this: The world has a viewpoint that we are called to leave the world. We are all on a higher plane. That does not make us better or qualify us more for God’s love. But what it does mean as President Nelson taught, we are peculiar. We are not part of the Mormon church, or the LDS one, or the ‘church that those young boys in white shirt and tie go’, and neither is it the church of ‘old, white men.’ This is the church of Jesus Christ, this is His church and these are the latter days. Let us not allow our political viewpoints- liberalism, conservatism, feminism, or extreme male domination, false traditions or noble ones, stop us from truly living the gospel message which is this- to become more like Jesus Christ and conversion is key.

We are all babes on its mother’s lap, we know nothing and we are nothing. We are dust and we will return as dust. God reveals His message to the prophets and no one else has that duty. Not even if you know more or have more education, not if you think your opinion is better or logical. We are a church of families, love, mercy, justice, and of Jesus Christ. These are eternal principles. Just like Elder Neal A. Maxwell said and how President Oaks echoed, “Don’t be among those who would rather change the church than to change themselves.” My friends, the blunt truth is once we see that we are trying to change the church we’ll quickly find ourselves outside of it. We are nobody to change the church and for more of a reason another person. Rather, we are called to humble ourselves and understand why we may not agree with a certain policy or issue of the church- and this with both sides of the aisle. Let us leave the world, understand the gospel message, love others, and further humble ourselves to the teachings of the prophets. No more criticizing of church leaders on social media. Let us stop rethinking whether one opinion is better than the other. Let’s embrace this dispensation with all of its challenges, questions, and uncertainties. Let us embrace the overarching message- our personal and individual conversion is the key.

12 new temples announced October 7th, 2018 by President Russell M. Nelson.

We Are All Equal- Somos Iguales

NOTE- My political status understandably may show some bias, but I will try to be the most objective I can in this post. It will also be posted in Spanish. 

I still vividly remember walking in the heat of Mexico Oaxaca with my feet throbbing and my eternal thirst. This sacred land has changed me forever. The people, the food, the culture, the smell- everything changed me. It has defined who I am today and will continue to shape my future. That one decision was so crucial in my progression. As I continued to work and teach the people of Oaxaca I not only worked among the most amazing members of the church but also with amazing missionaries who come from all over the world. In my last area, I was able to work with a small group of missionaries that were having trouble with finding and baptizing. After getting to know a group of missionaries, the 2016 Election came up as a topic and a few of us started to discuss the future of the United States. Although we shouldn’t have been talking about that as missionaries, we went back to serving.  I will not give this missionary’s name but in that discussion, I said something that marked me forever- “Political parties are not eternal.” Obviously, this missionary and I had a common disagreement about public policy, but despite that, it did not stop us from working together and becoming good friends.

There is an epidemic not only in the United States, it’s all over the world- it’s called division. We live in a world that focuses SO much on identity and status. Because of that, we are losing our real identity as children of God. 

The LDS Church has seen significant growth outside of the United States. Just 14 years of the Restoration of the gospel, Joseph Smith made this bold declaration to a small group of priesthood men- “The Prophet called on all who held the Priesthood to gather into the little log school house they had there. It was a small house, perhaps 14 feet square. But it held the whole of the Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were then in the town of Kirtland… ‘Brethren, I have been very much edified and instructed in your testimonies here tonight, but I want to say to you before the Lord, that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother’s lap. You don’t comprehend it… It is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world.” I am so grateful to live in a time where this prophecy has been fulfilled and yet continues to be fulfilled.

Since the year 2000, this is what the LDS church has been able to accomplish:

-159 temples around the world with 19 more announced

-56% of the membership of the church lives outside of the US

-40% of church leaders (also known as general authorities) live outside the US

-Two new Apostles that compile of the Council of the Twelve, Elder Soares from Brazil and Elder Gong of Asian descent.

Something that may come along with the big shifts in the church includes persecution from others. Yes- the LDS church is attacked and has been since day one. Other denominations and world religions are also persecuted, but that doesn’t nullify the relevance of what Latter-Day Saints have to go through. Just go to a paegent or general conference and see the protests yourself. With sacred ordinances displayed on YouTube and other TV shows; plays and songs purely devoted to persecuting Mormons- we should never be naive of the challenges we all have to face as members.

Personally, I have a unique perspective- I am second generation Mormon, my parents are both converts. My mom is from Mexico and my dad is from rural southern United States. My Hispanic identity does not stop me from truly declaring who I am- a son of God. It doesn’t stop me either when I’m among others of different cultures and ethnicities. Many people in and outside of the church display Latter-Day Saints as good, righteous people. But many of our critics see us as “white,” “privileged,” “well-off.” I say to that stereotype, it’s simply not true. Although that is what may have been a majority of the Church only a few decades ago, we now live in a global church. Just look at the church’s recent accomplishments the past few years. To many others, the LDS church is the fastest growing in the world and the fourth largest Christian denomination in the US. No doubt Joseph Smith’s prophecy is spot on.

I lived among some of the most humble of people as a missionary. There I had realized not only did most of the world lived in poverty, but that members of the church were middle-class people with not lots of wealth. In all essence, too much or a lack of wealth is never bad. For many people, more so here in the US, criticize for this “Mormon, privileged, white …” when the truth is not all of us fit that mold. If someone thinks that whether it be outside or inside the church, they should go outside Utah or the United States and see what members are truly like. Let us stop seeing our value in this society by how much wealth we have or where we came from. We are all the same. And because of today’s persecution, does not come from a “Mormon” stereotype, it comes from the fact that this is the true Church, the only one on earth.

What matters is this- the church is not perfectly diverse. Critics will look back to Priesthood and African-Americans or with Proposition 8 in California in 2008. It’s good to see that African nations, (other than Brazil) have some of the highest baptizing rates in the church. Leaders have talked openly and have created programs on the issue of same-sex attraction. The church today is becoming exactly what the Joseph Smith has wanted it to be. Diverse and accepting.

Although the church is not perfect and neither are its leaders, it does not stop the truthfulness of it. It might sound cliche, but it is so true. What we must remember is this- “For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew, and Gentile.” (2 Nephi 26:33) Quite simply, God is no respecter of persons. That is a doctrine we must hold on to- no matter where we come from, who we are, what culture we have been raised in.

Whether Conservative, Liberal, Trump Supporter, Libertarian, Feminist- Identity Politics or Right Extremism are all labels created by the word. But our eternal title as a child of God was given to us from the start. Remember, political parties are not eternal.

En Español-

Aún recuerdo vívidamente caminar en el calor de México Oaxaca, con los pies palpitantes y mi eterna sed. Esta tierra sagrada me ha cambiado para siempre. La gente, la comida, la cultura, el olor … todo me cambió. Ha definido quién soy hoy y continuará moldeando mi futuro. Esa única decisión fue crucial en mi progreso. Mientras continuaba trabajando y enseñando a la gente de Oaxaca, no solo pude trabajar entre los miembros más increíbles de la iglesia, sino también con misioneros increíbles que vienen de todas partes del mundo. En mi última área, pude trabajar con un pequeño grupo de misioneros que tenían problemas para encontrar y bautizar. Después de conocer a un grupo de misioneros, la elección de 2016 en los EE. UU. surgió como tema y algunos de nosotros comenzamos a hablar sobre el futuro de los Estados Unidos. Aunque no deberíamos haber hablado de eso como misioneros, volvimos a servir. No daré el nombre de este misionero, pero en esa discusión, dije algo que me marcó para siempre: “Los partidos políticos no son eternos”. Obviamente, este misionero y yo teníamos un desacuerdo común sobre las políticas públicas, pero a pesar de eso, no nos impidió trabajar juntos y hacernos buenos amigos.

Hay una epidemia no solo en los Estados Unidos, sino en todo el mundo: se llama división. Vivimos en un mundo que se centra tanto en la identidad. Por eso, estamos perdiendo nuestra verdadera identidad como hijos de Dios.

La Iglesia SUD ha visto un crecimiento significativo fuera de los Estados Unidos. Apenas 14 años de la restauración del Evangelio, José Smith hizo esta valiente declaración a un pequeño grupo de hombres del sacerdocio: “El Profeta hizo un llamamiento a todos los que poseían el sacerdocio para que se reunieran en la casita de troncos que tenían allí. Era una casa pequeña, tal vez de 14 pies cuadrados. Pero contenía todo el sacerdocio de la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días que estaban entonces en la ciudad de Kirtland … ‘Hermanos, esta noche he sido muy edificado e instruido en sus testimonios, pero quiero para decirte ante el Señor, que no sabes más acerca de los destinos de esta Iglesia y reino que un bebé en el regazo de su madre. No lo comprenden … Es solo un pequeño puñado de Sacerdocio que ven aquí esta noche, pero esta Iglesia llenará América del Norte y América del Sur, llenará el mundo.” Estoy muy agradecido de vivir en un tiempo donde este la profecía se ha cumplido y aún se sigue cumpliendo.

Desde el año 2000, esto es lo que la Iglesia Mormona ha podido lograr:

-159 templos en todo el mundo con 19 anunciados más.

-56% de la membresía de la iglesia vive fuera de los EE. UU.

-40% de los líderes de la iglesia (también conocidos como autoridades generales) viven fuera de los EE. UU.

-Dos nuevos Apóstoles que compilan del Consejo de los Doce, el Elder Soares de Brasil y el Elder Gong de ascendencia asiática.

Algo que puede venir junto con los grandes cambios en la iglesia incluye la persecución de los demás. Sí, la Iglesia SUD ha sido atacada y lo ha sido desde el primer día. Otras denominaciones y religiones del mundo también son perseguidas, pero eso no anula la relevancia de lo que los Santos de los Últimos Días deben atravesar. Simplemente vaya a una conferencia general o paegent y vea las protestas usted mismo. Con ordenanzas sagradas exhibidas en YouTube y otros programas de TV; obras de teatro y canciones puramente dedicadas a perseguir a los mormones: nunca deberíamos ser ingenuos respecto a los desafíos que todos tenemos que enfrentar como miembros.

Personalmente, tengo una perspectiva única: soy un mormón de segunda generación, mis padres son convesos. Mi madre es de México y mi papá es del sur de los Estados Unidos. Mi identidad Hispana no me impide declarar verdaderamente quién soy: un hijo de Dios. Tampoco me detiene cuando estoy entre otras personas de diferentes culturas y etnias. Muchas personas dentro y fuera de la iglesia muestran a los Santos de los Últimos Días como buenos y justos. Pero muchos de nuestros críticos nos ven como “blancos”, “privilegiados”, “acomodados”. Digo a ese estereotipo, simplemente no es verdad. Aunque eso es lo que pudo haber sido la mayoría de la Iglesia hace solo unas décadas, ahora vivimos en una iglesia mundial. Solo mire los logros recientes de la iglesia en los últimos años. Para muchos otros, la iglesia SUD es la que crece más rápido en el mundo y la cuarta denominación cristiana más grande en los Estados Unidos. Sin duda, la profecía de José Smith es perfecta.

Viví entre algunas de las personas más humildes como misionero. Allí me di cuenta de que la mayor parte del mundo no solo vivía en la pobreza, sino que los miembros de la iglesia eran personas de clase media sin mucha riqueza. En esencia, demasiado o la falta de riqueza no es malo para nada. Por muchas personas, espeicalemente aqui en los EE. UU., critican por este “Mormon, privilegiado, blanco…” cuando la verdad no todos somos asi. Si alguien lo piensa afuera o dentro de la Igelsia, deberian salir afuera de Utah o de los Estados Unidos y ver como son los miembros. Que dejemos de ver nuestro valor en esta sociedad por medio de cuando dienro tengamos o de donde vinimos. Todos, somos iguales. Y por la perseciuon, no viene de un estereotipo “Mormon”, viene de que esta si es la Iglesia verdadera, la unica sobre la tierra.

Lo que mas importa es esto: la Iglesia no es perfectamente diversa. Los críticos mirarán hacia el Sacerdocio y los afroamericanos o con la Proposición 8 en California en 2008. Es bueno ver que las naciones africanas (además de Brasil) tienen la cantidad mayor de bautismos en la Iglesia. Los líderes han hablado abiertamente y han creado programas sobre el tema de la atracción hacia personas del mismo sexo. La Iglesia de hoy se está convirtiendo exactamente en lo que José Smith quería que fuera- DIVERSA.

Aunque la Iglesia no es perfecta ni sus líderes, no detiene la veracidad de ella. Puede sonar cliché, pero es tan cierto. Lo que debemos recordar es esto: “Porque ninguna de estas iniquidades viene del Señor, porque él hace lo que es bueno entre los hijos de los hombres, y no hace nada que no sea evidente para los hijos de los hombres, y los invita a todos venir a él y participar de su bondad, y no niega a ninguno que venga a él, blanco y negro, esclavo y libre, varón y hembra, y se acuerde de los paganos, y todos son iguales ante Dios, tanto judíos como gentiles “. (2 Nefi 26:33) Simplemente, “Dios no hace acepción de personas.” Esa es una doctrina a la que debemos aferrarnos, sin importar de dónde vengamos, quiénes somos, en qué cultura hemos sido educados.

Ya sean conservadores, liberales, partidarios de Trump, libertarios, políticos de identidad feminista o extremismo de derecha- todos son etiquetas creadas por la palabra. Que nunca olivdemos nuestro título eterno como hijos de Dios que nos fue dado desde el principio. Y recuerde: los partidos políticos no son eternos.

The New Face of the GOP

(This is a continuation of a past article I wrote about Hispanics and the GOP. An article will shortly posted in Spanish). 

Our conservative values need to live on- I often ask myself, what will be of conservatism in 30 years? I hope we are a party connecting with loyal conservatives but also fighting for minority groups. Adding to the words of Senator Marco Rubio, it is crucial that we figure our future out- we need a new face for our party. Quite simply generations of Americans depend on it. 

—In many ways, I am a very rare specimen in the political world. I am a free market, small government, traditionally-principled conservative, and the other half of my family does not come from this country. We have so many similarities with Hispanics: Hispanics believe in protecting the family, getting rid of government corruption, and that hard work is what makes prosperity not entitlement. I consider the Latino community, some of the hardest working and dedicated people in the world. It is time to appeal to this group in an unprecedented way. Mike Mulvaney, a Tea Party conservative from South Carolina, made this statement to a group of supporters: “At some point, we’re going to figure out that if you take the entire African-American community and write them off, you take the entire Hispanic community, and write them off…. What’s left? About 38% of the country. You cannot win with 38% of the country… We need to figure out how to deal with it as a party. We’re losing too many elections, we are writing off too many people.” My conservative friends, no doubt that this party has a bright future, if we start writing people on, and not writing them off. In essence, Mulvaney is echoing the inspiring words made by Winston Churchill, “we shall never surrender.” We need to figure out how we can save our country and we can’t do it alone, especially without the support of minorities. There is a war out there, a war on freedom, democracy, and equality. When the world is seen in darkness, conservatism is what empowers individuals to overcome today’s challenges. Imagine that with passionate and loyal Latino voters, millions defending the hope that America brings. We will be unstoppable. That is the vision I see for the GOP. “We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air…. We shall never surrender…” We need the Latino community more than ever. They will be the new face of the GOP. It can happen; here’s why and how.
My full name is Hunter Avilio Thomas. My mama is Dora Magdalena Salinas Thomas. My abuelos are named Avilio and Mercedes Salinas. They are ALL immigrants to this country. My mother was born and raised in Mexico City. She came here with not a lick of English and a few dollars in her pocket. My grandfather was a poor taxi driver, so she never came to the US with any solid foundation. My mother was never a conservative and always leaned to the left on most issues. Her views changed radically as she began to live the American dream. As she started to become more successful and then later graduate from college, she decided to get a masters in social work. As she continued with her program, her newly conservative roots along with her Latino ones were challenged. The program started to assume that right-leaning and religious groups were hateful. After lots of thought and prayer, she decided to leave the program. Today, my mom is now a hard-working case manager working with clients who are Hispanic, handicapped, and low income. My mom rose from poverty and is devoted to helping others to do the same. I know that there are not only thousands but millions who come from the Latino community that have a similar story like my mother and are willing to do anything to live the American dream. But how did it happen, and how can we continue to educate voters like my mother?

First, let us take a look at some key statistics. The Pew Research Center reports that in 2016 the economy was the most important issue for Latino voters. The most interesting statistic is what issues Latinos were worrying about less- abortion and same-sex marriage. Democrats have an edge over us because they tap into the issues that Hispanics value most. But what really drives them, is not necessarily the number of social programs, it’s their families! The Other Side of Immigration”, (a documentary that focuses on migrant workers) shows that the majority of these workers decided to migrate to the US in order to help their families and would almost always go back to Mexico because they missed them. As a party, we need to put social issues at the forefront of Latino voters. Continued reports showed that 66% of Protestant-Christian Latinos and 68% of active Catholic-Latinos oppose same-sex marriage. With that, 53% of Hispanics are in favor of abortion being illegal, with 70% of Protestant-Latinos and 54% of Catholics claim to be pro-life. What we can conclude is that Hispanics, especially when religious, tend to lean socially conservative. At the end of the day, if you were to ask a Hispanic whether they would be rich and have no family or be poor and have a happy family, they would take the second option. Both parties need to stop treating the Latino community as some ploy in order to gain political points. This is seen on both sides of the aisle as some have called Hispanics “rapists” and “murderers” and also “needy.” If we are referring to the Latino community like that, we are not understanding them. Instead, we need to identify what they feel and embrace them.

Among the hottest issues in the 2016 Election, were immigration and terrorism. In fact, these issues tend to be very important to Hispanics. What we need to do as a party is take immigration reform seriously, but before we do that, we need to secure our borders. The question is why should we do it, and why should all walks of life agree? According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, many Hispanics agree with controlling the influx of illegal immigration. The article states “… among Latino voters born in the United States, resentment of immigrants who have entered the country illegally can run deep. 42% of American-born Hispanics disapprove of President Barack Obama’s executive actions to prevent the deportation of undocumented immigrants.” This issue is a sensitive one, especially when President Trump made unpopular comments, stereotyping the majority of Latinos as criminals. Of course, our conservative values do not align in support of those comments, but if we were to look beyond the rhetoric, there needs to be a push when it comes to protecting our borders. The reason why we need to secure our borders is not necessarily that terrorists are coming in, but because of drug trafficking. Although a documentary, (Beyond the Fence) made the argument that the southern border is not a terrorist hotspot, they cannot refute the claim about drugs coming into the United States. About $19-29 billion dollars are made by Mexican drug cartels a year in the US and since 2006 over 55,000 fatalities have occurred due to the drug war.

At the same time, the documentary does explain that The Secure Act of 2006 signed by President Bush, was a law passed to increase funding in putting more protection on the border. Since then we have spent $3 billion dollars on a border fence and it still has not been completed. Many are claiming that even if we were to build a border wall, people would still find ways to cross over. But, if we look at something a little more recent, 26 countries in Europe adopted a “no border policy” that was passed in 1985 called the Schengen agreement. Anyone from anywhere could move within these countries without any documentation. Since the recent terrorist attacks in France and Spain, Germany and the Netherlands decided to enforce border-regulation policies. It’s not an impossible task when we talk to the Latino community about this issue, we just need to be honest with them. Putting up practical protection where there tend to be drug-related and terrorist activities is not because we want to discriminate, but rather to prepare ourselves. Our main message needs to be is that securing our borders, including airports and seaports, are key to a thriving society. I am confident that Hispanics will not misunderstand our message when it comes to this issue.

The next question posed is, let’s say more protection is put in place, what comes next? What about the millions of illegal immigrants that have been here for years and have intentions to be productive citizens like my mother? It’s time for comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, we don’t have a system in place to monitor who is coming in and why. Along with that, we need to realize that there are hardworking Latinos who are here to provide for their families and we must support them. In fact, just 13% of illegal immigrants in the US are known to have criminal conviction. Recently, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said he wants to put into place an already devised bipartisan bill in order to reform our broken immigration system. Not only that but, Speaker Paul Ryan said many years ago that his religious beliefs as a Catholic do not co-align with deporting innocent people. Tea Party darling Marco Rubio is in favor of passing an immigration reform bill along with two Republicans who mentioned that they are in favor of giving visas to high-skilled workers. We need not be afraid of this issue of reform, but rather take it with open arms and with a love for our Hispanic friends. An e-verify program to see who’s coming in and who’s not, a number count of visas handed out each year, a way to deport criminals and encourage constant legal immigration, is healthy for our party. It will not be easy, but remember a permanent solution to our immigration reform is crucial to stopping the deportation of hardworking people and also when defending ourselves as a country. As we do so, we will gain overwhelming Latino support.

My main point here is that we need Latino conservatives more than ever. As we shift our focus to common ground such as key social issues, we will be able to make some great traction with Latinos. We need to continue to educate the Hispanic community that conservatives are not against migration. Our policies should also be in alignment with what we are stating. The core of conservatism is to empower the individual and not the government. It is time to appeal to our neighbors in Mexico and in South America. We are a nation of immigrants and we will continue to be one. Let us be a party of freedom and prosperity and embrace that diversity. In the words of Marco Rubio, a GOP Senator from Cuba: “This isn’t just the country where I was born. America’s literally the place that changed my family’s history.” I echo those words that this country literally saved my family’s history and its future for generations to come all due to a courageous Latina mother and newly conservative roots that will be held forever. ¡Que Dios Bendiga a Los Estados Unidos de América!

(After-post note: I want it to be known to the world that the majority of right-leaning voters are not what portrays the media. Unfortunately, there are extremists i.e. white supremacists who make up little of the party that inflict their opinion somehow thinking the majority agrees with that. It is not true, right-leaning voters are common, everyday people that fight for religious freedom, small-government, and free-market policies. We should have respect towards all people no matter if we differ in opinion; we must love all regardless. That is the true message that conservatism needs to push. At the end of the day, we should not be so focused on party pressure but on the God-given rights that we enjoy as Americans).

Citations- 
Winston Churchill- https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu161337.html

Mike Mulvaney and his comments about Immigration Reform: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/us/politics/gop-congressman-in-south-carolina-takes-a-risk-with-a-foray-into-immigration.html?mcubz=0
Frontline Documentary- Immigration Battle: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/immigration-battle/
Issues most important about Latino voters 2016: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/15/the-economy-is-a-top-issue-for-latinos-and-theyre-more-upbeat-about-it/
Social political views by Latino Voters: http://www.pewforum.org/2014/05/07/chapter-9-social-and-political-views/
Documentary: The Other Side of Immigration http://www.theothersideofimmigration.com/

Majority of Illegal Immigrants are not criminals: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/unauthorized-immigrants-criminal-convictions-who-might-be-priority-removal
HBO Documentary: The Fence https://play.hbonow.com/feature/urn:hbo:feature:GVU37Bg45OlFvjSoJAaWY?camp=nowdesksv1
Chicago Tribune article about Hispanics and Trump http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-immigration-hispanics-rubio-bush-trump-1019-20151018-story.html
Schengen Agreement: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13194723

Gang of Eight Immigration Reform Bill: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/immigration-reform-gang-eight-225028
Senator Marco Rubio Comments: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/13/full-text-of-marco-rubios-2016-presidential-campaign-announcement/?utm_term=.bfe6345aac29
Drug Trafficking in the US https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/drug-addiction/drug-trafficking-by-the-numbers/#gref

To the Rising Generation-

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.”

One of the most alarming things I saw when coming home from a mission was two things- I saw more fear and pessimism from members of the church. There is an epidemic in this world that people are too fearful! After serving a mission for the LDS Church in Oaxaca, Mexico from July 2015-2017, I learned a ton. The Lord taught me what I needed to know- humility was one of my biggest takeaways. I had learned that faith, hope, and charity are the core values of being a Christian. With this take away, I had learned to not be as fearful and pessimistic and yet to be more faithful and optimistic. President Gordon B. Hinckley always commented that the world was filled with pessimists and that we needed more optimists- I agree with him whole heartedly!

A couple years ago Elder David A. Bednar gave a very powerful talk at BYU-Idaho, talking about the importance of standing with the Lord, even when it’s hard. He started to stay not only in the world, but in the church, that there was a growing rate of skepticism and sophistication: “President Lee warned of an additional collective test that is growing ever more pervasive in this generation: “We are now going through another test—a period of what we might call sophistication. This is a time when there are many clever people who are not willing to listen to the humble prophets of the Lord. … It is rather a severe test.” The test of sophistication is the companion to the test of prosperity and ease. How important it is for each of us to observe, learn from, and follow the Brethren.” We as humans are learning to doubt our leaders and who they are, especially in recent events when members of the church came out publicly stating that there were not in favor of sustaining our leaders. Now I did not witness the events of Noah or of Moses, but do I believe that at times there were others who also did not sustain the prophets of that time. Before the foundation of the world, Jesus Christ offered to be our Savior and Redeemer and a host of heaven along with Satan were not in favor of supporting Him. I bet we were all devastated.

Now stick with me! I want to give some more modern examples. Our generation, the millennial generation; the church leaders have repeatedly stated that we are a royal and peculiar generation. We are known as the compassionate generation. I heard a statistic that more millennials were leaving the church than any other generation in church history. That is devastating! There are some issues that are very sensitive that church leaders have to talk about in order to allow us to know what to do. Noah must have been crazy when they all heard that they needed to go build a ship because a flood was coming. Or how about when Adam told his posterity to sacrifice lambs, when in essence people did not get the whole reason as to why. In fact, Adam said he did so because he was commanded to. Sure we may be compassionate, but obedience is tough for us. And that is OK. That is fine. No need to worry. What we need to worry about is when fear, pessimism, and skepticism creep up and eventually drive us out of the church.

I served a very interesting mission. I was in an area where a lot of sinful acts were going on. Lots of drinking and partying; unfaithful fathers and mothers, leaving their families for vices and forbidden paths. Some would say that area is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. To me it was heaven on earth. I looked past the sinful acts and loved the people as best as I could. I taught them repentance and the way to true happiness was not wickedness. I was not some Alma or Amulek, but we help convert lots of great people. One of these who I will call Marco, was still doubting about his testimony. I could see that he wanted so badly to follow the precepts of the gospel but still had so many questions. For a while he stopped taking the discussions; he would get closer to getting baptized, eventually not able to move to the next step. When I came to the area my pride had stopped me to visit him, I had thought we should spend our time on people that would accept us. For a while we went on with my method and we did have success. But as how missionary work tends to be, we had knocked on all the doors and talked to almost everyone we knew. We were running out of people to teach. Until, one day, we decided to not follow my method and follow the Lord’s. We decided to go and teach Marco one day at his house. His less active little sister was happy to see us. As we continued to visit her, Marco would joined in on the discussions. We would eventually start teaching from the Book of Mormon and on to longer discussions with him. His interest was bouncing back. We started to bring the youth group with us to do activities together and teach Marco and his younger sister. We were having tons of success! Me and my companion had felt that we should then ask Marco if he wanted to be baptized. He told us that he would like to but had some challenges that would stop him. We asked him what was up. He was very scared to tell us in front of everyone. As we started to schedule teaching appointments with just  us and Marco, we started to get to know what some of his challenges were. He was still worried about his testimony, especially about the family. He told us that his dream is to raise a happy family, but what was stopping him was a battle he had been dealing with for years with same-sex attraction. As we looked at Marco with compassion, we told him that if he were following God’s commandments and was willing to follow Jesus Christ, he would be baptized. I can still see his face and how he felt when he told us that. The burden was lifted off of him. To make this story short, Marco did have some difficulties in getting baptized, but with the help of loving leaders, he was able to get baptized and start his journey in the gospel. I remember some of the words we had told him that day. We said- “Marco, I know that your family has lots of problems. Your step-dad doesn’t support your family, its hard financially, but I know that you can create your own family one day. I know that this is a battle you will be dealing with for the rest of your life, but stay faithful.” Those words were not mine, they were from a loving Father in Heaven. My friends, this is not the first time in my lifetime and on my mission that I have dealt with members and investigators who are or have dealt with same-sex attraction. Some have stayed faithful and some have fallen away, but it does not matter to me, I will love them regardless.

I love Marco, and last I heard was he was not as active as he was before. Now I know its not because of his challenges but due to a lack of support from his family. I have faith that one day he will remember those discussions and eventually will realize his dream of having his own family. What I want to get across is that the church is not against individuals who have same-sex attraction, we are against the violation of the law of chastity, which includes having any kind of sexual relation outside of the bounds of marriage and any sort of homosexual sexual relation as well. The beauty of it, whether it be the law of chastity or whatever it may be, we can all be cleaned through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Ever since 2008, the LDS church has had a lot of bad rap tainted on them due to their public stance in protecting the family. Recently, many of my own generation were “thrown off” by the comments of church leaders, who was once again making a big emphasis on to keeping traditional marriage. I want to make it clear, that what we are in is something we cannot comprehend. What this battle requires is  faith, hope, and yes a huge dose of charity as well. We need to be willing to accept the human errors of our leaders. I want it to be clear that as much as I love anyone who deals with any type of challenge or is dealing with sin, we must have unconditional love for them. Along with that, my loyalty to church leaders is never ending. I know that these are leaders chosen and sent from God. They are here to prepare for the coming of the Savior. Yes, some church leaders when impressed to do so, will speak on sensitive topics, and I like I said earlier, that is OK. We must have the spiritual eyes to see what we cannot see. Our leaders are not here to “pan handle” political or special interest groups, they are here to declare the will of the Lord. and that can come with a cost.  But we must always sustain then, and ask for help when it is hard. God does not expect us to do this in a perfect way but to trust that one day we will be able to understand.

Recently many church leaders have also been vocal in stating that they are imperfect. Joseph Smith shortly after his 17th birthday said this: “I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been.” How candid is the prophet, he knows that he needs to be corrected and is humble enough to recognize it. I believe us as Latter-Day Saints, sustaining and heeding modern-day seers, even when it’s not popular, requires lots of humility and faith.

Look, we don’t know of the why of everything. We don’t know why people deal with same-sex attraction. I don’t know if those who have it are born with or not. But that does not matter to me or to our leaders. What they are willing to do is reveal what the Lord has stated about the family. We must courageously do so but at the same time be sensitive to those who may not have a family in this mortal life. Jeffery R. Holland does testify that blessings always come, and they might not until the next life! Joseph Smith attributed this that lots of our learning pertaining to our celestial inheritance will take place when we pass onto the next life.

These men, 12 of them who are called of God, are here to teach us the ways to eternal life and to prepare us for the eventual coming of the Savior. They are to be witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ to the whole world. This is who they are. They are apostles, and if God tells them that they need to address something, we need to be humble enough to recognize it. Yes, this requires patience, but like Prophet Elijah and the chariots of fire, we can learn that sometimes we need to ask God if our eyes can be opened and see the glory of the things we cannot see. Apostles may need to clarify doctrine or make an emphasis on it, that is OK. We also need to realize that not only are our leaders human, they also have an opinion. Of course, that should never get in the way on how they govern the kingdom of God, but it is OK for a human to have an opinion. As apostles that are called to consecrate all that they have and all that they are in order to keep this great work going. But yes, we may see human error sometimes, just like with Moses who could not speak well and Joseph with his youthfulness behavior. That is alright.

We also to have see that some Apostles have a way they approach things and a certain style. The Prophet Jospeh was known to be a little more tender and approachable when it came to his ministry. Brigham Young was a little more intense, with powerful sermons and strong statements were common from him. We can see that Elder Holland follows a little more candid route while he uses imagery and words to portray his spiritual teachings. Elder Bednar relies on the spirit with some of his teachings are not written in what he has stated but rather the spirit is the teacher, telling us what is most important. President Uchtdorf is a pleasant speaker with jokes and airplane analogies used in order to help with his gospel teachings. As we reflect on this, we can sometimes mix up the style of a speaking style with a certain doctrine. I bet some leaders not intend to come off brash, but it may just be who they are. But hey, all of us are here to change right? SO let us be patient and humble along with them too. Let us be faithful in that one day we will know why we deal with so many struggles in today’s world. God will tell us and we will understand. But for now we must hold on firm and steadfast. This is the only sure place to salvation, happiness, and exaltation. There is no where else to go. This is the kingdom of God on the earth today. So before you begin to question or criticize a leader, we should rethink on who we are dealing with. No, our leaders are not celestial beings, but humans. Let us recognize that before we judge, that is what Christ would do.

And besides, what if that’s you in 60 years, speaking on behalf of the Lord, revealing His will? We are the future of the church, we are the future leaders, and I know I am addressing the next apostles, prophets, and leaders of this last dispensation.

-HT

Making the Case for Hispanics & the GOP

This is a tough issue- But we can and we need to secure our borders and pass with it a comprehensive immigration reform. For me, immigration is not a political issue, but a real one. 

“Republicans.” “Conservatives.” “Right.”- don’t really align with “Spanish.” “Latino.” or “Hispanic.”

Well hey, guess what? I’m a Hispanic and a Conservative, so I guess it is possible huh?

I have not told many my own personal story, but I do take lots of pride in being a Hispanic. I am fluent Spanish speaker. I have many friends who are Mexican and from South America. I truly love the Latino community. It has sparked from my dad’s own love for Latinos. My dad married my mother who’s full name is: Dora Magdalena Salinas-Sanez de Thomas (that would be the name if she were to live in Mexico) but since we Americans like to shorten it, she’s just Dora M. Salinas Thomas. She was born and raised in Mexico City until she decided to move to Las Vegas with her grandmother when she turned 19. After being baptized in the LDS Church, she moved back to her hometown and decided to leave on an 18 month-long mission; called to the Monterrey, Mexico mission. Upon returning from her mission, she decided to save up and go back to the United States, but this time to “Mormon-town USA.” Yes, you’ve got it right folks, to (Provo) Utah. There she met my father, they dated and well the rest is history.

But this post’s point is not to give you a whole background story on my family (although that will be saved for a future post…)

I don’t want to come off critical although it’s hard on the internet. I am trying to come off more as passionate. My love for the Latino community is beyond words that I can come off a little feisty with people. I am proud to have so many family members that come from Mexico. My mom started off as a hamburger flipper at Wendy’s and at one time was a full-time nanny. My grandfather who immigrated to the US after many years, spent most of his life as a taxi driver in Mexico, while my grandmother, who fought for citizenship for so long, cleaned houses and later was a worker at a senior citizen home. (Again a later post will be dedicated to my family background….)

I want two things to come out of this post:

1. Conservatives can attract Hispanic voters in an unprecedented way
2. The left claims to understand the Latino community, but really knows nothing

#1- FREE MARKET, FREEDOM, FAMILY, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM- I am making some bold claims, but with all due respect I believe I have an advantage. I come from New Mexico where majority of people have the last name Garcia or Lopez. I come from an extensive family that is from Latin America. And fortunately for us, lots of GOP Politicians are coming out of the woodwork that are Hispanic; that come from Latin American roots. According to latinleaders.com, the top 15 Rising Hispanic Politicians include George P. Bush (Son of Former Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush), Ted Cruz (Senator from Texas), Jamie Herrera Beutler (Congresswoman from Washington), Raul Labrador (Congressman from Idaho), Susana Martinez (Governor of New Mexico) and of course Marco Rubio, Former 2016 Presidential Hopeful and Senator from Florida. We’ve got a good bunch right here.

But let me make the first claim  that I was was making that yes, GOP and Right-leaning more specifically, can attract Hispanic voters. Here’s why. Hispanic voters focus a lot on family. In fact, not only Mexican people are known for their strong family units, but also most of South America. That’s what Latinos are known for; for their families! And they should be! Here is another great reason, (and this is why the left thinks they understand the Latino community).

Limited Government and the Economy Yes. Majority of Southern American and Mexican governments are very corrupt. In fact Mexico’s is known to be one of the most corrupt. Mexicans are outraged with their own President, but mostly with their governmental situation. Lots come to the US looking for a government that fights for them. Wait for it… this is where the left comes in saying they’re going to be the ‘savior of the Latino community’ fighting  for them and for their rights…. Uh-huh of course, nice try.. Really in essence, the fact that Conservatives believe in limited government; less government in the affairs of the people, is something that Hispanics should be flocking to! Due to many corrupt governments, it is hard for a person and for many communities to succeed due to policies inflicted by their politicians. It is toxic up there. I feel bad and sad for them. We need to fight for them and especially when they come to the United States, saving them from this notion that the left is going to fight for them. Conservatives are looking for the ordinary person and protecting their God-given rights.

I can go on to different issues but at the core of it, Hispanics love their families and value their religion, one being Catholicism. Lots of GOP and Conservatives out there tend to be Christian and Catholic leaning, focusing on the principles. For example Jeff Duncan, GOP Congressman from South Carolina, once said in his town halls, that he is a proud Catholic. Lots of Hispanics tend to support Catholic politicians or those who are Christian leaning. I have been looking at some various articles and the Pew Research Center shows us that the most important issues for Latino Communituy are- The economy, healthcare, terrorism, immigration, and education.

(To see more, go to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661)

Jeff Duncan also added saying that we as a party have “wrote off the African-Americans; wrote off the Latinos….” He asks an interesting questions, “where does that lie us?” It lies us out of touch of “38%”of Americans.” We must gain Latino support not for political points but out of a duty to love and to serve them. Although we many not agree on everything and our culture is different, we can find common grround when it comes to securing our borders and comprehensive immigration reform. We can do this with all minority groups. All deserve an ear to listen to and a heart to understand.  Let us not forget, this is the United States of America. (to see more about Jeff Duncan, go to the Frontline documentary Immigration Battle). 

Lots of Democrats really have not done anything significant when it came to the economy from 2008-2016. Sure Obama inherited  a very bad economy, but it was his job to put it on track. Unfortunately growth was very slow and was even slower among Hispanic groups looking for jobs. GOP and Conservative policies want to allow small businesses to grow and support a pro-growth tax reform that allows a tax cut and cuts red tape on small owned businesses. This is great! I don’t hear much about the Democrats supporting any program as such. Instead, they teach and preach that GOP wants to keep the rich, richer and the poor, poorer, when in reality, that is what the left has been doing. The GOP supports and wants to help the middle class grow, where a lot of Hispanic groups lie. We want to allow others to grow their businesses and their dreams, that’s why they came here right? In many Latin American countries, most policies are anti-business and want to tax others because they see they same view as most leftists; that if they don’t tax the rich and make more regulations on businesses, it will just make the rich, richer. Taking away, or as I put it, “stealing” money or spreading the wealth is not a fair or correct solution. What we conservatives believe in is, creating choice and opportunity. Welcome to the land of opportunity. We will make a playing field for all. That is what Conservatism is all about, is allowing all to be on the playing field, and not letting government getting away with the results. A fundamental principle we all believe in promoting growth for all. The left want mediocre growth while controlling the playing field to keep everything “fair,” while Conservatives know that the free market will not be perfect and there will always be winners and losers; those who work hard and follow free market principles will fail and grow, but will rise above the mediocrity. We see the Hispanic people rising above these challenges as we cut unnecessary government social programs, reform the ones that work, and allow temporary dependency to give a better opportunity to grow they have never seen before. And pro-growth polices and free market principle allow for that kind of environment. We depend on keeping promises and hard work. That is what the Hispanic people symbolize, they keep their promises and they are some of the most hardworking people on the planet. Many leftists want to do the opposite and get in the away of growing small businesses and taking away from the rich. Instead, let us create an opportunity for all by cutting taxes, cutting regulation and spending, and allowing the free market to thrive, while the players in their best efforts make the best results as they can. Isn’t that why Latinos came in the first place, for an opportunity and not for a government  in the way of everything?

Religious Freedom We are taking about so many issues and topics that will be posted as later posts… But many Hispanics are very loyal to their families and to their religion. They truly believe in it. They are such a family oriented group and it is so great. I love and respect that. Although it is very unpopular in today’s secular world, lots of people are now in favor of cutting religion from the public square. More and more young people are not proclaiming in a belief in God and in a religion. The attack on religion and a belief in God is not new though. Satan was the first one to attack it. As Conservatives, we are the voice to protect those who have fundamental religious obligations and should NOT be discriminated because of their beliefs. The first amendment right given to all citizens and the whole reason we had this Revolution, was to grant all to believe in whatever they wanted to. There has never been such a right like this which is so under attack, like ever before. We must protect the sanctity of the family and of religious freedom. No one should be discriminated because of their religious freedom, just as much someone should be respected for their gender or sexual orientation. It is a double standard and wrong to forgo such an issue. We need to respect all, and although we are a growing minority of religious believers, many left groups want to take away religion in any aspect out of the public square. Although their intentions are good, their main focus is not in protecting or granting rights to the religious, but to the secular. As Conservatives, we believe in protecting your right to believe and to express yourself in the most lawful way, just as much as an Atheist can. We fundamentally believe in protecting this God-given right and this right that was fought by the blood of our founding fathers. We believe tolerance and respect for all, religious or not. We are devoted in allowing you to be proud and happy of your religious beliefs and convictions, to God and to your family.

Education, Terrorism, and Foreign Policy- Are all issues that are so important to today’s changing world. We need solutions to them, but I was able to grasp, personally and according to many Hispanic voters, I believe the top issues that are most important to them. (My next point will highlight another big issue, Immigration) I also put those points because they establish common ground with many Latino voters and declare the basis of Conservatives beliefs.

#2- Let’s look at the next issue. Really, and I mean sincerely, I do not want to come off brash but if there is any party out there that does not get the Latino community, it’s the left. Another bold claim huh? Now I may just be a “college kid” but I am a Hispanic, and I am not ignorant to the fact that really liberal policies are out of touch to a lot of different ethnicities. Some facts- Let me give you two examples: Something I call offensive, yes, almost as offensive as some took as President Trump called Latinos “rapists” and “murderers.” In 2015 Hillary Clinton’s then campaign manager (John Podesta) mentioned in an email to her considering seeing support and an endorsement. He told her that she consider a few Hispanic politicians, naming them “needy latinos.” Now just for the sake of safe information, two sources do confirm this-

(abcnews.go.com/Politics/campaign-chief-john-podesta-asked-hillary-clinton-call-story/storyid?=42763552)-

(www.washingtonexaminer.com/email-podesta-told-clinton-to-call-needy-latinos/article/26004390)

We look at this and we think hm. Or at least I do. And I see a little of a double standard. NOW, get this straight, yes I am conservative. I am a registered Republican. I support any President from any party as any good citizen should. But no, I do not always agree with what President Trump says. The fact that he called Latinos “rapists” and “murderers” does not give more merit to the left to claim a Hispanic vote as they called the Latino community “needy.” I see that just as offensive as any Hispanic. No big callout on Clinton and her campaign about that comment. No backlash from the national media as they just “slid that into an email” to make “1 phone call” to the “needy Latinos.” If we want to have a good conversation, a conversation that is going to move us towards a real solution to immigration reform, we need someone who can understand this community. We must see the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. I am against illegal immigration, anyone has that common sense to say it. People who do it are breaking laws. It can impose national security. The United States of America has all due respect to protect itself from other countries. As Marco Rubio stated in a New Hampshire fundraiser, borders are not just the Mexican-American one, but ALL borders. Our seaports and airports are all ways of entry into the United States. The left is selling the news to people, that because of a conservative stance on securing our borders is somehow inflicting ‘wrong doing’ on the Hispanic community. The Hispanic community should be in support to those who want to come in here and do bad to a country that offers so much opportunity. The Latino community gets that. What’s even worse is that many of those good people who come in here correctly or are trying to gain citizenship, are normally the ones who don’t end up getting their green card. Most of the time we focus on those who come in illegally and have wrong intentions in being in the United States. That is unfair, and yes, fundamentally we must protect our borders. We must do so. It is the right thing to do. After that, what we need to look more towards is how we are going to form a legal immigration system that allows good citizens from everywhere to gain citizenship, to gain a job and create more for everyone. The argument in this case is how? How do we do it? Some Republicans face away the issue while most Democrats take full force of the issue for more voting points. That will have to be for another time. BUT, why should we do it? First off, legal immigration and diversity is good for the USA. We are a nation of immigrants. Let’s look at another fact that has not been shown by the media and another trap that the Hispanic community should not fall into-

That goes to my next example. READERS NOTE: Although I am a Conservative I do not endorse nor am I in favor of every decision and statement made by President Trump. The same goes to President Obama and with President Bush and all of the Presidents. Sometimes I believe Trump should be a little more strict on said issue or less strict on another. The same went with Obama. I give you a personal example, I think Trump should let go of some of the rhetoric when is comes to the whole wall thing (cause we’ve heard it too many times from the media) and simply just focus on securing our borders, while being more strict and devoted when it comes to fixing a broken and unfair immigration system. I do agree with him in protecting our borders but in the way he does it or phrases it, is something I may not necessarily agree with. I also agreed with President Obama when he decided to kill Osama Bin Laden and put pressure on extremist muslim terrorist groups. Although I did not agree with him when it came to his foreign policy; the way he approached and did things. (Yes we are an imperfect country that has made mistakes, we also have done lots of good in the world and we should not apologize for that!) According to ABC News and other sources, Obama was known as the “Deporter In Chief” and had deported more than 2.5 million immigrants. No other US President has done that (compared to President Bush in total with his presidency deported 2 million). Granted, out of the 2.5 million, 91% were criminals, which is good, but still, many immigration reform groups were livid when hearing this. Obama blamed the GOP leadership when it came to passing multiple bi-partisan immigration reform bills, but in reality, both parties were in the wrong. Obama was supposed to be the crown jewel of the Hispanic people and give them a red carpet to citizenship? When really, with two years to go, he finally touched the issue because it would be a good political point for his administration and to the Democratic Party. He granted an executive order that many considered unconstitutional, only temporally granting a few minimum rights to stop deportation.

The issue is so complicated. We must act in the correct way because it is the correct thing to do, and finally sit down and have a conversation in how to make a comprehensive and fair immigration systeem. Too many families and too many people rely on it. That is what it’s always been about. It has never been about the families nor the people, simply about getting votes. Obama nor the Democrats do not get the Hispanic people. Don’t fall for the trap.

On the other hand, another article from The Washington Post stating that Trump is deporting less immigrants than Obama. But the post explains this next point that he is deporting less criminals. We can get that Trump is cracking down on those who have been here illegally. Stop listening to the mega focus and dog food put out to you by the left. Trump is the minority in what he says about Latinos and really you should listen to the majority of  Conservative and GOP politicans who admire you and want the best for you. Actions speak louder than words while the left has continued to talk and talk to give justice to immigrants but we’ve seen no action. My final point that follows, explains the why of this whole explanation.

(Trump is deporting fewer immigrants than Obama, including criminals: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/trump-is-deporting-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-including-criminals/2017/08/10/d8fa72e4-7e1d-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.a039e2eee349)

(Obama Has Deported More People Than Any President http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661)

CLOSING– What is the point I am getting at? Both parties don’t get immigration. And that don’t get Hispanics. Quite simply, yes both parties are in fault. The GOP has turned their head to the issue while Democrats use it for politics. That is wrong. I am offended by the rhetoric placed by the media saying that majority of Hispanic voters are Democrats while most Democrats have only done as they have done for decades saying “we need to fight for the Latinos!” and other hot air, while not have made any action. We as conservatives need to rise up to the challenge. I may be part of that Hispanic minority of active conservative voters, but I believe we can be a grand majority someday. We need someone who knows and speaks the language of Spanish to allow us to see eye to eye on issues. We need someone who uses uplifting words to portray Hispanics, not downgrading ones. (This goes for both sides of the aisle). No, I am not a “rapist” or a “murderer” nor am I a “needy Latino.” I am proud Mexican-American. And my mother, my grandfather Avilio, my grandmother Mercedes, my uncle Lacho, my uncle Cristian, my aunt Theresa, my best friend and cousin Dylan Salinas, and the other countless Latino friends that I love and cherish, will not be defined by those terms. They are opposite of being needy. They are hardworking. And that don’t need some party like the left trying to take advantage of them. What they really need is they need you. They need good-hearted conservatives that listen to them and listen to their problems and listen to what keeps they up at night. They need a people who fight for them and for their families. The left claims to want to help Hispanics and their poverty, but I have one question. Do they even understand poverty? Have they lived it? Do they know how it feels being a Hispanic? Have they lived with millions of Latinos? No. They have not. They don’t get us. This is why they have not done anything significant and won’t do anything significant for the Latino community. I often ask the left, what have they done for Latinos lately? And this is what I would respond:

This is not political, I know and understand them. I lived with them, cried with them, laughed with them. I’ve taught them and learned to truly love them. Most of my heritage is from Mexico and Spain. And yes, I am a son of a poor Mexican Immigrant who now lives the American dream. She is my mother. And yes, I am a proud Conservative. Yes, I can be both. Yes, we can win the Latino vote, because we value them, we care about them, we understand them, we love them. We will commit to our promises in protecting our borders to secure our nation and to make a fair and correct legal immigration system. That is our future and our vision. Don’t fall for the trap. Listen, we need conservatives and (there are right now) Republicans to embrace this issue. It is so key to the future of our nation. We will do it. We need Hispanic Conservatives more than ever like Marco Rubio and Jeff Duncan, and Mario Diaz-Balart and Raul R. Labrador, to stand up for these precious people.

Que Dios te bendiga y que bendiga a los Estados Unidos.

To see another great article about Hispanics and Conservatives: http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/25/10-ways-conservatives-can-appeal-hispanics-without-becoming-liberal-2/)

 

What I Think About Politics ‘Now-A-Days’

America needs public servants that support principles that work and public servants that listen to the people. 

Politics. People hear that word and makes them cringe or almost puke. Seriously though. My little brother can’t believe that I enjoy talking about politics. Most people gasp and almost have a seizure when I tell that I want to go into politics someday. Politics are not so popular now a days! People just tend to hang up on the campaign volunteer, skip the political ads on TV, and turn off the Rush Limbaugh show and listen to Americas Top 40. It’s funny. Shouldn’t we as a people be naturally interested in current issues and the direction our country is taking? I mean, maybe I’m the only one (plus I am insane) but politics is my passion. I have a special love for it.

Our founding fathers fought the British so that government and political power could not be in the power of the elite, but of the people. As we quote our very own Constitution  states that it should be “by the people AND for the people.”

Just to add some numbers to this, current Gallup polls show that in 2004 63% of Americans trust their political leaders. In 2016, 12 years later, that number has now reached to 42%. That’s a 21% difference! And since 2016, that number keeps dropping and dropping. Gallup continues to show us that President Obama’s approval rating as he left the Oval Office in January 2017 was a 59% with a 47.9% average. With current President Donald Trump Jr; his ratings don’t look so hot either. He recently just hit 39% of his approval rating. (All from Gallup polls)

Here’s an ever more interesting look at the numbers. (I will attach the link to this) If we look at approval ratings since Truman, it can give us an even broader picture on how the public views their President’s- (These are estimates)

• Harry S. Truman (Democrat)- High: 90%, Low: 32%, Average: 45.4%
• Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)- High: 80%, Low: 30%, Average: 65%
• John F. Kennedy- (Democrat) High 82%, Low: 59%, Average: 70.1%
• Lyndon B. Johnson- (Democrat) High: 79%, Low: 35%, Average: 55.1%
• Richard Nixon- (Republican) High: 68%, Low: 25%, Average: 49%
• Gerald R. Ford- (Republican) High: 71%, Low: 39%, Average: 47.2%
• Jimmy Carter- (Democrat)  High: 75%, Low: 30%, Average: 45.5%
• Ronald Reagan-(Republican) High: 70%, Low: 35%, Average: 52.8%
• George H.W. Bush- (Republican) High: 90%, Low: 30%, Average: 60.9%
• Bill Clinton- (Democrat) High: 72%, Low: 38%, Average: 55.1%
• George W. Bush- (Republican) High: 90%, Low: 28%, Average: 49.4%

(found on http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidental-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx)

There are a lot of numbers and we can see how the trends go. But just to give a little more balance to all of this, these were all taken at their time. For example January 21st 1951; there was a poll taken to see who was in favor of that President’s job. So the retrospect could be seen differently then today in 2017. We will give credit that although the numbers show the facts, other articles claim that “Americans say that Reagan is the Greatest U.S. President.” and “Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern,  President Nixon Lowest.” If we take all this we can realize that since Nixon, there has been a steady approval average rating, most of them around 45-50%, (if their lucky) The only highly rated President’s since Nixon are George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and then Reagan. We can see that people since the 70’s have found less of a reason to trust their Presidents. We can give claim to Nixon and the Watergate, Ford inheriting the Nixon Presidency, Carter with an economic decline and then a steady rise from Republican leaders Reagan and H.W. Bush, with then a little decline from Clinton and the Lewinsky Scandal, following W. Bush with 9/11 and the War on Terror and then with Obama and the Great Recession. We can see why these numbers follow.

If we put this into context and look at now Trump’s approval rating, we are seeing that people simply don’t trust their leaders. I believe it goes to their very fact- We need less politicians and more public servants. I believe that was the language intended from our founding fathers when they started this nation. And actually that is the term that many politicians are called today as well. Now if you were to ask the average American if they think that their Representative or Senator in Congress is a “public servant” then they would probably laugh in your face. Most politicians put on a mask and tend to say things and promise lots of great things, but get to office and realize that politics is a little more different than they campaigned for.

What is wrong with politics today? It is all based on public and special interest. Now we cannot wish or just magically move away all lobbyists. The system was set up this way so people could freely voice their concerns and influence their “public servant” to vote in their favor. But, when we start to look back a little more, we see that lots of our politicians are worried about next election cycle and vote based on what their own interests say- which is reelection. This is wrong. Not correct. Unethical. Why do you think that we got rid of dictatorships and that the President has term limits? A politician should not vote based on whether they think it’ll be good for their image or because their buddy who got on the campaign trail wants some leeway when it comes to his business. Sometimes, as seen with Clinton, with denial after denial, his interest was in a woman. Those are personal interests that should be eliminated. Now, no one is perfect, we are all human, some politician is gonna make some mishap. And yes fundraising is key to running a successful campaign. But our public servants should simply run on this ideal- To vote what is BEST for the people and for the country, and rely on the principles AND VALUES that our country was based on. 

These are all bold claims I’m making (and yes you must still think I’m insane) but really in essence, I personally believe that is the way a politician should make their decisions. I believe in term limits for all of our public servants and that they need to realize that they are not there to serve the political machine, but to serve the people and defend and uphold the values that they believe in and that America was founded on. If you think this is impossible, how did our founding fathers win the “impossible” American Revolution. They did because that believed that EVERYONE deserved a chance to have a voice and that big decisions should not be made by personal interests, but by values and principles. The government should be there to teach principles to the American people and live up to them. Not to control every aspect in their lives, but to defend the God-given rights that were received by our founding fathers. Our founding fathers were able to make such a prosperous country in such drastic times because they believed in them, their God, their country and those values. The hand of God was seen during the formation of this great nation. We need public servants who stand up- not for what they want, or for the special interest, but what is right. What is right may not be in align with public opinion- that is OK. Everyone take a deep breath. But that does not mean they have to put a blind ear to what those people think. They can listen and make the best decision for all. At the same time, there can be decisions made where public opinions does favor good action. That is OK as well. But today, too many people make too many decisions based on what they think or what this group says and does not take into account the many factors of EVERYONE and what they think. Remember, “you don’t have to agree with someone to not respect them” (That was stated by Ohio Governor John Kasich) If they stand on that principle, there will be no worry for reelection, support will come naturally or time will come when it’s time for someone else to make those decision. We are in a changing world. The founding fathers were fundamentally fighting for a “word in” as we might put it. In a British monarchy at that time, no one was even allowed to state their opinion and less if they did so, it not was going to be heard. The genius of America and our First Amendment states that we have the freedom of speech. We can say whatever we want. It is our right. And of course because of that right comes a lot of different privileges. But I think that the founding fathers, and especially me, would rather live in America where we can say whatever we want and we will be heard (to a certain extent) than someone who rules overs us and tells you that no opinion is fine.

In a Democratic Republic, we see so much and we face so many different problems, but that does not mean that we cannot live in happiness and in harmony. I am a conservative. Now someone would might ask me “what does that mean?” Well it means that I believe in conserving principles and values that work. For example, many conservatives defend pro-life movements because they fundamentally believe in the right and principle of conserving a life and that mortal life is sacred. Another example is someone that believes in letting the free market flourish and allow it to take it’s course. That’s been a capitalistic principle for a very long time. Progressives on the other hand believe in maybe “improving” the market with regulations or government sponsored programs to allow a more “progressive” and “new” approach to capitalism. Now I am not starting that progressives don’t support principles and that conservatives don’t believe in new ideas. What I am trying to say is that the left and the right believe in eliminating poverty and inequality, but we believe in doing it in a different way. Simply conservatism is that there should be less government and more of the people. That is what a conservative is.

I do not claim that left or right have solutions to all the issues in the world today. We live in a fallen world. There will always be someone whining or some other issue. But we must act out in a way of love, and concern, and compassion and listen. And try to see what is the best way to figure out the problem. What I do believe is that there are fundamental principles- such as freedom of religion and conserving a free market with less government regulation, that need to be persevered. If they work, we need to apply them and keep them that way. Values and principles are more valuable to a stronger foundation than a shaky one. As I have said, just because we believe in a principle, does not mean we should be disrespectful and not listen. We must have concern for all and look for fairness for all.

We must restore the American people’s trust in our public servants.

-HT

(Next time I will be focusing what I think about political parties).

Hope is the fabric of a nation- Religion & Politics

I’ve been thinking about a lot of stuff and I have a lot of share- a lot of political and also spiritual insights. I’ll have to put those on later.

I really admire only a few politicians, one of them being a Prophet of God- Ezra Taft Benson. He was appointed to be the Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower. At the same time he was an Apostle. Crazy to think he could balance those two great responsibilities.

Ezra Taft Benson as Secretary of Agriculture (Credit to mormonhub.com)

President Benson served as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter – Day Saints from 1985-1994 (Credit to Teachings of the Presidents Ezra Taft Benson, lds.org)

Another one is Ronald Reagan, I personally believe we need Reagan-like Conservatives again to keep our nation strong. I read a latest paper that explained that Reagan was fundamentally successful because he was comfortable with himself and he genuinely liked other people. It did not matter whether or not he was with the janitor of the White House or one of the Top Senate leaders, he liked them and humbled himself before them, not forgetting his position as President. (That’s what our leaders lack is a lot of humility and need to let down their greed/pride). He had a plaque on his desk on the Oval Office that motivated him to do the impossible.

President Reagan with then Apostle Thomas S. Monson who now is the current President of the LDS Church. (Credit to lds.org)

Ronald Reagan with President Benson in the Oval Office (Credit to Simple Utah Mormon Politics)

Another is a character that many people will and have criticized, but something that I am not afraid to testify, is he was truly the man that he was. He goes by the name of a Joseph Smith Jr, Prophet of the Restoration and the first LDS Presidental Candidate. He actually was murdered while running his Presidental bid. I look up to this man with his courage and loyalty to the Lord. I do not know any other man who has been so chastised for his willingness to stay by the Lord in any circumstance, in really any religious history. We must not forget that there have been many great and loyal religious leaders and praise them, but Joseph Smith had majority of his children die at a young age and was poor pretty much his mortal life. He lived and loved the gospel. It was not his doctrine thst he preached that many will try to claim; that he was the supposed author of the The Book of Mormon and was a cult leader trying to pose to get money. Many people have said many things, but as a restoration of ancient order that had been established since the beginning of the world, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and nothing more. He was a Moses or Noah or Job, but in modern times.

Portrait of the Prophet Joseph Smith, served as the President of the LDS Church, 1830-1844 (Credit to Mormon Newsroom)

A poster of the Presidental run of Joseph Smith Jr. (Credit to Rogar Launius’s WordPress blog)

Another great hero is Mitt Romney. He came in more than 150 years later making a run in 2008 and then in 2012, winning the GOP Presidential Nomination. Since Joseph’s run, a Mormon finally got closer to the Presidency than any other Mormon in history. He truly opened doors up.

Former Gov. of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney running for President of the USA in 2012 (Credit to MSNBC.com)

Mitt Romney served as Stake President in the LDS Church in Boston Massachusetts (Credit to NY Magazine)

If we look at religion, majority of politicians proclaim themselves as Protestant Christians. We’ve only had one Roman Catholic and that was Kennedy. There has never been one since. It seems that politicians don’t want to enter the culture war of the USA. It’s a toughy subject. But Romney proved a point along with Joseph, and along with President Benson- Hope. Hope for a better future. Now this post might be more Mormon biased, but if we look at a scale, not many religions have been popular in politics. Only Christians, Catholics, and in some part, Mormonism. Thanks to this great men along with other great others from both sides of the aisle, they promote hope. We must support faith and hope promoting policies. I firmly believe one day we will have an LDS President someday. Just like Kennedy, there was one Roman Catholic, but with other rising world religions, there will be an LDS one.

President Kennedy was America’s only Catholic President to date. (Credit to CNN Belief Blog)

Many might disagree. Look at this weirdly. But I truly do see it someday looking at the rise of world religions and voting trends in the among American voters. The LDS church is now more transparent and God’s called leaders are ready to take the real questions, they see to reveal the truth. Although some revelation may seem unpopular or not so politically correct, it does not stop being a truth. The church is growing faster than ever and both members and non members need to grab a hold and see the wonder that is coming among us in this last dispensation.

Back to the point of this- What offers the USA? It offers hope for the future. It offers that need lots are waiting for. We need to hope for something and everytime we look at our American flag, we glance at our foundation. That we are free, we base on family, and faith is our driving principle. Now I’m just a 21 year old college-kid, what do I know? What I do know is that this country and as one greater said it – “This country literally changed the face of my family..” (Marco Rubio) I echo those words. America to me is the hope for a better world. It has the right values and principles that will never fall down. We must persevere them. Of course, with those who dissgree with, we need to lend a kind ear and listen and understand. We must realize that being firm does not mean we cannot be flexible with others that we may disagree with. That is America, that hope, to be free. That is so heavenly. Let us keep our hope by always remembering why we are here and that we  are a God blessed nation even if we don’t think so. The world is big, but as Ronald Reagan put it, we are that shining city on a hill.

America is that standard. We are the best nation on earth, of course, respectively. May we keep it that way. All eyes are on us my friends. May God bless this promised land.

-HT

(Reader’s Note: please stay tuned for next post, I will be focusing on my personal story and my family’s background)