Once Soft Target For Terror In Utah Hardens Itself

At the beginning of the year, I put up my (now) annual post warning of the dangers of feel-good gun bans by churches, particularly related to terrorism or mass shooting/casualty situations. As I noted then, the LDS Church was only one of two religious organizations in Utah that advertise they ban lawful citizens from carrying guns. At the time, the only other church to do so was Congregation Kol Ami.

They are now off BCI’s list of those banning a lawful and effective defensive means. It may have something to do with this (Congregation Kol Ami in SLC heightens security after three anti-Semitic incidents):

Congregation Kol Ami says they are increasing security measures in response to several incidents of anti-Semitism that occurred within a short period of time.

I won’t pretend to know much about them, but there appear to be plenty of their faith who advocate for individual defensive means in the face of bigoted threats.

Advertisements

LDS Church Wants One Sided Blind Trust, Open Borders

LDS Church public affairs came out with this:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long expressed its position that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together. The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families. While we recognize the right of all nations to enforce their laws and secure their borders, we encourage our national leaders to take swift action to correct this situation and seek for rational, compassionate solutions.”

Oh really? They put the blame completely on the US. No where did they state that people should not violate a nation’s laws and sovereignty if they do not want to face the possibility of separation and other legal actions. No where did the church acknowledge the fact that separation occurs precisely to protect children if they are believed to be in danger or travelling with a non family member (a red flag for human trafficking). Nor did the church acknowledge that when an adult is arrested trying to enter the United States illegally that their children can not be with them in adult jail. And finally, the church did not acknowledge that the only option to keep parents and children together is to release them into the United States which means that anyone with a child can ignore United States borders and simply tell the United States that they are coming in, like it or not (ie the previous failed/destructive ‘catch-and-release’ policy).

Instead, the church seems to expect us to just blindly trust everybody who walks in with a child, no questions asked and to effectively have an open border. Are they seriously unaware of human trafficking and sex trafficking in minors? Evidently, they prefer we do believe the alien and release the minor and potential criminal into our population with no investigation. If we did follow such a path and see a wave a child abuse, the same people would be outraged and demanding consequences for those who enacted such a negligent and cruel policy.

The church has long tacitly encouraged illegal immigration and looked the other way as victims and citizens bear the costs. Does anyone have any recollection of the church being “deeply troubled” at the incentivization of unaccompanied minors (separated families) turning up in droves at the border during Obama’s tenure? I don’t.

Then there’s the one sided concern. Apparently, they couldn’t care less about separated families of citizens or legal immigrants accused of a crime who are incarcerated pending their trial (many of the kids end up under the care of social services). Does this mean they oppose that law? What about after a conviction, especially for a non-violent crime? How about CPS abuses?….No, ‘those people’ don’t matter and don’t get you social justice media brownie points.

If they and their congressional cohorts are really serious about this, rather than virtue signalling, let’s see them change the laws for all accused of a crime and absorb the costs of housing as ‘family units’ and investigating these folks themselves. The church could also pay all medical, education and other costs associated with the new families. They would also assume the liability if any child abuse occurs and deportation costs when such a policy inevitably leads to another spike in illegal entries. Or is it more likely they’ll just pass something that pushes more costs to us and leaves victims in it’s wake while they pat themselves on the back for their piety?

UPDATE: Just thought of this – Speaking of children, I haven’t seen any press releases about being deeply troubled over abortion. Nor do I recall any expression of being deeply troubled during Obama’s detention centers during the incentivized unaccompanied minor fiasco.

Oh, and…Surprise! Or something:
Top Senate Democrat Shoots Down Cruz’s Proposal to End the Family Separation Democrats and the Media Supposedly Care So Much About, In Order to “Keep the Focus on Trump”

…and bingo (watch the video).

Do the families separated by illegal aliens not deserve any attention…and what about those dirty Canadians detaining kids and separating families?

The LDS Church, Social Justice Warriors And The Decline Of The Boy Scouts Of America

Yesterday, the LDS Church stated it would terminate its over 100 year association with Scouting effective January 31, 2019. For the Boy Scouts Of America (BSA) that is likely a nail in it’s coffin. It’s a shame too and one which the church bears a good part of the blame.

For quite a while now the BSA was a big target of social justice warriors (SJWs) and media allies in their war on traditional values and boys/men. Over the last several years they scored key victories on getting policies allowing openly gay leaders and scouts and getting girls into boy scouts* (right now they’re only in cub scouts but the trajectory is clear). Just this last week, the BSA even changed it’s name, yanking “Boy” from their name – they’ll be “Scouts BSA”. This mirrors the changes to scouting in Canada where the program is a shell of it’s former self (it’s pretty much dead).

The church was the dominant organization in Boy Scouts wielded great influence on national policy (they could block anything). During the above battles, folks waned the church and BSA that the social justice groups did not care about the welfare of the BSA nor compromise; “compromise” was simply a stepping stone on the path to the ultimate goal of destroying the organization for them. The warnings went unheeded, the church/BSA “compromised” on core principles and here we are.

In 2015**, David Burge did a good job of summing up SJW procedure:

It looks like SJWs will soon have a new “skin suit” to parade around in.

*I actually think it’s fine to offer a scout program for girls but it should’ve been just for girls and a separate branch and could’ve had the same requirements etc as the boys rather than getting into mission creep. Besides, that wouldn’t be good enough for SJWs as no boy-only organizations can be tolerated.

**Ironically, the same year the BSA added openly gay leaders to the program (openly gay scouts were added in 2014).

Addendum: I forgot to include this! It is very important to note that the LDS Church didn’t really run the scouting program the way it was intended. Rather than having a proper troop, the church broke the troop into ‘sub troops’ by age group (11, 12-13, 14-15, 16-17). This fractured the program but wasn’t too big of a deal if you had lots of kids in each group (though lacking experienced youth leaders/mentors in younger groups) but if there were smaller numbers, proper youth leadership structure and training was much harder to implement.

Must Watch: I’m The Majority

Just watch, there’s not much I can add.

“We’re the first ones taxed, and the last ones considered, and the first ones punished when things like this happen. Because our rights are the ones being taken away.”

Enough with leftists blaming good citizens and treading on rights of the law-abiding. I too am fed up with all the politicians coddling to the “loonies from the left”. We must start to fight and “raise hell” with the schools, city councils, legislatures, and organizations who bow down to the leftist minority who are either ignorant to realities and God-given rights or malevolently seek to deny them for their own power. I’m done with unprincipled politicians and organizations (including churches) who say we always have to compromise our natural and constitutional rights to speech and defense (among others) to some squeamish leftist social justice warrior when we’ve done nothing wrong and obey the law. They can take their despotic social justice and shove it.

LDS President Nelson And Firearm Laws

Quick blurb: Fox13 caught some statement LDS President Nelson made about firearm laws and featured it for a bit on their website. The main part they focused on is:

“…Well, God allows us to have our agency, and men have passed laws that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.”

A spokesman for the LDS Church said the quote speaks for itself.

I’ll be blunt. LDS Public Affairs is useless on this since the quote doesn’t really speak for itself. Without a specific example of a law, I have no idea whatsoever what he’s talking about. Besides the current State & Federal laws, Baker Act (and variants), NICS requirements, and ATF Form 4473, there are plenty of laws disqualifying people under various conditions (yes, including mental disorders) from possessing a firearm. So, quite contrary, men have passed laws to block guns going to people who shouldn’t have them (and respect constitutional due process requirements in stripping an individual of the right). Of course, criminals don’t really care about laws so they’ll always try their best to violate them but the law-abiding care and follow them.

Meanwhile, in terms of the Parkland shooting, it’s seems clearer that rather than a lack of laws, we’re seeing a lack of enforcement and due diligence based on the plethora of legal/school/social services interactions with the shooter and the subsequent (in)action by Broward County Sheriff Deputies. Should we look at tweaking laws and mental adjudication/commitment (which also respect constitutional rights) to avoid the failures we’re seeing? Sure. Same with hardening soft targets. But it seems like the first priority will be to address the causes of the failures and determine if priorities and processes rather than laws are what really need to be addressed.

Anyway, back to the statement. I’m basically left shrugging and finding he was expressing a personal opinion and may not have all the facts on hand (he also called the shooter a “sniper” which was not the case). That may well be why Public Affairs put out the statement they did – it was his opinion, what else can they say.

If, on the other hand, he was targeting the 2nd Amendment as a whole and plans on initiating a departure from church being stalwart defender of the US Constitution (including in doctrine), it would be a massive upheaval. Even with the recent weakness on individual rights, I don’t see that at all here, especially with Public Affairs’ quick punt.

Further reading:
Founders: Why the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is pointless.
Yep, the right to bear arms was always clearly intended as a personal right.

LDS Church Renews Tempting Soft Target Status For 2018

Last month I posted my annual warning/reminder about staying vigilant when attending services at an LDS church, particularly given the specific Daesh (ISIS) threat against the church. This month, I checked if anything had changed in terms of the church allowing members and visitors to have defensive means. Nope. The LDS church renewed its status as one of two churches in Utah to ban law-abiding citizens from possessing a firearm.

The ban is in effect for another year. Thus, if you attend church (or any ‘gun-ban’ public venue) this year, be sure to click the linked post and review the terrorism defense tips/links at the end of the post. Stay safe and good luck.

Organizational Vs Individual Freedom: Elder M. Russell Ballard And Utah’s LGBT Law

In the LDS Church’s monthly publication, Ensign, which I recommend if you want some uplifting inspiration, I read through an article titled “The Eternal Importance of Family” written by M. Russell Ballard. The article was good as it related to traditional families and respecting those who disagree and/or don’t share those values. However, a portion caught my attention and caused some dismay. In reference to Utah’s 2015 LGBT non-discrimination law supported by the church, he states:

At the same time, religious conscience and the right to practice deeply held religious beliefs are protected by this robust legislation.

Back when the bill was developed and debated, I caught the discrepancy in the church’s justification to support the proposal:

Good For The Gander: LDS Church And LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws

LDS Church And LGBT Non-Discrimination Law Credibility

The disconnect is that the law protects organizations to practice deeply held religious beliefs via specific exemptions (see above links or the footnote 12 in the Ensign article). Individuals are not exempted; only certain organizations are.  It does not protect individual freedom, quite the contrary.

Individual freedom is the basis for freedom. Basically, it would be like saying there is only freedom of speech for specific organizations and if you aren’t working on behalf of it, you have no right and may be legally sanctioned for what you say; only specific organizations have protection from unreasonable search and seizure but you don’t and so forth.

While the church received an exemption and retained their right, individual members and non-members alike were thrown under the bus and lost their freedom. Meanwhile, we hear of Oregon upholding the fine against the cake bakers under the guise of non-discrimination. I don’t think Utah’s law is as bad as Oregon’s and, hopefully, won’t be construed or form the basis for similar actions here. Nevertheless, it doesn’t protect individual religious freedom and may open the door to exploitation in the future.

Disclaimer: I don’t advocate denying basic services – that sort of stuff isn’t my thing and goes against my beliefs. However, if there are plenty of alternative, willing sources for a basic need, then no law should be made and no freedom intruded upon (the issue is moot). Furthermore, economic and peer/societal consequences will be brought to bear as others use their free association to not conduct business  etc. with those denying the service. For fluff stuff like cakes, I think it absurd and unconstitutional to restrict freedom of the business or consumer.