Taxes, charity, and religious freedom

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recently testified before a Congressional committee about the importance of the charitable deduction on taxes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22XHmK2bvkM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

His message focuses on the important contributions made by churches and other nonprofit agencies, which are funded by donations that are at least partially prompted or facilitated by the tax deduction.

However, he hits on a really important point around 4:30 into the video, when he talks about how some people believe the charitable deduction is effectually a tax expenditure, "because tax revenues are reduced by the benefit granted. in other words, because the gov't could have denied the charitable deduction, there is a government expenditure in its granting the deduction and foregoing the revenue."

He puts that idea into context this way:

By that reasoning, the personal income we think is ours is really the government's because of its choice not to take it away by taxation. that is certianly an attitude not shared by most Americans.

That hit home with me because I have long believed that taxation is a subtle way of impending on religious freedom.

When people talk about the erosion of religious freedoms, they usually talk about Christmas trees being banned from city hall and a lack of teacher-led prayer in public schools. But neither of those things prevents me from living my religion.

But what if taxes sometime became so high that they impended my ability to participate in religious activity?

For example, some churches (including mine) teach the principle of tithing, which states that you should give one tenth of your income for God's purposes. A friend of mine who served a mission in a European country a few decades ago told me that people would ask him whether they should pay their tithing on their income before or after taxes---because after taxes, they did not have 10 percent of their pre-tax income left over.

What if taxes became so high that people could not afford mission trips? What if people could not afford to build churches, or even to travel to a church that is more than a few blocks from their home?

Of course, this is not the case now in America. But if taxes continue to rise, and if tax deductions for charitable donations are lowered or stricken, that would significantly change people's ability to participate in faithful religious activity.

Why I'm not buying an iPad (yet)

As much as I would love to hold an iPad in my arms and gaze at its awe-inspiring coolness, I just cannot justify it.

I don't mean to judge people who do own iPads, and I don't pretend to preach that other people should make this same choice. But it's a decision I want to share for anyone who is debating the purchase.

The first Apple product I owned was an iPhone 3Gs to which I upgraded in 2010. It was my second smartphone.



An iPhone is fairly expensive, and the cost of the monthly data plan does add up. But it's an amazing piece of technology that has really made my life easier. It's easy to use, it rarely malfunctions, and it's just plain likeable.

When the really big iPhone called the iPad was released, I knew I would want one. Every time I have held a friend's iPad or used one in the store or read a review, I've only wanted it more.

Then why have I not gone out and bought one?

At first, it was a question of money. I'm a pretty frugal guy, and I couldn't justify spending $500 on a gadget while I still had student loans and a car payment. So when I got my tax return this year, I pushed aside every particle of my being that said "buy an iPad" and paid off debt instead.

By the time I paid off my debt this summer, I had reached a few other conclusions.

1. I can't name one significant thing that I could do with an iPad that I could not do with the digital devices I already have. Between my laptop and my phone, I can type, send e-mails, text messages, browse the Internet, play games, and participate in online video chats. Yes, it would be nice to have the large touchscreen interface, and the convenience of the tablet design, but that's not enough to justify the $500+ expense.


2. You can do a lot with $500. You can invest it and watch it become tens of thousands of dollars over the years. You can buy food for a lot of hungry people. You can pay your rent, or at least a significant portion of it. You can send it to me.


3. Eventually, today's iPad will be obsolete. There will be something better, whether it's a future iPad (or another device) made by Apple, or another Tablet computer that performs flawlessly.

With these three reasons in mind, I finally decided to completely ignore the idea of buying an iPad until it's time to replace my laptop. That will probably be a few years from now.

By then, who knows where technology will have taken the world of mobile and tablet computing?

It wouldn't surprise me if there is a version of a tablet computer that is thin, lightweight, touchscreen, and can function just like an iPad, but can also functions just like a laptop when you connect it to a keyboard, mouse, printer, and second monitor. And it might have other awesome features, like teleportation. (I'm not holding my breath on that last one, though.)

So I'm saving the $500, letting it earn interest, until it makes absolute sense and I need another mobile computing solution.

Again, I do not judge or look down on those who have chosen to go ahead and buy an iPad. But I hope these thoughts are helpful for people who are thinking about buying one---or people who are thinking about buying any expensive item that they might not actually need.

Playing piano standing up?

My job title is "writer," but I'm fortunate to have many opportunities beyond just putting words on paper.

Recently, I got to interview this music professor and create a video about her upcoming concert at the college.

A little more than halfway through the video, while she is talking about the highlights of her concert, she stands in the middle of playing a sonata to stick her hand inside the piano and alter the sound. Check it out!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN1LwVf34x0[/youtube]

It was fun to shoot the footage as she played some really stellar piano music. I also enjoyed forging the footage and the interview together into a nice, short video.

test of v slider

[vslider name="test"]

Debunk the Junk: eliminating junk food in public schools

[Intro: I wrote this a couple of days ago during a practice test for the Virginia teachers literacy assessment under a time crunch. It is supposed to address the issue of sodas and junk food at snack machines in schools. The original assignment is on page 38 of www.va.nesinc.com/PDFs/VCLA_Writing_PracticeTest.pdf]

When was the last time you had a headache from eating too much junk food? The fourth of July? The Superbowl? Christmas? It is a common thing when we know we should not eat certain things at holidays, but we see those things on the table, want them, eat them, and then may regret the choice. How would the hours following such events be different if those unhealthy foods were replaced with healthy options?

This is much like the situation facing many of the public schools in our country. When a student gets hungry between classes, there are usually plenty of highly processed foods available, but very few healthy options. Replacing traditional snack machines with healthier options can give students longer attention spans, better habits, and healthier futures.

As an educator, I noticed a significant difference in my students’ behavior when sodas in the school’s drink machines were replaced by flavored waters. There was an overnight change in attention, respect, and involvement. Several hyper students were able to concentrate for longer periods of time. I was surprised to see such a dramatic difference from something that seemed insignificant to me.

Food selection habits, whether good or bad, will follow students throughout the rest of their lives. I have been disheartened to learn that many students nationwide to not have healthy food options at home. This makes the need for offering less-processed foods in school more important. Students learn things best when taught by example. A school that offers soda, chips, and sugar-covered donuts in its vending machines sets a much worse example than a school with flavored water, juices, peanut-butter crackers and fruit. Those students must become more used to healthier selections.

Each student who becomes used to healthier food selections will be more likely to lead a healthy and brighter future. The years that a child is in elementary and secondary schools are crucial years in brain development. This time is also critical in limiting processed sugars and starches to lower the risk of diabetes, obesity, and other complications associated with unhealthy snack choices.

Each school that replaces soda and highly processed foods with healthier drinks and snacks will improve academic performance, instill lasting food-selection habits in students, and offer each child a healthier and brighter future. This should be of critical importance to educators, parents, and taxpayers as we work together for a better world. In doing so, students can avoid that “post-Christmas dinner sugar crash” each day during fourth period.

[Please share your thoughts about snack foods in schools' snack machines below]

A Latter-day Saint by any other name...

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

"I can't stop reading definitions---I think I have an addictionary!" I once quipped. And while I don't quite have an addictionary, today I spent some time perusing definitions.

The words I was looking up? Cult and Christian.

Ordinarily, it wouldn't have been news that an evangelical pastor like Robert Jeffress stated that Mormons are a cult, or are not Christian. Evangelicals have said that about us for years. But this time it made bigger headlines because he stated it about  a Mormon who happens to be a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

But his statement revives a concern I have always had about those words. Often, we use one meaning of the words to justify labeling a group with such terms, even though the application of the label has a different connotation. It's like labeling spaghetti as cheesy when someone has only heard that phrase in connection with cheesy jokes. It conveys an untrue idea.

So what exactly is a cult? Here's what you see when you type "define:cult" into Google:

1. A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

2. A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Here is what Dictionary.com has to offer:

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols

With the exception of the phrase "regarded by others as strange or sinister," none of these sound half bad. A system of religious worship with rites and ceremonies? Religious veneration towards a person, object, ideal? Sounds every religion, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jeffress' church, could meet that definition.

But what does cult mean when you hear it? It has a negative connotation. It invokes images of weirdos claiming to be Christ and forcing people to drink Kool-Aid in their underwear. Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, find the cult label offensive because they know this is how their neighbors interpret the word.

To give Jeffress credit, in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, he tries explaining that he means Mormons are a cult in the theological sense, not in the sociological sense. He could have explained that better by saying "I'm not saying your Mormon neighbor worships the devil and wants to summon alien spaceships to abduct your children. I'm saying they believe differently than I do."

He also says that Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists are cults. Why? Because they are not Christians.

Which brings me to another question. What is a Christian? Here is Google's answer:

A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Here are Dictionary.com's thoughts on Christian as an adjective:

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

3. of or pertaining to Christians

4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike

5. decent; respectable

and as a noun:

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ

9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

Most of these definitions focus on an affinity to Jesus Christ and His teachings.

The only definition here that Mormons do not meet is number nine, which narrowly limits Christianity to Protestantism. But when you use this definition to classify Mormons as non-Christians, anyone who hears you say that will hear you say that Mormons have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

Many people point out that Mormons differ from traditional or historic Christianity. This phrase might also be correct, but "Mormons differ from historic Christianity" doesn't do nearly as much to convince your congregation (and therefore paycheck providers) that they shouldn't investigate this other church.

But what exactly is "historic Christianity?" At one time, Catholicism was "historic Christianity," and then Protestant Churches broke off of that church, and more Protestant churches broke off of them. And they all trace most of their beliefs not only to the Bible, but to creeds that were written hundreds of years after Jesus died on the cross.

Meanwhile, Mormons claim their religion is a restoration of historic Christianity---Christianity the way Jesus taught it himself in Jerusalem before his crucifixion and resurrection, and in other parts of the world after those events.

Jeffress pointed out that many people claim to be Christians but are not. And he is right. So who judges the difference? How do we know whether someone really is a Christian?

Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." So it seems to me that we should look at someone's fruits.

I'm not suggesting you go look in someone's orchard to decide whether they are Christians, but for Mormons, that might be a good place to start. The church owns orchards and farms that it uses to supply food for people who are poor. Jesus often talked about the importance of helping the poor. Mormons take that to heart.

Another thing to consider is the centrality of Christ to Mormon doctrine. This word cloud shows that the most common words in a recent worldwide conference of the church were things like "Jesus," "God," "Church," "Holy," "Father," and "Lord."

Then there are quotes from The Book of Mormon, like these:

And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved.Omni 1:26

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning...Mosiah 3:8

I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.2 Nephi 33:6

I have named just a few fruits of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are many more good, Christian things that have come about because of this church, The Book of Mormon, and its teachings. We look to Jesus as the head of our church. We pray in his name. We hope to live the kind of life he wants to live.

Some Christians object to our belief that we have a modern prophet, but consider the things that prophet asks us to do: stay away from pornography, treat women with respect, pray to God, read the scriptures, walk out of filthy movies, volunteer time and money to help other people, raise good children, and be good citizens. But he doesn't tell us which candidates deserve our votes. (That would be rather cult-like.)

We probably always will have people who call us a cult, and they will always be incorrect except in the way that all religions can be called cults. But even then, we will go on doing good works, testifying of Christ, and trying to make the world a better place.

To paraphrase Juliet,

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
 By any other name would smell as sweet;
 So Mormons would, were they not Christians call'd,
 Retain that dear Christianity which they have
 Without that title.

Correction: In the original version of this post, I wrote that Jeffres called Catholicism a cult. My wife pointed out that I was incorrect. In the interview, he actually said that Catholicism's basic teachings run counter to the New Testament.

The war between science, religion doesn't have to be faught

Recently, Becky and I sat and listened to respected evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins talk about the wonders of science. Unfortunately, the event was just as much an atheist revival as it was a science lecture.

Rather than leave with a greater love and appreciation for science, I left feeling more angry than I have ever felt toward a person with a British accent.

How Dawkins got us all riled up

Even before Dawkins stepped up to the stage, the event took a vitriolic tone toward religion. Sean Faircloth, an employee of Dawkins' foundation that seeks to rid religion from public life, spoke about his book Rise of the Theocrats: How the Religious Right is harming us all, and what we can do to stop them. His presentation was chock full of slides where he showed the most embarrassing or goofy picture he could find of a Christian, followed by a really nice picture of an atheist.

He verbally attacked Liberty University for being devoted to its religious and conservative political values, and for receiving millions of dollars in federal aid. (He failed to mention that the aid is actually federal Pell Grant money that only goes to LU because students chose to enroll there.)

I could feel my blood start to boil. Even though I disagree with the stances of some of the Christian politicians he berated, and even though I am one person against whom LU discriminates (job applicants there must sign a statement that essentially denies my belief in The Book of Mormon), I wholeheartedly support people's right to choose their religious beliefs, live according to them, and even apply them to their political stances.

Additionally, I felt angry because I saw the world Faircloth proposes. In his ideal secular world, people who hold and live by religious principles not backed up by a secular interpretation of science would find themselves discriminated against in various ways as they search for jobs in medicine, education or government.

Take his ideas far enough, and a person's rights to follow some religious principles in raising their children could be threatened.

The government would fund anti-religion indoctrination while religious values are shoved to the side.

Do open-minded people call Christians stupid idiots?

Then Dawkins took to the stage and talked about his new book, The Magic of Reality: How we know what is really true. It's a children's book that walks through various questions about our universe---ranging from rainbows and evolution to seasons and aliens---discussing myths and science.

He showed off the book's illustrations and an accompanying iPad app that lets users learn about science interactively. It was a fascinating presentation.

But it really bothered me that during his talk, and during a question and answer session that followed, Dawkins repeatedly referred to religious people (particularly young-earth creationists) as "stupid" and called them "idiots." How open minded of him!

He acted very pleased when people announced to him that his words have helped them become atheists. I realized that this was not so much about promoting science as it was about mocking religion and promoting atheism.

It was, indeed, an atheist revival. After Dawkins preached for a while, I wondered when he would pass the collection plate and ask people to come forth and profess atheism to be saved.

Religion and science can get along

Too often, people on either side of the aisle act as though science and religion must be at war. Atheist scientists focus a lot of research and energy explaining why faith is foolish and unnecessary, and act as though anyone who accepts something without full scientific evidence is stupid. (Meanwhile, they exercise a lot of faith in the conclusions they have reached through science.)

Then, there are religious people who consistently ignore and berate science, as though scientific inquiry and discovery were itself the anti-Christ. They spend a lot of time and money explaining away science.

I feel it is unwise for people on both sides of the argument to view science as the anti-religion and religion as the anti-science. The two can coexist, and they do so beautifully.

Latter-day Saint scriptures emphasize the importance of learning, including learning about science. We are commanded to learn:

Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass... (Doctrine & Covenants 88:79)

I take that as a commandment to study astronomy, geology, and the past, current, and future state of the world. Science gives us those tools.

Becky attended Brigham Young University, which is owned and sponsored by our church. There, she learned a lot about evolution. The school had many speakers come and speak about the science of evolution.

This article on The Daily Beast elaborates on the relationship of Mormonism and science. It quotes Brigham Young, a Latter-day Saint prophet in the 1800s:

“In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular… whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or as many millions of years.”

Evolution has been hotly debated in the Mormon community. Some church leaders and members have concluded that it is heretical. But the church has had no doctrinal statement on the topic, other than in 1931 when this statement was released:

“Leave geology, biology, archeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.”

This is consistent with scripture. Jesus says several times in the Bible and the Book of Mormon that his doctrine is, essentially, that God sent Jesus, his only begotten son, to sacrifice himself for the sins of the world, and whoever has faith, repents, is baptized, and receives the gift of the Holy Ghost will be cleansed from sin and have eternal life.

And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. (3 Nephi 11:40, Book of Mormon)

So it is not the job of the church to tell us the exact processes that God used to make the earth---only that He made it and that He has this plan of salvation for us. Apparently, believing science does not disqualify one from salvation, unless science specifically claims that God does not exist.

Becky and I both believe that science is amazing. Of course, we both are devoted to faith and religion, too.

And we believe science and religion can co-exist quite comfortably---in fact, they complement each other and give each other richer meaning.

While we differ slightly in our opinions about various science-and-religion topics, we both agree that a study and belief in evolution does not require a disbelief in God, Jesus Christ, or scripture. We both believe science can open our understanding about how God works, how He made the world, and how we can become more like him, as he commanded.

When science becomes a religion...

Science only has to cast out religion when science becomes a religion...when it becomes atheism.

Dawkins said the other night that he doesn't believe atheism is a religion. I disagree, because atheism is a belief about God (that He doesn't exist) and an associated world view.

Dawkins said that some people ask him what it would take for him to believe in God. He said that he sometimes things a booming voice out of the clouds shouting, "I exist!" might do the trick. But even then, he said, that could be a hallucination, so he is not sure he would even believe that.

In other words, he would explain away any reason for believing that is presented to him.

One argument used against religion is the idea of the "invisible gardener," in which people continually redefine God whenever facts seem to counter their beliefs about Him. Some philosophers say that you don't reasonably believe in God if you cannot also name the circumstances in which you would stop believing in Him.

In the case of Richard Dawkins, the lack of God has become the invisible gardener, because he cannot name the circumstances in which he would stop believing atheism. I believe atheism would require just as much faith as belief in God.

Science doesn't have to be atheism. It can be the process by which we learn more about our world, while religion is the process by which we learn more about God.

I hope more people on each side will learn that the two are not mutually exclusive.