15 thoughts on “Foolish Questions”

1. The questions on the applications for permanent residency and for citizenship include some that make you scratch your head, eh?

   I imagine that nobody answers yes to any of the terrorism, genocide, persecution or violent overthrow of the government questions. But, if the USCIS finds out otherwise about you, they can either deny the case for fraud or misrepresentation, if it hasn’t been approved yet, or they can bring an action to rescind your status or strip you of your citizenship, because you were a bad person (a mass murderer, persecutor or whatever) and you lied on your application.

2. Would our policy on homosexuality keep a member out?

3. That’s a good question, jimbob. Where is the line between “good character” and thought police? How can this be objectively measured? To answer my own question, I don’t believe it can, at least not by the U.S. government, which makes it a foolish question. Unless there is a crime involved, I don’t see how the government can make a determination. And if there is a crime involved, then the question should be, “Have you been convicted of a felony?”

4. There used to be a question on the customs form for foreigners entering the U.S. (maybe it still is there) asking whether you were ever a Nazi or a member of the Nazi party. I always thought that was funny too. I can’t imagine anyone answering yes to that.

   In a similar vein, of course you realize that the ex and antimos aren’t trying to persecute us with their calumny and accusations. Rather, they are just interested in helping us see the truth, which they through their superior intellects can see while we cannot.

5. (at least, that is what they would tell you if served with the accusation of persecuting members of the Church.)

6. jimbob #2: Although I can understand how the actions of individual Latter-day Saints could be described as persecution of homosexuals, I’m going to have to ask you how the Church’s policy on homosexual behavior could be considered “persecution.”

7. John F.: The application for permanent residence still includes this question:

   Did you, during the period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, in association with either the Nazi Government of Germany or any organization or government associated or allied with the Nazi Government of Germany, ever order, incite, assist or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin or political opinion?

   There is of course almost nobody immigrating to the U.S. any more who was even alive on May 8, 1945, much less anyone who was old enough to have done anything that would require a yes answer. We’ll see how long it is before the form is changed.

   On the matter of homosexuality, that used to be a basis for exclusion from the U.S. Despite what the Supreme Court discovered in the Lawrence case, there is no federal statute that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That includes the Immigration and Nationality Act. Thus, someone who persecuted homosexuals, or who preached against homosexual behavior (where’s Ted Haggard when we need him?), would not be subject to exclusion from the U.S.

8. Going back to the original question, there are international groups that deliberately persecute religious people of all types, not just Mormons. There are many European groups that persecute Jews to this day (think of the many skinhead and far-right groups in Europe). In Saudi Arabia, for example, it is official government policy to persecute all non-Muslims. You would have to prove that the particular applicant was an active member of those groups, but it would seem to me this is a good reason not to allow citizenship to some people.

   As for Mormons, I think you could argue that some Russian Orthodox clergy and government officials, for example, are deliberately persecuting Mormons, evangelicals and Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. Obviously, there would be a strong argument that most Arab governments persecute Mormons and other Christians and Jews.

9. “Although I can understand how the actions of individual Latter-day Saints could be described as persecution of homosexuals, I’m going to have to ask you how the Church’s policy on homosexual behavior could be considered ‘persecution.'”

   Alright. I’m ready to be asked.

   It’s not that I find our policies persecutorial. It’s that the rest of the western world might. We kick people out, or at least reserve the right to kick people out, based on sexual orientation. (That we only kick people out based on acting on that orientation is a distinction probably lost on most of the rest of the western world.) I think that as homosexuality becomes more and more acceptable–and it appears to be headed in that direction–expelling “practicing” homosexuals from your group will probably become considered persecuting them, i.e., going out of your way to prevent others from certain rights and privileges important to them. Such behavior doesn’t fit any of the categories above very well right now, but I could make a pretty good argument for “social group.”

10. The standard admittedly is different when applied by USCIS in deciding whether to grant an application for permanent residency or citizenship, but you’d be laughed out of the Asylum Office or from the Immigration Court if you alleged that the persecution you had suffered was that you weren’t allowed to attend a particular church.

    So, some may see it as “persecution” but I don’t the government is anywhere close to seeing it that way.

11. Jimbob, U.S. courts have always held that private groups have the right to choose their members. This obviously applies to churches. Your whole attempt to threadjack this thread into a discussion of homosexuality is misguided.

12. I haven’t attempted to threadjack anything. To the extent it looked that way, I apologize. I made a comment, Ms. Spackman responded, and Mr. Parker asked me another question. Like yourself, I tire of the endless SSA issues in the bloggernacle, but wanted to be clear that at some point we’ll be considered discriminatory in the same way the above questions are indicating, and probably not just about SSA (it just happened to be the easiest argument). And in case I’m not making myself clear, I don’t agree with such arguments, but think they should be recognized.

    And by the way, U.S. courts have not “always held that private groups have the right to choose their members.” The Jaycee’s learned that lesson the hard way. Their SC case should be read with Dale v. Boy Scouts as a cautionary tale that unless you really hold exclusion as a tenet of your group, a state can easily force you to allow anyone in.

13. john f.: “they are just interested in helping us see the truth, which they through their superior intellects can see while we cannot.”

    Isn’t that what our missionaries do every day? How is that different from people with “ministries” or websites teaching what they believe is true?

14. jim,

    I was talking about immigration courts and their application of the laws relating to refugees and asylum.

15. I don’t know why I have the impression not everyone in here is a member… Anyhow, in response to Nathan: If you have a testimony of something, and you firmly believe it, you will feel the need to share that same light you have with others. That’s what missionary work is about: sharing the gospel, something that means so much to us.

    Many people tries to ‘show us our mistakes’. It is not the same what they do with what our missionaries do. Our missionaries preach the gospel, but it is up to the person whether they will accept it or not. Antimorms. will not rest until our church disappears (which will fortunately never happen 🙂 ). That’s the difference.

    Please stay in topic.

Comments are closed.