“…And the Earth Was Filled with Violence”

Well, as a species, we seem a bit stupid.

This year I am reading from the Old Testament, which I have actually never read cover-to-cover, despite seminary, institute, BYU religion class, and teaching the book in Sunday school.  And, last night I read something that really bothered me from the book of Genesis, a detail from the account of Noah and the Deluge: “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11, my emphasis).  Having just finished the Book of Mormon again in December, I could not help but think about the bloody ends of two of the major civilizations in the book: the Jaredites and the Nephites—the Lamanites, of course, were also no strangers to violence.  What bothered me is that the quality of violence was a condition for the Lord to cause the Flood and the demise of two civilizations (and actually, one could make the case that the demise of the biblical civilization had a lot to do with violence, as well) coupled the violence we’re witnessing at this moment on the Earth.  The blood of Sandy Hook is still fresh on my mind and a Facebook friend of mine recently commented on the upsurge of gun buying—especially assault weapons—in Utah in response to anticipated changes in gun control laws.  I have had conversations with other Mormons about these attendant issues and what deeply disturbs me is the quickness with which it seems many in the Mormon community seem to accept violence not only as a necessary course of action, but a desirable one as well.  It seems we are swayed more by NRA jingoism than the scriptures.

To illustrate the absurdity of the “more guns=less violence” argument (an argument of causality not correlation) thrown around by gun-rights advocates, let me offer an analogous situation, one that will be distressing to our Australian brothers and sisters at this moment.  If a community were to have problems with forest fires, how illogical would it be to offer as a solution an increase in match and lighter ownership?  I think most clear-thinking individuals would argue that it would be an unacceptable solution because it actually increases the likelihood of the problem’s occurrence.  We could formulate the problem in this way: the more the means become available, the more likely an outcome will be achieved.

To return then to the original concern of gun violence, gun-rights advocates are making the same argument: the answer to gun violence is more guns.  Again, the more the means become available, the more likely an outcome will be achieved.  The more guns are available, the more likely they will be used.  Is there evidence that this is the case?  As a matter of fact, there is a great amount of evidence.  In a commentary on the Sandy Hook shootings, staff writers at The Economist recently pointed out:

America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s.  Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact the 300m guns are “out there” in the United States, more than one for every adult.[i]

But, there’s something else at play here besides mere numbers.  Many gun-tottin’ Mormons simply parrot the NRA line that we have a higher murder rate because we have more people.  This argument rests on the assumption that if other countries like Germany, Canada, etc. would have similar numbers of murders if they had as many people.  Unfortunately, this claim has very little support.  As a matter of fact, if we look at per capita murder rates, we find that this claim falls flat on its butt.  Max Fisher in a recent Washington Post article points out that per 100,000 people, the US murder rate is 20 times higher than the average murder rate for other developed countries.[ii]  Per capita comparisons, of course, are calculated to mitigate discrepancies in population differences.  Thus, according to this research, if the population of Germany or another developed country were the size of the United States, we would still be twenty times more likely to be killed by a gun in America.

With the population factor accounted for, we cannot avoid the possibility that what makes our gun-related death rate so high is the presence of guns.  So, how do we rank on gun ownership?  The Economist article points out that in the United States we have more guns than adults.  More detailed information comes from the 2007 Small Arms Survey, an independent research project sponsored by the Graduate Institute of International and Developmental Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, which reports that American gun ownership is 43,560 per 100,000 people[iii] and our firearm murder rate is more than three per 100,000 people (referring to the piece in the Washington Post).  How does this compare to other developed countries?  Sweden’s ownership rate is 40,910, yet their firearm homicide rate is less than 0.5 per 100,000 people.  Germany’s ownership rate is 34,870 and their firearm homicide rate is even less than Sweden’s.  Canada’s ownership rate is 32,590 and their firearm homicide rate is right at 0.5 per 100,000 people.  Switzerland actually has a higher per capita ownership rate at 55,320 and yet has less than one firearm murder per 100,000 people.   Thus, there are other developed nations with comparable gun ownership rates that experience far fewer firearm homicides.

Thus, when we account for differences in population and in rates of gun ownership, we find that raw numbers don’t tell the whole story.  Trying to figure out what the other pieces of the puzzle are is an important task and is crucial to addressing the situation.  Let me just quickly suggest that one vital factor is America’s embrace of violent media.  We love shoot ‘em ups, whether they be TV shows, movies, songs, or video games.  What happens, though, as we consume all this violent media is that violence becomes normalized, a sociological term that refers to the fact that our norms are set by social practice and interaction.  If we perceive that violence is normal and acceptable, then it is so because we have chosen that to be the case or we have not chosen to resist it.  There are other choices available and we are not making those choices.  Per 100,000 people, almost 12,000 more Swiss own guns, but they choose to use them on each other far less than we do.  The fault for our violence lies with us and with our perceptions of the world, which is both reflected in and strengthened by our media culture.

The number of Mormons supporting the increase of guns in America is troubling on at least two levels.  Number one, this support seems to support a pattern (violence) that the Lord, through the scriptures, has tried to teach us is a bad thing.  If we are His followers, why would we rush to embrace something He has actively punished mankind for, in the case of Noah, and passively punished the Jaredites and the Nephites for? Why would we embrace the means of violence?  Number two, this support evinces a willingness to embrace the ways of the world that should cause us to pause.  Gun-tottin’ Mormons assert the right to defend their homes at the point of a gun—a problematic assertion.  One particular aspect of this defense bothers me as a follower of Christ: how many times does the Lord promise of “fight our battles” if we will rely on Him?  In this hypothetical scenario, these Mormons would rather rely on a weapon, an extension of the “arm of flesh.”

My concern here is that many Mormons, as evidenced by their behaviors and pervasively expressed attitudes, seem a bit too willing to resort to or rely on violence as a means of addressing cultural violence.  Again, this is similar to saying we will address forest fires by buying more matches and lighters.  The more I engage with the scriptures, the more convinced I am that we should expressly reject violence as a problem-solving strategy.  Human nature, or the “natural man” if you will, shows that it will resort to violence often times with little or “cheap” provocation.

When all else fails, WWJD, right?  I cannot quite picture Christ showing up with an AR-15 in hand (a tool, by the way, created solely for taking human life) to an NRA rally. Given His words in the scriptures, I think it is far more likely He would show up unarmed to a pro-peace or a human rights rally.  Until we learn this lesson that Noah’s dispensation, the Jaredites, and the Nephites all failed to learn, to resist violence, we are doomed to realize their failures.

 

---

[i] The Economist. 2012. “New Town’s Horror.” 22 Dec. Print., p. 12.

[ii] Fisher, Max. 2012.  “Chart: The US Has far more Gun-Related Killings than any Other Developed Country.”  14 Dec.  Web. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/ Accessed 9 January 2013.

[iii] http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.html, see specifically Chapter 2, Annexe 1: Seventy-nine countries with comprehensive civilian ownership data

Mitt and Blood Money?

I’m not favorably inclined to Mitt Romney’s politics, of course. A bit too silver spoon, laissez faire, country club, and prize horse for my tastes. Like many Americans, I’m not sure he has much of a clue when it comes to how the proverbial other half lives. I’m also not terrifically thrilled with his gunboat politicking and cloak and tax return game. However, allegations in a Huffington Post story this last week have got me worried.

I’m certainly no fan of Bain Capital’s alleged history of layoffs and outsourcing jobs overseas or up north in the case of Canada, but the Huffington Post reports that Bain, under Romney’s steering may taken start up money from families linked to right-wing death squads operating in El Salvador during the eighties. The article refers to additional stories in the LA Times and on Salon.com, as well as the Boston Globe and Salt Lake Tribune. The Times article highlights the fact that Bain Capital was started up with overseas investors, some of whom worked through possibly shady shill companies in Latin America, one of whom, an Englishman, was convicted of pretty extensive fraud violations several years later.

It also begins to sketch out the possibility that some of the money from several El Salvadoran investors came from families that helped finance the paramilitary death squads that may have caused as much as 85% of the violent attacks during the country’s twelve-year civil war, which cost the lives of 75,000 people, according to a United Nations truth commission (see the Huffington Post piece). These groups were backed by the Regan administration (see the Salon.com piece).

Justin Elliot’s piece for Salon.com details the El Salvadoran connection in more detail, looking at ties between the families who contributed to Bain and the right-wing extremists who killed, tortured, and disappeared leftists and unsympathetic peasants. Elliot even notes a possible connection between a member of one of the investing families and the martyr of El Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, a passionate and charismatic spokesman for the poor and needy.

The Romney campaign has answered the allegations of taking blood money by saying they investigated the potential investors, as per due diligence, but not their extended family. A Bain colleague suggested in his memoirs said that Romney was concerned about Latin American funds being linked to “illegal drugs, right-wing death squads, or left-wing terrorism” (qtd. in the Huffington Post piece). However, funds were tight and the El Salvadoran investors eventually put up 20% of the capital for the venture. A 1999 Salt Lake Tribune article reports, though, that Bain’s investigation found no “unsavory links to drugs or other illegal activities.”

Ryan Grim and Cole Stangler, the authors of the Huffington Post article, shine a light on their attempts to further investigate this story. Many of the key players, including Bain Capital and the Romney campaign, have not been forthcoming. In response to their query, the Romney campaign, simply forwarded a copy of the Tribune article. Grim and Stangler, contrary to the “official story,” find that their research turned up “no shortage of unsavory links” between the investing families and the death squads.

As a Latter-Day Saint, I am profoundly disturbed by these articles, which are from fairly reputable sources. I am bothered that the Romney camp seems to feel that the issue deserves little more than a reprint of a twelve-year old article. Of course, this fits into a rather disconcerting pattern of secretiveness and evasiveness. Friends of mine who are Romney supporters keep insisting that the candidate has “nothing to hide” or that he has “already answered allegations,” but that is far from satisfying to a non-supporter who would naturally expect a bit more evidence.

Let us start with Romney’s equivocation with his tax returns. He is clearly operating outside of precedent by releasing only one year of returns, even, as critics point out, with his own father who released twelve years’ worth of tax information. Romney and his staff’s attitude, and to a degree his supporters’, has been “How dare you question me/him!” A rather haughty stance. He has never, so far as I know, acknowledged that his behavior is out of step with his colleagues and he has offered only a feeble explanation for his decision—in essence, I have nothing to hide and you should take my word.

The problem, of course, is that Romney’s silence/defiance feeds doubts about his claims about his employment status after 1999, fueling concerns about purgery, if not fraud. Rank and file Mormons defend Romney, either out of some sense of loyalty or out of support of his pro-business stance and policies, and likely both. On Facebook, I was practically called to repentance by a man I grew up with. “Romney’s clean and you know it!” he wrote. My reply was that I do not in fact “know” he is clean: I have never met him; I have never been in his ward or stake; I do not natively agree with his policies. Thus, I have no natural reason to assume he has done no wrong. I further reminded him that Mormons of high position are not immune to corruption—remember the Salt Lake City Olympic Planning Committee debacle? On a more personal level, I once worked for a stake president whose business practices were questionable enough that he was investigated for ethics violations. (I left his employ before the investigation was completed, so I do not know whether he was censured or not.) Romney’s weak defense of himself on the issue of his taxes in no way allays fears or doubts about his guilt or innocence.

There is, however, a rather qualitative difference between whether he misrepresented his employment status and perjured himself and whether he took money from right-wing terrorists. If Bain Capital’s start up money did in fact come from people who supported and helped finance the death squads, then he becomes an accessory (at least after the fact) to torture and murder, a violation of the ten commandments and one of the greatest “abomination[s] in the sight of the Lord” (Alma 39:5). I have a hard time believing someone in his position would not fall over himself trying to prove his innocence. I have an even harder time understanding how someone who has taken on temple covenants would not strive to clear his name.

These allegations about the foundations of his business are serious enough that they could easily destroy confidence in his virtue. This is an especially important point since we Mormons have been counseled over and over again to support and vote for “good men” to govern us. Grim and Stangler’s article clearly documents an evasiveness on behalf of the Romney campaign and Bain Capital in answering charges that the company under Romney’s care took blood money; both refuse to release the investigation documents on the Salvadoran investors. Such documents could very easily clear up the question of how much Bain knew or how thorough the investigation was—if it was shoddy or incomplete that would reflect badly on his leadership abilities.

There are are several possible concerns stemming from Romney’s relative silence on these allegations. First, perhaps he is, in actuality, guilty. If that is the case then his status as a “good man” is destroyed and he should not be supported by anybody, least of all Mormons. Second, his team did a rather poor job of investigating or purposefully did not ask the tough questions to simply give the appearance of “due diligence.” If this is the case then his reputation of being thorough and thoughtful would be called into question, weakening his claim on the Office. Third, if it were shown that the investigation was “thrown” then it would imply that ideology or business interests are more important to him than is doing the proverbial right thing, which would naturally call his virtue into question and expose him as a simple puppet.

There is, of course, the possibility that he may in fact be entirely innocent, that his company acted in good faith as far as possible, that his investigator’s were deceived or manipulated, that the individual investors were indeed clean. If that is actually the case, why then would he not be anxious to demonstrate his innocence, to strengthen his position, to prove his critics wrong and win over reasonable voters? His insistence with limited evidence either sanely encourages speculation about his guilt or shows a rather disconcerting arrogance…or both. It might be more comforting for all of us to see Romney putting up more of a fight on the allegations leveled against him. Even though I disagree with his politics, I sure hope he is innocent of these allegations.