Today's topic is sufficiently controversial that I feel the need for a disclaimer. My goal is to (forcefully, perhaps) speak my mind, not to insult people. I realize that many reading this strongly disagree with my position. Please believe me when I say that I do not intend to offend.
If you're LDS--in California or not--you probably were looking forward to election day as the end of the Proposition 8 wars. Sadly, you were mistaken: Prop. 8 is as contentious now as it has ever been. People are already calling for its repeal, and protests against its supporters--particularly the LDS church--have increased in frequency and severity. In response, the LDS community is largely crying foul, claiming that the protests are tantamount to religious persecution.
Blunty put, I disagree. It makes perfect sense for the 'No on 8' community to focus their protests on the LDS church. Further, rather than treating protesters as religious persecutors, LDS members need to show them proper respect--in spite of their deep ideological differences.
[Disclaimer 2: I didn't support Prop. 8, and I wish that the church hadn't gotten so involved. But I maintain that this doesn't compromise my commitment to the LDS faith. It's quite possible (and usually the right answer, if you ask me) to disagree with a particular lifestyle choice without supporting a constitutional amendment restricting the expression of that lifestyle.]
I'll argue my second point first. People have every right to protest whomever they want, for whatever reason they want, as long as they do so peacefully. Same-sex marriage advocates have every right to protest around LDS temples and boycott businesses owned by church members. That's not exactly groundbreakingly insightful, of course, so I'll go further: LDS members need to respect the legitimacy of their perspective. You might wish they wouldn't protest against the LDS faith in particular, or you might even wish that they would agree with you on this controversial issue. But none of that should stop you from respecting the fact that same-sex marriage supporters feel just as strongly about their convictions as you do about yours. You could even admire them--at least a little--for standing up for what they believe in.
I concede that it would help if the 'No on 8' crowd showed more respect. Surely they can oppose the policy of the LDS church while still respecting its beliefs. (I saw a photo of a protester, for example, whose sign went something like "Keep your magic underwear out of our bedrooms", which is needlessly insulting.) It's also insulting that Prop. 8 supporters have been painted by default with the "homophobic" brush. I know plenty of Prop. 8 supporters, and they simply aren't homophobes. In spite of all this, however, LDS members should still show respect--even if the favor isn't returned.
(Disclaimer 3: I don't in any way condone or advise respect towards those who have damaged property or made threatening statements in their protests. Neither should same-sex marriage advocates. As far as I'm aware, though, such protests are the exception. And at least one 'No on 8' group has spoken up against them.)
Now I'll address the claim that the LDS church has been unfairly singled out for protest. The usual argument is that the LDS church is only one of many religious groups endorsing Prop. 8, and that African-Americans and Hispanics overwhelmingly supported the proposition. Why aren't protesters setting up shop outside Catholic masses and black churches?
More bluntness: it's hard for me to see this defense as anything other than ideological cowardice. Where else should protesters go? No one else gave as much money or supported the measure as conspicuously and uniformly. No one else comes close. The Catholic church may have endorsed the measure, but Catholics didn't give the support--in dollars OR votes--that LDS members gave. A solid majority of blacks may have voted for Prop. 8, but they didn't donate significant effort and money to the Prop. 8 cause. It's quite possible, even, that Prop. 8 would have failed without the efforts of the LDS church. So LDS members who fought for Prop. 8 should bloody well stick to their guns and admit that they wielded strong influence in getting Prop. 8 passed. If anything, they should be taking pride in successfully realizing their convictions. Instead, as opposition intensifies, the effort is to spread the "blame" around, which I find cowardly and evasive.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Work
-
Temple8 years ago
-
-
school's out forever9 years ago
-
34 for 3411 years ago
-
My New Commitment to a Clean Desk11 years ago
-
becoming a Numerican12 years ago
-
A Noble Knight...12 years ago
-
Peña Nieto y sus libros12 years ago
-
Happiness & Cheer12 years ago
-
Funeral12 years ago
-
Further Portland proof of Fun!13 years ago
-
-
-
-
10 comments:
The exact quote of the church calling foul is "While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process." The argument is not that they don't have a right, but that it is wrong. The protesters clamor for tolerance, but much of the protesting is not for openness and understanding - it is an attempt to intimidate people out of the public square. This is not just a biased viewpoint of the lds community. See a few quotes gathered from both supporters and opponents of prop 8 here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/measured-voices-provide-reason-support-amidst-proposition-8-reaction. I do agree that there is reason to believe that the lds community passed the measure, and we should stick to our guns, but the purpose of isolating a single entity serves only to intimidate. If this was an honest open discussion about ideologies, an effort would be made to include the entire coalition.
I've seen the newsroom quotes. It's actually where I got the ADL reference linked in the post.
But I still disagree with the idea that it's fundamentally "wrong" for protesters to focus on the church. The church essentially made itself the face of the 'Yes on 8' movement. So it makes all the sense in the world that those who opposed Prop. 8 would focus their attacks on that face.
They COULD protest churches proportional to the amount of money donated, I suppose, but well over half of the protesters would still be camped outside of LDS buildings. And church members would probably still feel singled out.
I'm sure the protesters would specifically like to see the church diminished in influence and credibility. But that's only because the church wielded singular influence on the Prop. 8 issue. I don't think that qualifies as 'intimidation'.
I'm trying to decide if you've become a bleeding-heart liberal in the year and a half since I've seen you or whether you're a committed Ron Paul supporter. You are in Texas, mind you.
perhaps i'll chime in, even though we spent over an hour the other night debating this...
the note i want to make is that while those who supported prop 8 should stick to their guns and not cower at all of the protesting and claim it's all religious persecution, the nasty, mean-spirited, and insulting protesting that is going on should not be tolerated by anyone. and going along with that, i do think that even if those particularly nasty protesters have good point and a legit reason for standing up for what they believe is right, all of that gets lost when they get this dirty, and that, to me, doesn't deserve anyone's respect.
yes, perhaps they do have a good reason for singling out the church, but i do wonder whether or not we would have been made an easy target because they have so much to slam us with (we are a peculiar religion). unfortunately, we can't know if they would have since the church and its members did throw most of the money and support toward prop 8. i do still think that people like to hate on mormons sometimes, and i think that might be a factor in what's motivating the nastier protesters. but, who knows. i could be wrong about that.
Chad: neither. I don't live in Ron Paul's congressional district, so I'm not subject to his spells. But I also voted for John McCain, still believe (more or less) in the free market, and don't intrinsically hate large corporations.
Explaining in full why I didn't support Prop. 8 would be another post entirely, and I don't have time for that now. But I initially got involved by reading members' unfair pro-8 arguments that were wrapped in pedantic legalese. If church members had admitted that they were supporting 8 mostly because of the church's official position--instead of pretending they had sound, logical arguments--I might still be happily agnostic on the issue.
But, even if I had supported 8 or remained neutral, I'd feel the same way about the protests. At least, I like to think that I'm that honest intellectually.
Amanda: I'll grant that protesters are probably more willing to target the church--and more willing to be insulting about it--because the church is relatively small and since we have unusual beliefs. It's probably safe to conjecture that even those who admire the Mormons as a people still think our beliefs are a little strange. In that light, it's possible they'd have been willing to go after us in a big way even if even if our role had been less conspicuous. If so, there's probably a component of persecution in the protests.
However, I'm convinced that the 'persecution' component is drowned out by the legitimate political component. The persecution is well under the noise floor, if you'll permit a signal-processing analogy. Or, more precisely: I think it's cowardly to cry "persecution" when there's a highly plausible alternative.
Here's an iteresting article I saw on Yahoo! news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081204/ap_en_ce/prop8_musical_video. I disagree with it and think it's disrespectful, but the main thing is the director of the theater. It's one thing to argue this in the public realm, it's another to be vindictive and go after people personally. Or the case of people boycotting a cafe and harassing customers because the owner's daughter (NOT the owner himself) donated $100 for Prop 8's passage. And as for the Church making itself the poster child of the Prop 8 movement, I would like to throw back the question: Did the Church make itself the poster child, or did someone make the Church the poster child of Prop 8? It makes little sense for the Church to make itself the poster child because of latent prejudice (and yes, it exists). My family, which is in California, has stated numerous times that it was a coalition of churches supporting Prop 8 and that, while members of the church donated, the emphasis was always on the emphasis. How else, then, would a pro-Prop 8 rally have drawn close to 30,000 people in Fresno, where the active Mormon population is probably 10,000 or so in the hour radius? So it brings up the question: why us? Yes, we donated about $20 million out of the $28 million total for Prop 8, but the anti-Prop 8 side donated close to $50 million. The anger at the passage is understandable amongst the gay community, and their right to protest is inviolate, but let's not pretend that there isn't an anti-Mormon swing to the protests that is more ad hominem than it really is properly directed, civil debate. In conclusion, Prop 8 passed because people over 60 supported Prop 8 by over 60%, and the young supporters didn't vote in proportionate numbers. Also, national polls indicate that support for gay marriage still lies between 30 and 36%.
First of all, there are lots of "reasons" Prop. 8 passed. Or rather, lots of factors which, all else being equal, were necessary conditions for 8's success. Yes, it wouldn't have passed without the 60+ demographic, but it also probably would have failed had Obama not been running, or without the Lationo vote, or surely without LDS support. There's no single "cause" you can attribute it to. So don't try to pin it on the elderly.
Your question is a good one: did the church make itself the poster child, or did someone else pin that on us unfairly? But I don't think it's a question of whether the church deliberately sought poster-child status. I'm not sure that was the church's goal, and it's not the argument I'm trying to make. Instead, I'm arguing about whether the church's actions make it reasonable for the public to conclude that the church was the Prop. 8 poster child. And the answer to THAT question is quite clear to me.
Members of the church uniformly supported 8. Uniformly. No other group (political organizations excepted) gave such overwhelming support. We even had out-of-state members traveling in large numbers to CA to help with the campaign. I doubt that any other group COULD have come close; no one follows their leaders' counsel--or, for that matter, does ideological homogeneity--like Mormons.
As you said, members donated a solid majority of the pro-8 funds (incidentally, I'm not sure why it's relevant that anti-8 supporters donated more; we're talking about the poster child of the pro-8 movement). Since members are a small minority in CA, members' contributions were HUGELY overrepresented. A small minority gave a solid majority of the money, and that money was instrumental in getting Prop. 8 passed. Who else could possibly be the face of the pro-8 movement?
As I've said before, I agree that there's likely a purely anti-Mormon component to the protests. But since the church was highly conspicuous and instrumental in the debate, I think the persecution component is small compared to the legitimate political component.
This document is in line with my point of view enough that I signed it.
http://nomobveto.org/
also see: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/prop-8-backlash-is-an-outrage-that-must-stop-group-says-in-support-of-church
This kind of bullying should be condemned from both sides. Prop 8 opponents distribute maps of traditional marriage
Post a Comment