- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I admit that I was a little underwhelmed by the somewhat obvious stance the church took in bolstering anti-discrimination in SLC for two reasons: 1) it was in perfect harmony with the church’s stated stance to date, and 2) anti-discrimination legislation seems so 1990s; it being a headline at this late date feels a little like making Maude the face of feminism. However, having read Andrew Sullivan’s response to the news put this stance in a new light for me. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-mormon-move.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-mormon-move.html So, while being the most tolerant and progressive of staunchly conservative churches seems like cold comfort, it’s a helpful perspective. I also liked his recognition of the fact that the church has now made a clear distinction between (at the risk of sounding like Jesse Jackson) theological rites and human rights.
Great article. Thanks for linking it. Thanks, hawk, for posting this! I love Andrew Sullivan! This is the small, glacier-speed pr move that may actually help affect change. Admitting that homosexuals are human beings deserving of basic human rights and respect is actually a huge step forward for the culture, if not the church. I have friends and acquaintances in the yuppie TBM thirty-something crowd, and Prop 8 brought out the worst homophobia in them imaginable. Unfettered by the church’s lack of controlling the hate speech surrounding the prop 8 campaign, many of my friends/acquaintances became overtly discriminatory. Speech and language that had been relegated to the 1980’s returned in a heart-breaking avalanche.
I sometimes wonder in amazement at the lack of practical knowledge that the brethren have when it comes to their influence on the culture. Just because what they say isn’t intended as hate speech, doesn’t mean they are totally free from blame when the general membership uses it as a justification for hate speech. It’s very similar to the recent incident where the judge in Louisiana had to resign for not performing inter-racial marriage. Where does he get his justification for such action? Or lack of action as the case may be. Certainly not from reason, or science, or civility, or ethics, or social science, etc. Using theology as a sociology tool, is dangerous, in the extreme. How can religious leaders, regardless of creed, not recognize the unintended consequences with so much history as a guide??
Having said that, though I’m a closeted cynic, I do hope that this statement by the church will remove some of the overt hate speech.
Why don’t they make every ward in the church read the statement over the pulpit?
Sullivan does make some compelling points: “What the LDS church has done in Utah is an immensely important and positive step and places the Mormon church in a far more positive and pro-gay position than any other religious group broadly allied with the Christianist right.”While I do my fair share of criticizing the church on gay issues, I need to be reminded of the statement above; I also see the LDS position as moderate compared to the majority of the Christian churches I’ve seen.
But I still can’t get past the overtly inflammatory phrase “violence against marriage” that Otterson used to describe the movement for gay marriage rights. I’m quite ashamed he chose to use clear political verbage in a speech that was meant to be conciliatory.
But on the other hand (in my best Tevye accent…), “we” are a church that professes to grow “line upon line,” and I can give the church kudos for finally taking a step in the right direction.
Rix wrote:Sullivan does make some compelling points:
But I still can’t get past the overtly inflammatory phrase “violence against marriage” that Otterson used to describe the movement for gay marriage rights. I’m quite ashamed he chose to use clear political verbage in a speech that was meant to be conciliatory.
I can’t either. Violence towards marriage, when two consenting adults WANT TO have the right to commit to each other? That’s what marriage is all about. Domestic violence, divorce and other social ills create VIOLENCE against marriage. Glad you picked up on the phrase. It bothered me too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.