Is Fred Karger! Okay, that’s a little hyperbolic (I don’t consider LDS Inc. an “enemy”), but I’m certainly not a fan of the LDS Church’s efforts to disenfranchise a minority population in the U.S. Fred Karger, a covert Republican operative for years and now a Schwarzennager Republican, is leading the charge against LDS Inc. and other hate-filled people and institutions who want to limit the rights of homosexuals. While I can’t necessarily condone all of his actions (he’s not opposed to using deception to get his way), I certainly support his cause. If you missed the Mother Jones article detailing his fight, you should read it:
Now, if we could just get the guy a budget! (You’ll get this if you read the whole article.)
On a related note… Is it time for those of us who support equal rights for everyone in the U.S. to start asking our Mormon loved ones loaded questions, like:
“How does it feel to be a member of a hate group?”
“Are you proud of the fact that you fund efforts to remove peoples’ civil rights?”
“Why does your Church hate gays and lesbians?”
Any Mormons want to respond?
(Props to Mike for sending me the article!)
You don’t question what God wants. Even if it looks bigoted and irrational to everyone else, keeping minority groups repressed is essential to proper worship!
Those questions are way too easy to answer by patented P.R. gymnastics. We have to think of ways to open dialogue that will change hearts and minds.
I agree with Chandelle. I think we’ve asked these and similar questions enough times to know what the defense tactic from the Mormon PR machine is:
“I know you are, but what am I? You guys are the bigots and haters! We (faithful LDS) are rubber and you’re glue!”
Do we really need to invite people to come by here and parrot that back to us again?
Do Mormons really, really believe that preventing same-sex couples from marrying is showing love for them?
Of course it’s not showing love for them.
But good grief, it’s a far cry from saying Mormons “hate” gays either.
This all seems like name-calling trying to provoke Mormons into action.
And it’s counter-productive too. If you want to change Mormon attitudes, the best way would be to demonstrate the human effects of the policies in question. Reactionary, outdated 1960s protest models are just going to piss Mormons off and make them more likely to flip you the bird just because they find you obnoxious.
Look at the ending of the racial ban on the Priesthood.
Did the LDS Church lift the ban because of University of Wyoming football players, rallies, protests, negative media coverage?
Nope.
That stuff had all blown over ten years ago, and most of the civil rights movement had written the LDS off as a bad job by the mid 70s. When the ban was lifted, there wasn’t so much as a peep of public outrage going on.
So what caused the LDS Church to lift the ban?
One word: Brazil.
The racial ban just-didn’t-work in racially mixed places like Brazil. Brazilian saints were actually being counseled by their local leadership not to do their family history work for fear they might uncover a black person in the family tree. The realities on the ground revealed the ban to be ridiculous and unworkable.
That’s why the LDS Church changed course and switched. And I’m pretty certain they didn’t give a thimble of spit about the protests, grand speeches, and whatever other pressure-tactics, guilt trips, and demonizing was going on in wider US society.
And it will likely be no different here. Yell all you want, you’re just going to piss people off.
Maybe that sort of result will give you a sense of rebellious satisfaction, but it will do nothing to help actual gay people.
Okay, I don’t agree with your reasoning 100% Seth, but for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s accurate. One problem: There is no “Brazil” for homosexuals. Ergo, how do you get the leadership of the religion to change?
Homosexuals make up maybe 3% of the U.S. population; unless they are raised LDS, there is no way in hell they are going to join. Considering how small that population is relatively speaking, is the leadership willing to write them off? My guess: yes! And since there is no country where homosexuals are a majority, that won’t work as a motivation to change policy.
Here’s a possibility for change: Some European country passes legislation saying that any religion that does not allow homosexuals full participation is a “hate organization” and will be dissolved in that country. Would that do it, or would the leadership just write off a European country (where they are losing members anyway)?
Here’s another possibility: Convince young Mormons that the current leadership is out of touch with science and they are behaving immorally. Ergo, as the octo- and novo-generians die off, they are replaced with people who have more “modern” views. Possibility?
Last possibility: This is where you and I disagree on the change in policy toward blacks. You get an enlightened leader among the 15 apostles who eventually becomes prophet (10 to 15 years from now). He has a short window of time where he can browbeat the others into submission and they agree to change their policies (a la Spencer W. Kimball vs. ET Benson). Et Voila! Homosexuals are god’s children again and welcome into the religion.
In all honesty, I’m guessing none of the above will play out for decades. Why? Mormons have, like other conservative religious groups, staked their identity on being conservatives and anti-modernity. In order to reinforce this identity, they stake out positions against modernity (e.g., ordaining women, being nice to homosexuals, etc.). If they give those up, they lose their market niche and they have nothing to attract followers. Of course, many of the followers they attract (not all, Seth – NOT ALL!) are bigots and chauvinists. But that is how the religious marketplace works. Ergo, so long as there is no other element of modernity to oppose to reinforce Mormon identity, Mormons will continue to treat women and gays as second-class citizens.
Based on the reasoning above (and, actually, yours), there is basically nothing that can be done to change Mormon policy at this point. Ergo – let’s just be mean and call the leadership bigots and the religion a hate church! 😉
Give me something else to do that will change views and I’ll do it. But that can’t include buying an island and filling it with homosexuals who want to join the LDS Church! 😉
p.s. Despite my earlier comment, I agree that the astroturfers running NOM have not been open and honest, and hence they deserve to have a guy who knows their tactics investigating them. It’s clear from points like this one:
Here’s an update re what Fred’s been up to: Gay Republican Fred Karger Tells Southern GOP That He Might Run for President.
And if you follow that link and scroll down, you’ll catch a glimpse of an MSP guest poster from a while back, Danielle Truszkovsky.
To date, since Fred’s announcement, he’s been excoriated in some quarters (and when it comes to the progressive blogosphere, nearly all quarters) for his ber-Republican CV.
Taking a cue from profxm’s comment, I’d add that there is also a political marketplace, with its own market niches (for example, the GOP primary … which, as far as political niches go, is one I’ve mostly tended to scoff at during my lifetime – in the same way I’ve generally scoffed at those who’ve dared to suggest they could effect change in the LDS church from the inside).
And, by the way, in response to this:
Seth R.: At this particular juncture, who exactly is making the news with outdated 1960s-style protests?
proxm, I think the Church has been very careful not to say how many gays are out there (3%? 5%?), so that it doesn’t bite them in terms of “This is how many people we’re excluding.” They know it’s contradictory to say that there exists a minority of “gay people” but everyone is actually straight. So, part of it is that they don’t frame gayness as immutable, because the theology does not permit this. In the texts I’ve read, this seems to be the main point the Church and culture is trying to make at present on the issue: being gay isn’t immutable. And frankly, the gay rights movement should not be trying to argue that being gay is immutable. As psychologist Lisa Diamond put it: “Perhaps instead of arguing that gay/lesbian/bisexual individuals deserve civil rights because they are powerless to change their behavior, we should affirm the fundamental rights of all people to determine their own emotional and sexual lives.”
Part of the reason “sexual orientation” sticks in our culture is because when people do determine their own emotional/sexual lives, gayness often sticks for some people. This is happening inside the Church to the extent that Elder Holland’s 2007 story was about how to reframe gayness because Mormon youth are “falsely” identifying with the concept of “sexual orientation.” If you think about it, no longer can the Church call gays “perverts” or “sissies” without internal backlash, and increasingly eyebrows raise when gays are compared with cancer patients or quadriplegics. It’ll probably be a generational change, so I agree that we’re looking at decades, but in the 60-year period that the Church has been addressing homosexuality, there have been changes (e.g., would the Church have supported sexual orientation/gender identity nondiscrimination ordinances even 10 years ago? The fact that they did it when they don’t even believe in “sexual orientation” is noteworthy.)
My answers as an active LDS but frequent critic of my church:
How does it feel to be a member of a hate group? Dunno, Im not. Try Phelps church.
Are you proud of the fact that you fund efforts to remove peoples civil rights? I don’t fund any such efforts, at least not directly. You might as well ask are you proud of the fact you fund baby killing?, which both of us certainly also fund indirectly by the same logic. But beyond your ridiculous question, let me say I believe the church leaders actually have little concern over gay marriage. I believe their primary and unstated concern is legally recognized USA polygamy and their unstated motivation is the long shot opportunity now before them to enshrine traditional marriage into state and federal constitution law to wipe their rears of an embarrassing polygamy forever. If gays have to settle for civil unions as a result, so be it.
Why does your Church hate gays and lesbians? Already answered above. Why do you hate Mormons?
@profxm
I’m very curious as to where you got the “Homosexuals make up maybe 3% of the U.S. population” number.
Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata. Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston: Little, Brown, 1995. ISBN 0316075248
Which is like telling one’s partner that the affair meant nothing. Buck up, I humiliated you for no good reason, darling.
How does it feel to be a member of a hate group? Dunno, Im not.
You might as well be.
Kuri, nice link. I’ve been meaning to respond to Steve’s post but haven’t gotten to it until now.
There’s actually a great deal of irony in his post. He says that Fred Phelps’s Westboro Baptist Church is a hate church, which is true. But whenever Westboro Baptist protests something, all it basically does is galvanize people against Westboro Baptist.
Now enter Mormonism. They claim to love everyone, including homosexuals. But the Mormon Church has probably been the single most successful organizing group disenfranchising homosexuals in the U.S.
So, one group openly admits to hating homosexuals but basically hasn’t done anything to really hurt them legally. The other group claims to love them then stabs them in the back. In my book, the Mormon Church is just as much of a hate church as is Westboro Baptist. I won’t say it’s worse, but it’s certainly far more effectual at disenfranchising homosexuals than is Westboro. This truly is a case where actions speak a lot louder than words!!!
Ergo, Steve, you belong to a hate group.
You can also say that I “hate” Mormons. But keep in mind that I have never tried to restrict the rights of Mormons. In fact, I would fight for Mormons to have the right to engage in polygamy if that is what they wanted and it only included consenting adults (something I’ve done with my academic work). I may disagree with Mormon views; I may disagree with Mormon practices; but I have never tried to restrict Mormons rights or reduce them to below those of other Americans. Mormonism can’t say the same. I don’t think you can compare my criticism of Mormonism to Mormonism’s disenfranchisement of homosexuals and claim you’re comparing apples to apples.
Guys,
Please give me a break. I’ve commented way too much in these forums to be confused with someone defending my church leadership. I’m just opining on what I sincerely believe their unstated motivation is (fear of having to deal with legal USA polygamy and desire to get polygamy behind them forever). If Im correct, Im certainly not defending them nor their apparent view of harmed gays as necessary collateral damage in pursuit of their objectives.
Back to Karger’s approach, if a closet semi-apostate like me thinks he’s a nutter/hater, he doesn’t have a prayer of usefully engaging TBMs. A constructive approach is needed. Karger is a dead end best avoided.
I was wondering what was up with that statement. It seemed out of character for you. So, consider it my response to the hypothetical you gave. 😉
@profxm
Thanks for the reference. The reason I ask is because that seems quite low.
From what I’ve read and seen, there is no firm consensus on what the percentage actually is. It seems to range from 1% or 2% – 10% depending on many factors (gender and sex, whether they self-identify as gay/homosexual/lesbian/bisexual, whether other terms are being counted, whether bisexuality or lesbianism is being counted, whether only behaviour, or desire (orientation), etc.)
Because of how religious the US is (and other social factors), a good amount of people who self-identify as straight because of social pressures are, in fact, LG or B (in terms of their orientation/desires, if not their actual behaviour), and therefore aren’t being counted when surveys are done because they don’t disclose either behaviours or desires.
There is quite a bit of more recent research on the subject since 1995, and with the increasing social acceptance of sexual minority status, there has been a significant increase of those who self-identify as LG or B.
As I don’t have access to that article, I’m curious as to what sort of methodology was used, whether it’s orientation or behaviour only, etc.
Oh, and from what I gather, the current number is that around 5/6% of people (men and women combined, on average) self-identify as LG or B, so it’s probably 5/6%+ when you add in those who don’t self-identify and/or behave as LGB but whose actual sexual orientation is not heterosexual.
Being effective at disenfranchising a particular group does not make you a “hate group.”
Let me give you an example – if you want to talk in terms of sheer damage done to the homosexual community, the credit card industry has done far more than the LDS Church has ever attempted or accomplished. They’ve ruined the lives of homosexuals, stolen their money, ruined their borrowing ability. I have filed bankruptcy for several homosexuals in the last couple years – a humiliation largely due to these credit card companies.
So I guess that makes Bank of America a “hate group” right?
Yes, I’m aware that you are probably objecting at this point “but Visa doesn’t target gays-only.”
That’s true, but it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making. The point I’m making is that simply disenfranchising a group does not automatically make you a “hate group.” Harming a particular group does not automatically make you a “hate group.”
Craig, regarding the statistics. Somewhere between 5% and 10% of both men and women have had “homosexual encounters or experiences.” But in terms of how many self-identify as homosexual, that number has been pretty consistent since we have been able to get reliable data – about 2% of men and 1% of women. Bi-sexuals (both male and female) come in at about .5% of the population. Add those together and you get maybe 3.5%. Do these numbers underestimate the actual percentage? Probably. But I highly doubt it is as many as 1 in 10. I’d bet the high end is 5% or 1 in 20, but even that I find a little high. Possible, but high.
If I were to, say, use my classes as a crappy sample, I’m guessing 1 in 20 students are homosexual. Mind you, this is Sociology and I’m pretty well-known for having no biases against homosexuality and embracing students who raise these issues. Plus, Sociology is generally quite liberal in this regard, so we tend to attract people interested in these issues. Sure, not all of my students are open about their sexuality, so it may be slightly higher than that, but I’m a bit skeptical that it would be much higher than 1 in 20 in my classes. That’s clearly not a representative sample, but it is a sample that is not based on people’s sexuality and it seems to mirror the national survey data we have – 3% to 5%.
Seth, we may have a misunderstanding on what it means to “disenfranchise” someone. Screwing someone over financially is not the same thing as removing their rights. Sure, credit card companies screw people over. But they don’t selectively target anyone to screw over (well, they kind of do; they do tend to target the poor/working class, who are less likely to pay off balances), but my sense is that credit card companies will screw anyone.
Ergo, Bank of America is not a hate group. Assholes? Absolutely. Hate group? No.
This is absolutely an apples to oranges comparison. Mormonism has removed a right from an entire segment of the population (depending on whose stats you go with, anywhere from 3%-5% or 6%) of the population. Bank of America isn’t working to remove people’s rights to marry. It has worked to remove people’s rights to file for bankruptcy, but again, that is not targeting one specific demographic. Ergo, not a hate group.
So, if disenfranchising means “removing rights” (which is, in fact, what it means), Bank of America is not doing that while LDS Inc. is. That’s my criteria for a hate group. MY CRITERIA. You can disagree with it. You can have YOUR CRITERIA. But my criteria is: a hate group is any group of people/organizations that specifically targets a subset of a population for removal of rights or extermination. Ergo, LDS Inc. is a hate group.
(P.S. I hate Bank of America. But they’re still not a hate group.)
Seth — that’s definitely an interesting and novel argument. But I have to agree with ProfXM that taking advantage of people (for your own profit) is not *quite* the same thing as disenfranchising them.
Which is worse? Well, that’s debatable…
Yes, I do, tentively agree that 1/10 being gay is a high number. However, I also think if you group all sexual minorities (LGBT) in together though, which for political and social reasons is reasonable, it approaches that.
I also think you’re (and we as a society are) underestimating the number of bisexuals/pansexuals by quite a large amount. Our societal norms are such that they intensely discourage bisexuals from coming out or even acknowledging to themselves that they are bisexual (having some same-sex attractions, but not exclusively so). This is especially true for men what with the ridiculous ideas of masculinity vs. femininity in our society.
Of course I’ve no peer-reviewed research to back these assertions up – they’re mostly based on intuition and anecdotal evidence, but the degree of homophobia/heteronormativity in our society is very, very high (higher than most people realise), and that does significantly impact how many people come out, and whether they’re even truly fully cognizant of their own sexual orientation. A great many bisexual (and gay) people live their whole lives as if they are straight, and never have to confront the truth.
Were we to live in a society where LGBT status were completely normalised and as unimportant as eye-colour (something that doesn’t exist anywhere), I think we’d see a whole lot more openly bisexual people, I think actually we’d see that more than 1 in 10 people are actually not completely heterosexual.
Of course, this is all hypothetical.
Okay, I’m not trying to a middle-man here, but I actually believe what I’m about to say. To argue that the Church is a “hate” group because it “took away the rights” of gays seems very much to overlook the fact that 4/5 of the United States have constitutional bans on gay marriage. To single out Mormons because they have a trans-individual cultural structure (e.g., a “living prophet” that tells them what to do), which makes politicking swifter and dirtier does not make them any more hateful than all those voters who actually voted for Prop 8. Are black and Asian conservative churches and Catholics and evangelicals all going to be labeled “haters?” That’s a lot of hate to address; thus, I link it’s a lot more productive to look at where common ground IS reached, which is the way Equality Utah takes this up.
The whole “other people are mean too, stop picking on us” tactic is just pathetic.
Yes, in fact, the entire conservative wing of this country is, in veritable fact, a hate group.
They were a hate group in the 60s when they supported racial segregation (Mormonism included), and they’re a hate group now by supporting gay segregation.
There is a point where common ground is pointless, where the depth of the vitriol against the oppressed is so strong, so inherent, so fundamental, that the only way to achieve equality is to force the hate groups out of power, and force them to accept legal and social equality.
Asking nicely and not denouncing hate and bigotry is not the way to do it. That has never worked, why should it now?
I was living in Utah in 2004 and I voted “Yes” on Utah Constitutional Amendment 3. I didn’t put a heck of a lot of thought into my vote (I had just legally separated from my husband and moved out into my own apartment), but as an evangelical, I knew that I thought homosexuality was a sin so I probably should do everything in my power to discourage it.
My thoughts on the subject have evolved a lot in the last five and a half years. I still view homosexual practice as a sin as far as my personal religious beliefs go, so I would never support the ordination of a practicing gay minister or tell a Christian friend that there’s nothing wrong with being gay. However, my feelings are that if I want people to not be gay, Matthew 28:19 is the solution. I have no interest in involving the government in imposing my religious convictions on unbelievers.
So how I would vote on this issue (in order of preference):
1. Civil unions for all
2. Marriage for all
3. Marriage for heterosexuals, civil unions/domestic partnerships for homosexuals. I’m not a fan of calling it by a different name, but it’s better than nothing.
I didn’t set up my absentee balloting when I moved from Washington state to Illinois last year, but I would have voted “yes” on Referendum 71 in favor of SB 5688 (the “Everything-But-Marriage” bill) and was pleased that it passed without my help. If the Equal Marriage Act ever gets put to a vote in Illinois, I’ll vote in favor of it. I’m still a Republican and I still consider myself conservative on most other issues.
My position on this issue never would have changed if the SSM advocates I interacted with had stood around and cursed me for being part of a “hate group.” I was persuaded by intelligent people who compassionately reasoned with me and didn’t give me up for loss as a hopeless bigot.
I don’t agree with Seth’s “Bank of America” analogy. But Seth has generally spoken out in favor of gay rights and expressed discontent with the Church’s actions in Prop. 8. That you’re alienating Mormons like him with this rhetoric should be cause for concern.
Craig, you may be right on the numbers. Alas, we won’t know until the heteronormativity of US culture changes, which is going to take a while. I still think 1/10 may be high, but I’m guessing a lot more people would be willing to at least experiment with bisexuality if it were not so frowned upon.
Ms. Jack… I understand your point. Summary of what you’ve said: “Calling people names doesn’t change their opinions. Intelligent conversation does.” I have long hoped that is the case. Seriously, I have. But how many “intelligent” conversations do I have to have with these people? And why doesn’t it seem to be working?
I guess my real question with all of this is: Since “reason” doesn’t seem to help Mormons (and all the other bigots in the US) realize that they are disenfranchising 3%-10% of the population, what will? I ask that in all sincerity. If you have a tool, technique, idea, etc. that would allow me to make it apparent to LDS Inc. that they are acting in a hateful way, I would jump at the chance to use it. Nothing seems to be working.
So, when I’ve got nothing else, I turn to shame. Shame on LDS Inc. for disenfranchising LGBTs. And shame on them for being haters. If the best weapon in my arsenal is shame (by labeling them a hate group), why not use it?
Here’s another peek into my thinking. Why does Seth get so irate when I call LDS Inc. a hate group? My opinion: Because he still identifies with the religion. If I call Westboro Baptist a hate group, Seth would probably agree. But when I call his religion, which is much more efficacious in legislating hate, a hate group, that makes him uncomfortable. Here’s why: Seth doesn’t hate homosexuals. He may not agree with it. He may think it’s a sin. But he doesn’t hate them. And he would like to enfranchise them, as would you. But he currently adheres to a religion that is actively working at cross purposes with him. This is classic cognitive dissonance. Seth doesn’t hate. Seth’s church hates. Seth loves his church. Ergo, Seth doesn’t want his church to be called a hate group.
And, guess what, this is precisely my point. Who wants to belong to a hate group? Obviously some people are okay with it. But if Mormonism is labeled as a hate group for what they’re doing, and that gets picked up by lots of people, I’m guessing they might ease off. If the LDS Church was simply not allowing gays to be members in full-standing, I don’t think they would be receiving the criticism they are. But because they are pro-actively legislating the removal of rights at the cost of millions of dollars, that means they warrant the criticism. Ergo, label them a hate group, make that widespread, and watch people start to leave in droves. A mass exodus out of the religion, leaving only bigots, would do one of two things: Stop the anti-gay activities or simply reinforce that it is, in fact, a hate church. Either way, my approach works. It either gets them to change their activities or actually makes them a hate church. I’d hope for the former, but the latter would quickly result in the religion’s marginalization and decline, which should be the case for hate groups!
Given that the culture still thinks that being gay needs to be “fixed,” being labeled hateful will only be met with pity. In other words, believing gayness needs to be fixed is a not hateful position, but simply an inaccurate one. You can see the Church squirming on this point when church leaders address things like the 1974 removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, or when they relate being gay to disabilities. If you’re looking for tactics, this point to them. This is because the situation now is that queer youth leave the Church consistently, which affects families, families turn to Church leaders for advice, and the advice they give does not work, so the leaders lose their credibility on the matter. I honestly don’t think that the Church’s support of SLC’s nondiscrimination ordinances was due to backlash on Prop 8, or the Church being labeled a “hate” church by enough people. In the decade since such ordinances were last proposed and failed, I think that intelligent conversations had been had and gayness has been made more visible as a non-disorder.
I agree that in personal conversations with individuals putting people on the defensive is often counter-productive.
And, yes, it’s lovely to be the moderate, friendly one who’s making concessions between the various extremes. But, frankly, that comfortable middle ground only gets opened up when other people are willing to move the poles of the debate by taking less comfortable positions.
What I mean is that disenfranchising gay people as a group is wrong; it is immoral. Without people who are willing to say that unequivocally, then merely admitting to being gay (or atheist) becomes the extreme position. And when you’re the extreme, it’s that much easier for the majority to feel good about slamming the door in your face no matter how friendly, fair, etc. you want to be with them.
I’ve considered that the only reason that the SLC ordinances passed is because the “extreme” of marriage equality has been on the table. The powers that be of gay rights movement decided in the 1990s to make “marriage” the bellwether of gay rights because the assumption was that all the “minor” stuff like housing, employment, school bullying, etc, would fall into place. But I’m not sure this is the case. Groups like Equality Utah stress a simple but often overlooked fact: many basic rights for LGBT citizens are not guaranteed by marriage. In many ways, different conversations must be had. Thus, I think the situation is more nuanced than simply “disenfranchising gay people” versus “not disenfranchising them.” The extremes might open up certain doors for the middle, but I also think the middle is its own space.
28 – it’s not really on topic to this conversation – but I think taking the bible literally (and interpretations of the bible) should be up for debate (bridget, particularly in light of the chicken patriarchy discussion as well). Now, I don’t mean to get out specific bible verses – I’m not sure if that conversation would devolve into that.
Now that I’m thinking more about this, I will draft a post about that as a further discussion. I do not think all Christians (believers in Christ) believe everything written in the bible comes from God or is divine.
Why can’t some of the prohibitions be dismissed like the blatant support of slavery? I think most Christians can agree slavery is not a good thing. Or some of the things Paul wrote, particularly about women.
I support equality for marriage. I also believe that parts of the bible reflect the culture it was written in, not divine influence – and I think many believers would agree with me (not that this adds to my argument, but still). It simply gets way too complicated to argue that some of the cultural stuff is divine .
Alan (#30)… Couple thoughts. The percent of Americans saying homosexual relationships is a moral issue is now a minority opinion (48% say it is morally wrong; 50% say it is not a moral issue).
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
The most recent polls put support for same-sex marriage at neck and neck (about 48 or 49% in favor or opposed). So, I’m not sure the culture still thinks being gay needs to be “fixed” (though, admittedly, neither of the above polls addresses that directly). Ergo, would labeling result in sympathy for the Mormon Church? Not sure. we’re at a potential tipping point and I’m wondering if labeling would actually push this in the direction we want.
As far as tactics go, it kind of seems like you’re saying, “There is nothing you can do. Just wait for every Mormon to be related to a homosexual and become disillusioned by the leadership’s comments and eventually it will change.” If that is the best approach, fine. But that seems to suggest that there is nothing I can do to help. If that’s the case, fine. I’ll sit on my hands. But for some reason that doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
Finally, do you really think intelligent conversations have made the difference? Or were more extreme approaches, like the Sign for Something movement, an actual factor in the very, very minimal changes they have made?
Alan #32 – I think that’s a very reasonable point. Absolutely the middle needs to be explored. But I think chanson’s point is a good one – maybe what we need is more extreme rhetoric. The extreme rhetoric moves the poles, allowing moderate groups to negotiate. Frankly, what would be nice would be any pro same-sex marriage discussion in the mainstream media.
By “fixed,” I mean that engaging in homosexual “acts” is considered sinful, so you need to “fix yourself” in such a way that you don’t engage in such acts. I’m pretty sure this is the way Mormonism approaches the issue.
I’m sure the situation is now at 50/50 nationwide, but a poll that doesn’t take into account geography doesn’t strike me as very helpful. Depending on where you live, it could be 80/20.
The article that you linked to is interesting in terms of advertising in secular versus religious magazines (I was puzzled, though, that they mentioned Ensign, which had the largest readership by far but then it was never mentioned in the article. Perhaps this is because Ensign rarely mentions homosexuality.) What the authors of the article didn’t state, but was implicit, was that representation is more important than political advocacy. In other words, it’s a faster route to marriage equality to show consistent, accurate representations of gay people through TV shows, news and other narrative-based media (which is happening, despite the networks being conservative conglomerates) than it would be to say “This network (or magazine) supports marriage equality. Why don’t you?” Thus, change happens indirectly, and it isn’t just about Mormons being related to gay Mormons, but also Mormonism being related to America, etc.
You might want to check out Didi Herman’s book The Anti-gay Agenda. She looks at how the right has framed homosexuality from the 1950s to the mid-1990s and documents change even within the feedback mechanism that is the Christian right. For example, the change in the 1980s from “hate the sinner who sins” to “love the sinner, hate the sin” matches up in Mormonism. One idea that Herman talks about is how homosexuality is addressed as a male phenomenon, so lesbians are under the radar, and in the meantime have developed kinship. Thus, lesbian feminism is actually, in the long run, quite detrimental to the right’s message.
I just think the label of “hate” here obscures more than it clarifies.
I get very little “hate” vibes at Church.
But I’ll make you a deal:
I’ll agree to let you call the LDS Church a “hate group” if you let us call RfM, exmormon.org and Mormonism Research Ministries “anti-Mormon.”
Sound fair?
Alan (#35) The geographic argument is, of course, very relevant. 50/50 doesn’t help the LGBT individual in rural Alabama where it is closer to 80/20, I’m sure.
The article mentions the Ensign as one of the magazines, and the Ensign numbers are included in the tables, but it doesn’t use any direct quotes from the Ensign as there are better ones from other magazines. (I know the authors.)
The Didi Herman recommendation is a good one. I’ll pass it on to the authors of that article.
Seth — Despite Ms. Jack’s dire warning, I suspected that we hadn’t completely alienated you. 😉
I’ve been mulling over this, and I’m kind of leaning in your direction. I think that the leadership of the CoJCoL-dS has made things uncomfortable enough for moderates and liberals that one can make a reasonable case for calling the organization a “hate” group. However, I feel like here at MSP we perhaps ought to be taking a more nuanced view.
You can go ahead and make your case that they deserve such labels. I have to warn you, though, that I have no idea who the “Mormonism Research Ministries” are… (Maybe I know them if you tell me the name of their blog.)
p.s. On the middle vs. extremes: Personally, I very much prefer exploring that middle ground. I’m just saying that I appreciate the role of those at the extremes. I’d just as soon let them make their case.
MRM’s blog is Mormon Coffee. They’re an Evangelical outfit. And like the ex-Mormon forums, they claim they don’t “hate” Mormons, just Mormon-ISM.
A distinction that I think works about as well as Mormons claiming to “love the sinner, but hate the sin.”
Seth (#36),
I understand what you’re saying. Mormonism doesn’t really give off a constant or even explicit “hate” vibe at the local level. I spent 25 years attending services and didn’t get that impression. But it is: exclusive (LDS are right, everyone else is wrong; though admittedly this rhetoric has been toned down in recent years) and, at the GA level it is pretty anti-gay and arguably a hate church. Unfortunately, as was the case with the ERA, local members have been used as pawns by the GAs in their fight against perceived evils (you know, women and gays having equal rights). So, I see your point – you don’t hate (which I did mention pretty explicitly in my responses). But someone high enough in the church to direct it clearly does. That doesn’t trickle down to the individual members that often, but the hate is there.
As far as me calling Mormonism a “hate church” being helpful or not, I fully understand that point as well. I think it will piss people off. And it certainly won’t open up lines of communication. But this leads me to reiterate my point: What else can I do? Obviously thoughtful Mormons like yourself aren’t the haters (please tell me you didn’t donate to Prop. 8, Seth). And I’m already in dialog with you. But how do I get the attention of the haters? And how do I get them to stop hating?
Let me summarize the suggestions so far:
1) Buy an island and fill it with LGBT golden contacts who will shower missionaries with flowers when they arrive and line up for baptisms.
2) Wait for every Mormon to have an LGBT relative, turn to the leadership for help, become disillusioned, then, um, leave?
3) Engage in intelligent, thoughtful conversation with those who are willing to do so.
#1 isn’t going to happen.
#2 will take decades, if not centuries.
#3 isn’t working.
Here’s what I want at this point: Either give me some option that (1) doesn’t include me calling the church a hate group and (2) is effective OR tell me that it will be more effective for me to do nothing. If you give me the first and convince me it is more effective than labeling Mormonism a hate church, I’ll do it. If you can convince me that the second is more effective, I’ll do that. But right now I’m still leaning toward: TCoJCoLDS = hate group.
Oh, and I get your point about the various groups being labeled anti-Mormon – it doesn’t help the dialog. But, then again, aren’t these various ex-Mormon/post-Mormon groups already labeled anti-Mormon by many Mormons, which serves the exact purpose that I’m advocating: it keeps TBMs miles away from them simply by labeling them. That would seem to suggest that labeling is effective. In a sense, then, that proves my very point. Let’s label TCoJCoLDS a hate group; it will work as well as keeping Mormons away from critical/skeptical online forums does when you call them anti-Mormon.
My general feeling is that things ought to be labeled accurately, rather than whatever yields the best impact.
It just seems to me that just being opposed to gay marriage is pretty shaky grounds for labeling something a “hate group.”
As for the attempt at analyzing my motives here, let me just point out that I’ve never been particularly interested in defending or advocating for the modern corporate LDS Church.
I’ll step up to bat for Joseph Smith in a hearbeat, but the Church Office Building? Not so much. It’s not something I’m all that jazzed about, so I don’t feel any particular need to put down for it.
But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out when I think the rhetoric about modern Mormonism is unfair.
Obviously.
The thing is that there are two separate debates going on simultaneously here:
1. One can make a legitimate enough case for calling the CoJCoL-dS a “hate” group that it’s reasonable to discuss it.
2. Then there’s a secondary debate of whether we should avoid it — accurate or not — out of some tact/strategy considerations…
I’ve probably told this story before, but I’ll tell it again because I think it’s pertinent to this conversation. A couple years ago, a couple missionaries came to my apartment and I flabbergasted them with my logic on queer issues. I told them that I was in a long-term same-sex relationship and had no intention of returning to a church that didn’t honor that. The next week, they returned with an older gay man who has returned to the Church (bI invited them to return; I was intrigued). The guy and I talked while the missionaries sat quietly listening. Now, one could say that the missionaries were quietly scheming about how to be “anti-gay” for the next generation, or one could say that their worldviews were slightly nuanced that day beyond the monolithic “love the sinner, hate the sin.” As I understand it, this kind of missionary meeting would not have happened a few decades ago, as the policy was probably, “If someone tells you they’re actively gay, tell them have a nice day and move on.” Now, there are bridges being built that I can’t see leading anywhere else other than equality. It might take a while and the Church has a lot of historiographical issues to mend on this subject, and I don’t have the patience to wait. But I see change happening.
ps: Armaud Mauss similarly argued in his book All Abraham’s Children that the Church’s proselytizing efforts are what changed Mormon ideas about race.
@Seth
“I get very little hate vibes at Church.”
You’re also a straight male.
It’s obvious I have no idea what your home ward is like, and maybe it’s a bastion of liberal equality. (Even if it is, that’s not really the point.)
I have found that most straight people are pretty (often completely) blind & deaf to heteronormativity and covert homophobia, just as most white people most often don’t really see their own social privilege.
The LdS church is extremely intensely homophobic which to a gay person IS hatred. In every single ward and branch I’ve ever been in (well over a dozen), homophobic heteronormativity is the order of the day, and is expressed nearly weekly. Because of the top-down organisation of the church and how intensely authoritarian it is, world-wide, I simply assume that to some degree, every member in every ward & branch world-wide is being explicitly told to oppose and try to take away the rights of gays.
If that’s not a hate group, then I don’t know what is.
Craig,
I’m also suspicious of the word “homophobic” – which I’ve found is usually code for anyone who doesn’t accept homosexual behavior – no matter how scared they are of actual gay people.
It’s not code at all. Stop being obtuse. We’ve had this conversation before.
Once more, the word “homophobia” has (and has had for quite a while) a wider meaning that just “irrational fear of gays/homosexuality” and indeed was coined to mean something else entirely (the fear straight men have that others might think they are gay). It is to homosexuality as racism is to race. This is a well established definition. Opposing full and equal rights and social status for gays, lesbians and bisexuals is homophobia. If you don’t like it when I use that word, I can just as well say heteronormative or heterosexist or homonegativity or even just sexist. Or maybe you’d rather I say bigoted and prejudiced.
You are right in that it is rightfully applied to those who don’t “accept homosexual behaviour”. That bigoted, prejudiced, heteronormative homophobia.
I really don’t get what your problem with this word is.
With regard to homophobia, whether or not it is justified in a liberal democracy to regulate homosexual behavior depends on whether or not homosexuality interferes with other people’s liberty.
That is an empirical question.
There are mountains of evidence that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon observed in hundreds of species including all the primate species.
I am not aware of any evidence that homosexuality is any more problematic than heterosexuality.
Therefore the demand to treat our gay children and neighbors differently from straight folks lacks a rational justification that would be compatible with the concepts of human or civil rights.
That’s why such a demand is homophobic. I understand that tradition privileges skeptical and hostile attitudes towards homosexuality. Nonetheless, we have to insist that people abide by the golden rule.
Most people understand a phobia to be an irrational fear.
Therefore – “homophobia” basically means an irrational fear of gay people.
If you, or some sociologist or political activist somewhere want to redefine it to mean something else, that’s your own business. But don’t expect me or anyone else to go along with you on it.
“Homophobia” means an irrational fear of gay people.
Period.
Meanwhile, the Mormon who wrote this …
… is still scheduled to receive this award from the BYU Management Society.
How to describe an organization that bestows honors on folks who write stuff like this?
Is this what a constructive approach looks like? Or should BYUMS simply be dismissed as a bunch of nutters?
If any Mormons happen to disagree with Sen. Smith, the silence from the LDS community has so far been deafening. No surprise there. Waiting around for Mormons themselves to step up with a response is the deadest of dead ends.
I guess some of the MRM/Mormon Coffee people won’t like it if I say this,
but
I thought they were anti-Mormon.
So I guess that’s not a good comparison?
And I forget who it was who was interviewed on Mormon Expression, but he had said he wasn’t “anti-Mormon” but “anti-Mormonism”. I cringed because it was SO BAD (although, I suppose he was being candid).
At the same time, I feel like — here at MSP — we may be having some (very, very tiny) amount of success at the whole “engaging believers in reasonable discussion” thing. So I lean towards encouraging nuanced discussion here rather than harsh denunciation.
The thing is that it’s easy for liberal Mormons like Seth to completely dismiss sites like RfM and Mormon Coffee. But those same liberal Mormons are sometimes willing to have a more-or-less reasonable discussion with us here if we keep the lines of communication open with them.
I’ll admit that I don’t think that gentle persuasion is the tactic that will have the biggest impact when it comes to Mormons and gay rights. However, it may have some real impact — different approaches work with different people.
And — as small as our reach is here at MSP — I don’t know of many sites that are doing it better…
This is an interesting forum. I spent over 30 years as an “active” member of the LDS church. I went on a church mission and baptized about 70 people. I am the only member of a large extended family who is not now a member of the LDS church. In short, I have dearly loved members of my family whom I strongly disagree with. I would agree with the sentiment that faithful members of the church that I know are not hate-filled. I would characterize it more as a superiority complex rather than hate. They are blind to how their superiority and “black and white” view of the world is perceived by others. In fact I didn’t see this until I was on the outside looking in. I don’t have time to write much right now, but I will be posting more later. Mormonism was such an important part of my life (in fact it WAS my life) for so long. I know how they think. I have debated these very issues with my family (and have subsequently gotten removed from their email lists :).
Rex — sounds interesting. Would you like to write a guest post? If so, email me: chanson dot exmormon at gmail dot com.
Good to meet you, Rex. I hope that you can enjoy some fellowship on Main Street Plaza.
Seth, the word included “being against homosexual behavior” in many instances long before Mormons got their hands on it and said it doesn’t. Mormons took up homophobia as an irrational fear of same-sex attraction in the late 1980s. But homophobia as including beliefs that “all sexual behavior is moral only if it is heterosexual” is very common outside of conservative circles and has been for decades. It’s not “code.” Mormonism doesn’t want to be labeled homophobic because then it leads to the idea that the Church isn’t for everyone.
“They are blind to how their superiority and black and white view of the world is perceived by others.”
I would feel like I had much less grounds for disputing this point. I’ve noted similar trends myself (though I don’t think they are uniquely “Mormon”).
So I give this one a “pass” if Rex or anyone else cares…
@Seth
“‘Homophobia’ means an irrational fear of gay people.”
You clearly don’t understand how language works.
Yes, that is one of its many meanings. It is not its primary meaning, or even a main meaning. Not any more, not for some time. Almost every word has more than one meaning depending on both social and grammatical contexts. The word homophobia has, over the past decades, accumulated other meanings other than the one which it was coined to represent (which, again, as I pointed out is NOT the meaning you’re ascribing to it as it’s sole “real” “populist” meaning). It has evolved to fill a gap in the language where we needed a word to describe the analogous concept to racism but having to do with same-sex attraction. If circumstances had been different, the word might have been many other things. It just so happens that this is the word which became associated with that main meaning. By analogy to “homophobia” we also now have the words “biphobia”, “lesbophobia”, “transphobia”, and even “heterophobia”, and none of the words have, as their primary meaning “an irrational fear of [bisexuals/lesbians/transpeople/heterosexuals]”. They all mean, by analogy to “homophobia”, negatively prejudiced attitudes, beliefs or feelings towards each of those groups.
Yes, in psychology a phobia is an irrational fear. No one is debating this.
But what you have to understand is that language changes and evolves quite rapidly, especially with regards to new words and terms. The social understanding surrounding homosexuality is in flux and so is its vocabulary. This is normal.
You mistakenly think that sociologists and political activists (why you say those with a tone of derision is beyond me) have decided to actively use the word “homophobia” in a way that is somehow “wrong” in order to advance some gay/liberal agenda. You seem to think we’re corrupting the “real” meaning of the word in order to smear people and organisations who oppose equal rights. I don’t know why you think this or what gave you this idea, but its absurd. We’re simply using the best word that fits the situation. We’re not at all trying to insinuate that everyone we say is acting homophobically or who has homophobic beliefs is actually irrational frightened of gays.
However, there is an irrational component to all opposition to gay rights, as there is an utter lack of rational reasons to oppose gay rights. There is no secular, scientific, reality-based reason to oppose equal rights for gays that cannot be equally applied to heterosexuals.
To change topics, you’ve completely ignoring the underlying argument and nitpicking on the usage of one single word in order to avoid actually having to rebut any arguments. I gave you other words that you could use to substitute in place of “homophobia” since my usage of that words so offends. You completely ignored that and restated your disproven argument as if it were fact. You are not correctly using the word “homophobia” but even if you were, you’re completely not addressing the actual argument. You have a mistaken idea about what a word means, how it is actually used and what its actual meanings are. It is like insisting on calling someone a geneticist when in reality they’re an evolutionary biologist – and saying “well, when I think of a geneticist, I think of you, so I’m just going to call you that, regardless of whether it’s correct or not. In fact you’re wrong and I’m right because I know that someone else thinks the same way I do.”
You’re harping on this one thing is just absurd.
Who wants a long comment? Yes, that’s right, you want a long comment!
#29 proxfm ~ I gotta confess, I’m a little bit confused by your proposal here:
If the best weapon in my arsenal is shame (by labeling them a hate group), why not use it? [SNIP] Ergo, label them a hate group, make that widespread, and watch people start to leave in droves.
You don’t think you can convince Mormons (and other religious groups) to not disenfranchise gays through reasonable conversation. I’m guessing that you don’t think you can convince enough areligious fence-sitters to support your cause so that the actions and opinions of said “hate groups” won’t even matter.
But you do think you can convince a significant number of people to not join the LDS church or leave it and hurt the church’s proselyting efforts by labeling them a “hate group” based on their actions towards gays. Are you sure about that?
In any case, it will never work, for two reasons:
1. Let’s go back to the example of Seth. Let’s say you’re correct and you’ve made him uncomfortable by labeling his religion a “hate group.” Well . . . so what? Seth was born in the church, raised in Provo, married in a temple to a spouse who was similarly born in the church, graduated from BYU, is raising his kids in the church, and has a calling in the church. For all of his liberal and unconventional tendencies, he’s thoroughly and deeply Mormon. You really think he would ever give up his church membership and change his entire religious lifestyle just because angry gay rights activists on the Internet are calling his religion a “hate group”?
You may point out that Seth is a particularly stubborn individual and an unusual case (and you’d be right), but it’s not just Seth we’re talking about. Lots of Mormons out there are just as deeply invested as he is, because that’s the way Mormonism is set up. So personally, I think you’re going to have even less success getting people to leave Mormonism because it’s “a hate group” than you would trying to convince Mormons and others to support gay rights.
2. Mormons sort of like being picked on. They don’t like actually dealing with the people who are picking on them face-to-face, but they like being able to say that people are opposing them for their causes. It only increases their sense that what they’re doing is God’s work. For example, my husband’s bishop gave a talk in Sacrament meeting towards the end of last year about how all of the backlash caused by their actions in Prop. 8 just showed they were doing God’s work.
It’s a difficult problem and it’s hard to say what will “work” in bringing about gay rights. I really only see two feasible options:
(1) Get it into the Supreme Court, in which case none of this really matters and you can behave however you want. Personally, this is how I think it will happen.
(2) Take the long and difficult path of convincing middle-of-the-road’ers like me through reasonable arguments so that gay rights will come about through the vote. It will require a lot of patience, but I don’t think it’s a hopeless cause.
For the most part, it isn’t my family that’s effected by this, and I can’t speak for the pain that LGBT couples have been put through because of this mess. If you or anyone else wants to keep up with the “guilt and shame” technique, do what you think is best. I’m just trying to give helpful, practical feedback.
#38 chanson ~ Despite Ms. Jacks dire warning, I suspected that we hadnt completely alienated you.
I meant y’all were ideologically alienating him. You’d have to break his computer and probably all ten fingers to get rid of him altogether . . .
In common language, “phobia” is an irrational fear Craig.
I’d imagine that only among the limited and small insider-group of gay activists does the word have the meaning you are talking about.
You don’t get to reinvent the lexicon just because you think you have a pretty nifty cause.
Seth,
You’d be wrong if you imagined that. I’ve never been part of an “insider-group of gay activists” of any size, but I hear “homophobia” used analogously to “racism” all the time. That use is very widespread (and your type of push-back against it is also common).
It would be more accurate to say that you don’t get to carve “the lexicon” in stone just because a word used to have a different meaning. “The lexicon” is constantly reinvented. As Craig said, that’s how language works. Words mean what they mean now, and not necessarily what they used to mean.
Widespread where Kuri?
ROTFL! That’s what I love about Seth! 😉
Re the current discussion: Personally, I despise it when people redefine words — differently from the way people normally understand them — for political reasons. I’ve discussed this with respect to pornography and objectification. But in this case, I agree with Craig that people typically really do understand “homophobia” as being analogous with “racism” (and don’t see it as being analogous with the psychological terms “arachnophobia”, etc.).
Which people?
I cannot believe that Seth is left arguing that homophobia is not popularly understood in a different sense than *fear* of homosexuals.
I cannot believe that Seth seriously thinks that it is a just among the “limited and small-insider group of gay activists.”
I mean, this is as disappointing as his foray into postmodernist slash-and-burn apologetics.
Andrew, no one here is really giving me anything to go on other than to say:
“Well duh! EVERYONE knows that!”
Well no, they don’t. I don’t. I don’t know anyone else who does. And you guys just are not providing me with any data that suggests this word-interpretation is anything more than activist posturing.
Just throwing up your hands in mock disbelief isn’t cutting it.
Do we need to conduct a semantics survey..? Or would you say that is biased and just indicative of “activist posturing”?
PROTIP: It’s not mock disbelief
Seth,
Since neither Carol, Andrew, nor I are gay activists, I would have thought we provided evidence against your original assertion merely by stating our awareness of the use that Craig mentioned. But anyway, skim these links and you’ll see that many of them use “homophobia” the way we do. Or these links: why try to coin a new word to use in place of “homophobia” if homophobia isn’t being used the way we said?
Um, Seth, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
Just a thought… 😉
Hi Ms. Jack,
Alas, I don’t think the problem is “areligious fence-sitters.” Plenty of peer-reviewed literature suggests that the a-religious/irreligious are remarkably tolerant. There can’t be more than a handful of irreligious individuals in the US who are opposed to gay marriage. So, I’m kind of just assuming that they are all on my side.
So, the problem really is the fundamentalist and conservative religious folks (fundies make up about 1/3 of the U.S. population; conservative non-fundies add another 10-15%). So, yes, if I want to see change on same-sex marriage legislation, I do have to engage these people. Of course, I could just wait twenty years or so, until the older folks die, as young people are very much in favor of same-sex marriage, including evangelical Christians.
But assuming I don’t want to wait, let’s think about your propositions:
1. Your right that getting Seth to leave his religion because profxm calls it a hate group isn’t going to work. But if 50% of America started calling Mormonism a hate church and comparing it to Westboro Baptist, I think Seth might think differently. Mormons would no longer feel comfortable in every day situations because 50% of Americans would, whenever they find out that they are Mormons, give them shit about belonging to a hate group. That’s what I’m proposing (lofty goal, of course, but my goal nonetheless). I think that kind of pressure might just convince Seth and lots more like him to leave.
2. Your second point about the Mormon Persecution Complex is an excellent one. You’re right – they like it. And I can’t really argue this point except to wonder: Is there an upper-limit of persecution at which point Mormons go, “I’m done. This religion isn’t worth this persecution?” Or does even the most severe persecution still have the same “circle the wagons” affect? I don’t know the answer to that, but I have to wonder… So, anyway, this is probably the best argument against my “hate group” suggestion I’ve seen.
(1) You’re probably right that this will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. Not sure how or when, but you’re probably right.
(2) I’m a fairly reasonable person and generally not willing to tell someone they belong to a hate church to their face. So, in all likelihood, I’ll simply continue discussing these issues online in a rather benign fashion. My suggestion that we label LDS Inc. a hate group was more a thought experiment than anything else. I do think the actions of LDS Inc. move them squarely into the corner of hate groups, but I’m not convinced that shaming them is the answer.
Thanks for the reasoned response!
People who speak English.
The suffix phobe/phobia is often used (in English, at least) as an opposite to phile/philia, in which case it often connotes dislike without necessarily connoting fear. Consider: Francophile vs. Francophobe. (Or look at this example: somebody coined Bush-phile vs. Bush-phobe.)
Similarly, look at this blog post I wrote back in 2005: Programmer Technophobe: Living with technology without loving it. You can see that it didn’t even cross my mind that people might assume that I meant I’m afraid of technology.
Another interesting point is that the word “xenophobia” isn’t used to describe a psychological phobia, but rather hate, distrust, prejudice towards etc. of outsiders. In that way it is analogous to “homophobia” and different from “arachnophobia”. People don’t get psychiatric treatment for xenophobia any more than one gets it for sexism, racism or homophobia.
The morphological suffix “-phobia” in English has more than one meaning. And this is completely normal and expected. Deal with it.
I guess Chanson beat me to the punch.
“But if 50% of America started calling Mormonism a hate church and comparing it to Westboro Baptist, I think Seth might think differently.”
No, I would think they were off their rockers.
Kind of like if they started comparing baptisms for the dead to Hitler’s executioners.
I guess I can see the definition on homophobia, but I still think even under the Wikipedia definition you’re pushing it if you’re trying to label homophobic any opposition to gay marriage.
I know that you addressed the persecution complex in your response to 2, but I can’t help but feel like it’s unsatisfactory. For your method to work, it REQUIRES that there is an “upper bound” to the persecution complex before things fall apart. I do not think there is. I think the circle-the-wagon effect only gets stronger and stronger, especially with the rhetoric that church leaders could raise about martyrs, increasing sinfulness in the latter days, the righteousness of the current generation (which is why there is so much onslaught from ‘the world’).
Basically, when you say “if 50% of America started calling Mormonism a hate church…” what immediately comes to mind is…doesn’t 50% of America (or more) already call Mormonism a cult church? I mean, I’m glad that you did calculations on the broad number of Fundamentalists…because that fuels my point. It would be nothing new if people criticized the church for policies and beliefs. Has that stopped ANY Mormons?
In fact, I suspect that those to whom the persecution would affect in such a way as to make people say, “I’m done with this religion” are people who already would have disaffected. (e.g., every one of us who happened to be supremely irked and put off by Prop 8. We ALREADY weren’t buying the church’s answers about its righteous and just nature…)
To summarize…I think the “shaming” option can only be effective if a group/individual who is viewed as legitimate does so. When non-LDS Christians tried to shame me by pointing out that the church was a cult, they had no legitimacy. They instead drove me into apologetic mode!
Why would this be any different then?
Is it unfair to call any/all opposition to interracial marriage “racist”?
I certainly don’t think so.
It’s just a slightly different type of prejudice. In fact, almost the exact same rhetoric and justification is now being used to oppose gay marriage as was being used to oppose interracial marriage 50 years ago by the exact same organisations, including the LdS church.
I fail to see a single important difference.
Good point. Perhaps half of America already considers Mormonism a cult. But the people who are worried about whether or not Mormonism is a hate church are the other half.
I’m kind of joking because I don’t think the two groups are entirely disjoint, but I think the people concerned about Mormonism being a “cult” are mostly conservative or fundamentalist religious people, and now — thanks to prop. 8 — Mormons are on the liberals’ radar (as being a homophobic organization).
Yes, Mormon faith seems to thrive on persecution. Yet, a big part of “correlation” during the past century has been a push towards “mainstreaming”. Part of modern Mormonism’s identity is the sentiment “people look up to us as being super-happy, super-successful, and super-moral — they see our light and want to be like us.”
Now suppose that — when introducing yourself as Mormon — you no longer expect to get an indifferent initial reaction from non-members. You get either (a) “Ah, a cultist” [from religious conservatives], (b) “Ah, a homophobe” [from liberals], or (c) “Aren’t you the guys with more than one wife?” [from the apolitical apatheists, thanks to “Big Love”]. It interferes with your belief that people are looking up to you, and (for some Mormons) will probably create dissonance.