EDITED TO ADD: Since I initially wrote this post, they’ve made major rewrites to their site, and it’s a big improvement. Good for them!
Original post follows:
I don’t like Mormons Stole Our Rights dot com. Here’s a sample of what’s on their site:
To understand the mind of Mormons we must first look at their history as Americans.
What kind of Americans are Mormons?
The Mormon people, themselves a minority, have been antagonists of American culture since their beginning more than 150 years ago. The Mormon people were unable to live peaceably with their American neighbors when they were founded in 1840, and isolated themselves in Utah. They proudly practiced polygamy and stopped only due to the intervention of the Federal government. They believed that black people were cursed by God, and only renounced this evil belief in the 1970s. They capaigned fiercely against women, and argued that women should not be allowed in the workplace. They fashioned themselves as champions of families, yet it is in Mormon sects that polygamist colonies flourish and the most brutal abuse of young girls takes place to this day.
The tone and language seems, frankly, bigoted. Ugly. Exclusionary. And what’s with talking about “the mind of Mormons,” as if individual Mormons can’t disagree on issues?
It’s right to criticize the Mormon Church for its bigoted policies and actions, and it’s also right to criticize cultures in a general manner for bigoted institutions or attitudes. But language and tone matter; criticism done right doesn’t dehumanize or “otherize” particular religious groups, nor does it treat a diverse group of individuals as if they were a mass mind.
Of course the Mormon Church, as well as many (but not all) individual Mormons, ((And individuals who aren’t Mormon as well.)) have shown themselves to be anti-gay bigots. Anger at the organized Mormon Church, and at everyone who contributed to or supported proposition 8 and the other anti-gay ballot measures, is completely justified. I can’t criticize anyone for being 200 degrees beyond “mad” at the Mormon Church, in this circumstance. (I’m furious myself.)
And an investigation into if the Mormon Church broke the rules and should lose its tax-free status may be completely appropriate. (I know nothing about the laws in question, but the way that the Mormon Church gets to use its funds tax-free to fight gay rights, while supporters of gay rights generally pay taxes, seems unfair.)
But the language of dehumanization and otherization is dangerous, especially when used as an organizing tool. It shouldn’t be used by anyone organizing against bigotry. Not even when they’ve been treated like shit by a bunch of hateful bigots.
And yes, the opponents of equality for same-sex couples often use exactly that tone and writing style when talking about lesbians and gay men. All the more reason not to use it.
* * *
I’m not interested in hearing from anyone who opposes same sex marriage in comments, so if you’re not a supporter of same-sex marriage, and if you didn’t oppose proposition 8, don’t post on this thread.
Thanks Amp.
I was just thinking about commenting about this in relation to Myca’s comment in anger about wanting to ban Mormon’s from marrying to give them a taste of what they were dishing out.
I think it was an ethical mistake for the “No on 8” campaign to take the campaign in this direction. Anti-Mormon bigotry is pretty common in the US (on both the left and the right) and it shouldn’t be fed.
I think it was an ethical mistake for the “No on 8″ campaign to take the campaign in this direction. Anti-Mormon bigotry is pretty common in the US (on both the left and the right) and it shouldn’t be fed.
I agree that anti-Mormon bigotry is common and shouldn’t be fed. I’m less certain about whether it was OK for “No on 8” to mention that out-of-state Mormons were financially fueling the Yes campaign. The ad itself definitely was out of bounds and awful — the idea of male missionaries pushing into two women’s home and destroying their property. But I think there is a legitimate way to mention, “The opposition is driven in significant part by religious ideologies with which many voters may disagree, and those voters therefore should be extra-cautious about buying into what Yes on 8 is selling.”
The distinction Amp mentions, between official Mormonism (and Catholicism) and individual members of those faiths, is crucial. But I do think it’s fair to call out religious institutions on their mistakes, even if members of those religions take that criticism personally. (I’ve had that happen when I criticized the Catholic Church’s anti-condom stance in Africa and held the Church, and the nuns and priests enforcing its policy of misleading people about condoms, to be partly responsible for the spread of HIV.) The fact that people are unjustly bigoted toward Mormons, often on false factual premises, does not excuse the Mormon church from just criticism for what it actually does.
But I do think it’s fair to call out religious institutions on their mistakes, even if members of those religions take that criticism personally.
Exactly – and while those members may indeed be challenging their institution from within (as many Anglicans have done quite successfully, over time, despite divisions and resistance), there is nothing wrong with calling your website “The Mormon Church Stole Our Rights”. I’m all for investigation of religious organisations’ use of money, too – they receive their tax-free status on very particular grounds and it’s their responsibility to stick to that OR give up their tax-free status.
I’ve always been rather disturbed by how people look upon Mormons-I myself do not follow the faith, but I feel no ones religon should get so often maligned as a sick, dangerous, or just plain silly cult, and the Mormon church is generally mocked as such
Yeah … I don’t think it’s right to demonize a church, even a really politically evil one like the Mormons. And yeah, their members aren’t necessarily all in support of their bigotry, so it’s especially important not to harass them.
But . . .
I feel like I hear a lot (and just to clarify, this is not from you, Amp) about how messed up it is to call the Mormon church bad, or how messed up it is to boo Boy Scouts, or how messed up it is to make fun of Republicans or call McCain old . . . and sometimes I just get so goddamned furious that apparently saying, “Look, if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, you’re a stupid, stupid person,” is considered out of bounds, but actually taking away the rights of other people is not.
It’s like, “if you speak harshly to me while I stab you, you’re the bad guy.”
—Myca
The mormon church is, generally speaking, more homogeneous than are many other religions. While it is not necessarily appropriate to treat the views of a group as applicable to each of the group’s members, it is more appropriate for mormons than for, say protestants.
Amp, when you say “The tone and language seems, frankly, bigoted. Ugly. Exclusionary.”
So what? this is a viewpoint group, where you’re in it by choice (once you’re an adult.) It’s not like race, or sex, or height, or hair color. It’s no different from being a member of a group with the exact same beliefs but in a secular context. there’s no “god exclusion” which allows you to be in an asshole group and not get blamed for it, merely because you happen to believe there’s a god involved.
Bigotry, exclusiveness, and ugly language are inappropriate when they go to issues which are beyond the control of the people involved. But they’re perfectly valid forms of battle when you’re dealing with choice.
godnuts like most mormons want to claim that their beliefs aren’t choice. that’s a bullshit view, and I won’t concede that to them.
There are gay Mormons too. I hope everyone remembers that.
True, but many of us in various churches are dissenters within that group. We’d like some positive reinforcements from OUTSIDE, thanks. Instead, it often feels like we are alone fighting for reform within the church, and on the outside too. The people within the church calls us heretics, on the outside, call us idiots.
Support the progressives and radicals of all denominations and within all faiths. This is what will make it easier on real people. To simply demand we all LEAVE a church/faith is to abandon it to the right wingers/conservatives. It’s just like the AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT crowd… damned if I will LEAVE IT to them, I have as much right to be here as they do. THEY can leave, dammit.
I feel that way about the Catholic church, and I know people who feel that way about the LDS too. I fight to the end; they won’t decide who is good enough. Only God does that. They won’t make me leave.
(((Waves rainbow-rosary in William Donahue’s face for emphasis!)))
I think the paragraph in the post is only a few tweaks from acceptable.
Okay. More than a few tweaks, really.
However, I do take issue with the idea that religion deserves respect qua its status as religion. I do not believe this to be the case.
DaisyDeadhead,
I’m very glad that you are challenging your church’s official stance of treating homosexuality as inferior to heterosexuality. However, for some churches it can be difficult to remain within them without giving aid and comfort to what you otherwise are challenging. For example, in a church where you tithe, your resources are going to support people who put forward a message with which you disagree. That’s part of the reason I never donate time or money to a political party, only to individual candidates or causes; I don’t know what the Democratic Party, for example, might do with my money (and given the hateful bigotry from some Democratic allies in this election, I think I’m right to be wary). If some of a Catholic congregant’s money goes to support priests, bishops, cardinals and a pope who preach the inferiority of homosexuality, then remaining a dues-paying member of the church does have the practical effect of supporting discrimination.
An alternative model would be the Christian groups that have sprung up at law school and operate independently of the national Christian Legal Society. There are, of course, significant benefits to being part of national; speakers, funding, an awesome ski trip/conference at minimal cost to students. But national CLS requires every chapter to forbid membership to “practicing homosexuals,” i.e. people who do not consider their sexual orientation to be immoral and inferior. (People with same-sex attractions who deem that attraction to be wrong are acceptable members.) At some law schools, students unwilling to limit the fellowship of Christ that way have started independent Christian organizations.
Mandolin, that was brilliant!
And of course I agree with you that religion per se doesn’t deserve any extra respect because it’s religion.
Let’s note the Mormons for Marriage who supported equality. Bless them for standing up against their own congregations.
Heh. Awesome revision, Mandolin.
Molly, when you say:
…it seems to me that you are saying that nothing should ever get maligned as a sick, dangerous, or just plain silly cult. Because if a person is a member of a (hypothetical) sick cult, then that is their religion.
If that’s the case, then it follows that nothing can ever be called a sick, dangerous, or silly cult. Do you agree with that?
I don’t think I do. I’m thinking about writing a blog post on this subject, actually, but I definitely think there’s a difference between criticizing a person and criticizing a belief or a religion. I don’t know if I am willing to accept the notion that, just because someone holds a religion dear to their heart, I am doing a bad thing if I speak about that religion in unequivocally negative terms.
The ad itself definitely was out of bounds and awful — the idea of male missionaries pushing into two women’s home and destroying their property.
Why on Earth would you think that? The only anti-Mormon message I noticed was the appeal to annoyance at religious fanatics coming to your door. Seems like a good metaphor to me.
Why on Earth would you think that? The only anti-Mormon message I noticed was the appeal to annoyance at religious fanatics coming to your door. Seems like a good metaphor to me.
I had Mormon missionaries come to my door twice when I lived in Northern Virginia, and in both cases they were perfectly polite and not pushy. I met a lot of Mormons in law school and all of them have been unusually (for law school) nice people — several would go out of their way to help classmates by loaning their notes or tutoring them, even though law school classes grade on a curve such that the worse off your classmates are, the better for you. I don’t see a reason to be any more affronted by “religious fanatics” coming to my door to peddle their religion than by Girl Scouts selling overpriced sweets. In both cases, if you don’t want what they got, you can say “Not interested” and close the door.
If your experience of Mormon missionaries is that they have tried to push their way into your home uninvited, I recommend that you make a complaint about those missionaries to the national organization; because the Mormon Church is fairly hierarchical, they probably can track down who the offenders were and deal with them appropriately.
Have they changed their website? Looks like it to me, and thank goodness.
They’ve made big changes! Good for them!
Everything in the passage you criticize is fair and factually correct. It is not bigoted to speak out against the bigotry of Mormonism. Being a member of the Mormon Church is no better than being a member of the KKK.
As much as I think organized religion is a scam, I don’t think that it’s fair to compare the Church of LDS to terrorist organization. I don’t think that your position is any less bigoted than that of the LDS.
I’ve had Mormon missionaries as neighbors and they’ve been nice guys (and yes, all of them were guys). They are not pushy at all with “converting” people outside their faith.
But my county is a Mormon stronghold and they do hold high positions of power. In fact, there were allegations in the county’s prosecutor’s office that if you were Mormon, you could move up the ladder a lot easier than if you weren’t. But there were a lot of so-called Promise Keepers who were next in line to move up. Police chiefs and politicians and judges have also been Mormons. That’s one of several reasons why Riverside County was ranked second or third on supporting Prop. 8 behind only Orange County.
(In some good news, Riverside the city is now “blue” for the first time.)
I think labeling them a cult is wrong. I don’t think pointing out that the church contributed over $22 million from four states (Idaho, Nevada, Utah and California) is wrong at all. I don’t even think picketing peacefully at Mormon temples is wrong as long as you’re respectful and lawful and nonviolent. The fact is, the protests at least in Southern California have mostly been aimed at Mormon and Catholic institutions though I think there should be better coalition building with gay and lesbians in both of these churches because both of them do have activism within them from these groups.
As far as Mormons and African-Americans, they began to think they were more human when they realized it was another recruitment pool but there’s been complaints that I have received from African-Americans locally and other places about problematic adoptions of their children and grandchildren through Mormon adoption agencies, to the tune where these families felt their loved ones were being stolen. If that’s a problem that’s going on, that’s worrisome.
Jake Squid: The Mormon Church is a terrorist orgainzation. They use electric shock to torture young lgbt Mormons. (No, I’m not making this up.) Mormon homophobia is a major cause of the beatings and killings of queers.
You are borrowing a rhetorical ploy from the KKK. You are saying it is bigoted to speak out against bigotry.
You’re absolutely wrong. I’m not saying that it’s bigoted to speak out against the LDS for their position on SSM (among other bigoted positions that that church holds). I’m saying that you are an anti-Mormon bigot. I say this because although it is possible to speak out against bigotry in a non-bigoted manner, you are not doing so.
I, too, believe that the Church of LDS holds bigoted positions, and acts in harmful ways on that bigotry. What I don’t believe is that the Church of LDS is a terrorist organization nor that rank and file Mormons (any more than rank and file Catholics, Episcopalians or Muslims) are terrorists. Your language in comment # 18 is abhorrent.
The only reliable references I’ve found to electro-shock aversion therapy online indicate that no physical coercion to take part in that outrageous “treatment” was done. If you have a link to a reliable source that indicates otherwise, please post it.
Your language names all members of Affirmation as terrorists even though they seem to be the primary organization speaking out against the LDS use of electro-shock aversion. This is why your comment is bigoted.
Jake Squid: The Mormon Church is a completely voluntary association which stands for racism, sexism, heterosexism, and bigotry against atheists. There is no possible way to be a Mormon without consciously and deliberately endorsing the central Mormon values.
The claim that speaking out against the inherent bigotry of Mormonism is “bigoted” is an absurd claim used to justify religious bigotry.
Are you so ignorant that you don’t know that Mormon parents, acting under orders of the Mormon church, have had their own children tortured with electric shock?
You owe me an apology for making that kind of Orwellian attack in order to silence speaking out against bigotry. If you don’t apologize, you will be stooping to the level of Karl Rove and the Yes on 8 people.
libhomo: There is no possible way to be a Mormon without consciously and deliberately endorsing the central Mormon values.
Could you point out to me where “racism, sexism, heterosexism, and bigotry against atheists” are described by Mormons to be “central Mormon values”? When I’ve had Mormon missionaries at the door, they never really explained their faith to me that way, and when a Mormon acquaintance sent me some info after I wrote a post stating that I didn’t know much about his faith, those didn’t show up as Mormon values either.
The fact that the current leadership of the Mormon church endorses heterosexism (where do they endorse racism?) does not mean that one cannot be a “true” Mormon without being heterosexist. My family’s faith, Hinduism, brought India the ever-so-awesome caste system that says some people are “untouchables.” I’ve had people question whether someone can be a “true” Hindu while also disavowing the caste system, because those people’s understanding of Hinduism is that the caste system is integral to the faith.
Are you saying that in your vast knowledge of a religion, to which I’m betting you’ve never belonged or even studied, you know what the central values are and aren’t?
libhomo, you’re going to miss out on a lot of allies (and friends) if you insist that anybody belonging to an organization must necessarily endorse all the values of that organization. Do all the organizations that you belong to share your values 100%?
I’m not a Mormon, but I expect there’s quite a bit to the religion that isn’t bigotry. It’s not reasonable to insist that anti-bigots give up their entire religion in order to be accepted as non-bigots; simply speaking out and working against the bigotry should be enough.
I think Libhomo has been silly and overgeneralizing and stompy in this conversation.
However, to be fair – “Are you saying that in your vast knowledge of a religion, to which I’m betting you’ve never belonged or even studied, you know what the central values are and aren’t?” – my father grew up as a Mormon, and there are some… very integral parts of Mormonism as a faith that are, yes, absolutely, incredibly sexist. Would they be described that way to outsiders as part of a conversion lecture? Of course not. Since when do sexists self-describe that way? When my father was part of the religion, it was also unabashedly racist.
I’m sure there are people who try to blink off those facets of the belief-system – particularly the racism — or try to minimize or deny them. But they are central, and problematic, and that particular line of attack against Libhomo’s unreasonableness probably isn’t the best one.
I’d go for this: there are people who practice mormonism by picking and choosing what they want, including denying central tenets if it’s convenient. Just as there are people who do so in any other religion.
And if you don’t apologize to me, you’ll be no better than the Nazis.
Win!
The awesome power of Jonah Goldberg: after reading his overwrought comparisons to anti-Semitism, I’m now rethinking whether the advertisement of the Mormons’ barging in to take the marriage license was really that bad.
(Goldberg’s fantasized anti-Semitic ad would be plausible only if synagogues advocated regressive taxation to fund the bailout. In real life, Judaism seems to stay out of American domestic politics — though in some cases is highly supportive of Israel-friendly foreign policy — and to the extent it is political, tends toward economic progressivism. And if American mosques uniformly advocated suicide bombing Jews’ homes the way the Mormon Church pushed Prop. 8, I’d consider the ad he posits for the Muslims to be entirely fair and not at all objectionable.)
Actually, when I finally got around to watching that commercial last week, I had no problem with it. It’s not a stereotype that the Mormon Church sends nice-looking young men in suits to knock on people’s doors; it’s something the institution chooses to do. I don’t understand why that decision by the institution of the Mormon Church shouldn’t be fair game for satire.