Saturday, May 30, 2009

plagiarism on prop 8

There are only two other blogs that i follow outside my own blog.  one is "high ridiculousness" by Oliver Wallis, and the other is "in the name of the best within us" by Bryce Gessell.  today, after reading a post by Bryce about an article in the Deseret News about prop 8 in california and the reactions against the Mormon church, i thought that i would be worth restating what Bryce has said on his blog.  i'm not going to try and put into words the points and principles that he (Bryce) has eloquently laid out but i think it's important for people to see what he has written about.  so, without permission or further tactless writing on my part, i'm going to plagialristicly copy his post onto this one.  

THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE "BUSINESS" 

In today's Deseret News, there is an article on the continued efforts of Proposition 8 opponents to vilify the LDS Church. Here is a passage from the article, written by Karl Vick:

"The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!" warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the
Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy "borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion."
"I'm not intending to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people," said Fred
Karger, a former Republican campaign consultant who establised Californians Against Hate. "My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the astonishing misunderstanding and inconsistency of Fred
Karger and his group, Californians Against Hate. What century are we living in? The Web ads placed in the Eastern newspapers don't border on "insulting and denigrating" a whole set of people; this is because they do insult and denigrate a whole set of people. Imagine if an anti-Semite group wanted to run ads that said, "The Jews are coming! The Jews are coming!" or if the KKK had run ads during the last presidential election that said, "The blacks are coming! The blacks are coming!" That the LDS Church does not choose to be offended like every other minority group in America does not mean that they do not possess the same right to be free from persecution for their beliefs. This, however, is the contradiction on which Fred Karger and his associates thrive. They use the concept of "tolerance" as a means to destroy the concept of "tolerance." In the mind of Mr. Karger and others, there are two concepts in play here: tolerance (for us) and tolerance (for you). Tolerance (for us) has primacy over tolerance (for you), because if they were on equal standing, the tactics of the crusade for tolerance (for us) would have no foundation. However, tolerance is not two concepts; it is only one. It has the same application for everyone. Unfortunately, this singular nature of tolerance makes the concept difficult to accept when one wants to be tolerated but not to tolerate, so it's much easier to slash it up into two and pretend that one is more important than the other. A concept cannot be divided in this manner. It cannot be used to obliterate itself.

What about Mr.
Karger's goal--to "get them [the LDS Church] out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims"? Here again we see an example of misunderstanding concepts, which leads to inappropriate conceptual divisions. The LDS Church's stand on same-sex marriage is based on principles--the same principles that give rise to their service to hurrican victims. These activities have the same root and must be carried out simultaneously or not at all. To Mr. Karger, the LDS Church is nothing more than a social organization that makes people feel good and brings them food when their houses have been destroyed. The degree of his ignorance of principled religion is only matched by the conceptual disintegration that has taken place in his mind, allowing for a crusade led by a group that is based on the very idea that their success demands they deny to others.

1 comment:

  1. It seems like I've read this before. Maybe not, though...it just...seems familiar, in a way.

    ReplyDelete