posted
Sending thousands of direct mailings is low-key? I'll agree it's under the radar, or would have been, if it hadn't been for those darn leftist Salon kids! That said, the whole point of ANY news media is to take something that happened somewhere inherently local, and let others in non-local places hear about it. So on the face of it, I don't see it being insipid, as you seem to.
You assume that since the MSM airs anti-mormon right-wingers, that they must be tacitly agree with the message, if not the delivery. However, couldn't it just as easily be seen as the MSM trying to show the obvious idiocy of said folks? I also am more worried when things go under the radar, as they are less likely to be addressed. In that sense, the MSM is doing a favor to Mormons, by notifiying them of stupid comments, that they can then appropriately respond them.
Although maybe I am confused by this bit. I don't understand what you are trying to say exactly (or rather, I have several possible ways to take it):
quote:For instance, the MSM has quoted right leaning people they interview, but very few actual public statements come directly from the right anti-mormons. Therefore, it comes off as more of the news making a story rather than a story actually existing. Those who have actually printed anti-mormon comments have been the left without reporter interference.
posted
I mean, it seems that some Right anti-Mormons would have no voice if the MSM wasn't quoting them. Meanwhile, the Left is very open and public about their feelings without having anyone needing to quote them to get the words out.
"You assume that since the MSM airs anti-mormon right-wingers, that they must be tacitly agree with the message, if not the delivery."
No, what I assume is that the MSM is trying to bring the subject up so that they can make sure a wedge is driven between two otherwise conservative groups. Divide and conquer basically.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I guess I'm still confused... They are both using the same medium to get their beliefs out, but because the MSM is apparently left-wing, this reflects more poorly on the left than the right? Or are you saying that no right-winger has written an anti-mormon editorial?
Or that if the left only mentioned their feelings on Mormonism in mailings and through low-level operatives, like the right-wing, they wouldn't be as bad?
Personally, as I said before, I'd find that more insidious, like push=polling tactics and the like.
posted
"Or are you saying that no right-winger has written an anti-mormon editorial?"
Probably more this than anything else.
"Or that if the left only mentioned their feelings on Mormonism in mailings and through low-level operatives, like the right-wing, they wouldn't be as bad?"
Considering that the Left wouldn't support most Mormons anyway I wouldn't find it as problematic. Now, as I mentioned, what has been uncovered has made me more on the side of equal biggotry, but before that the Right hadn't done anything to qualify my opinion.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Considering that the Left wouldn't support most Mormons anyway I wouldn't find it as problematic.
Ok, I'm joining this late so forgive my ignorance.
I realize you are generalizing here Occasional, but as a "Left" guy and Mormon myself, I'd like to point out that the Majority Leader is Mormon. Andy maybe its just my blind-eye, but I don't see Left facing folks bashing Mormons. I'll give you the Religion in general view, but not specifically Mormons. Now if Romney gets nominated from the Right side, I totally expect the Lefts to bash the Mormon angle. Thats the sad state of politics as we know it. Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Considering that the Left wouldn't support most Mormons anyway I wouldn't find it as problematic. Now, as I mentioned, what has been uncovered has made me more on the side of equal biggotry, but before that the Right hadn't done anything to qualify my opinion.
I would support Harry Reid. Lots of folks on the left do.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Andy maybe its just my blind-eye, but I don't see Left facing folks bashing Mormons"
Honestly, I think it is your blind-eye. Go to Left leaning blogs about Romney and Mormonism and I bet you will be sick to your stomach.
I am trying really hard not to break the rules here and link to anti-Mormon/whatever sites. That is something I think can be done with news stories, but not other less worthy places. This discussion, however, is really making me tempted to do a comparison listing.
"Considering that the Left wouldn't support most Mormons anyway I wouldn't find it as problematic."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What intrigues me though is that some supporters of Romney continually say that a presidential candidate shouldn't be judged solely because of his religion. But, what would happen if a Muslim ran for the presidency? A Buddhist? An atheist? What about other things, such as race, gender, sexual orientation? Would people who say that still hold that attitude, or would it change? I guess I've always wondered whether people believe in statements they make merely because of the people they affect at that moment, or truly mean them.
FWIW, I agree with people who say that, as it shouldn't be a factor. If Romney's Mormon, cool for him; it won't (or shouldn't) matter or affect his judgement. I mean, I'd vote for Romney too if I didn't disagree with him on a few key "deal breaker" issues for me. He seems like one of the least shady politicians.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hitoshi, I think that religion can be brought up IF it has something to do with politics. For instance, I think if religious beliefs will have an impact on what the Person in office will do as a politician, the question is fine. A Muslim or Jew will approach Middle East questions differently. An evangelical or mainstream Christian will have different moral ideas.
On the other hand, if it is YOUR version of God vs. THEIR version of God (is it one or many, who can go to heaven and what is heaven like, do I dip or go under), then it should be off limits. That is something for theological debates and not secular concerns.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hitoshi: link Assuming that supporters of Romney are in the conservative camp, that last column in the second column should give an idea as to what to expect for each of the categories.
Of interest to this discussion are that 75% of liberals, 77% of moderates, and 66% of conservatives are willing to vote for a Mormon. Of course, I would not feel too sorry for conservative Mormons considering that a Mormon is still has roughly twice(!) the support of say a homosexual or an atheist (among conservatives).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The latest news on Muslim charity donations. Looks like the issue is more than anti-Mormonism, but anti-Muslim as well. Right now I am not too fond of Islam and think it has become a dangerous challenge to civilization. That said, I don't think every interaction is a bad one as implied by the charity criticisms; although infultration of muslim extremists in almost every part of Muslim life makes interaction more questionable.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Hey at least he accused Mormonism of things I had yet to hear before.
I'd actually be interested in hearing why he'd think that the church supports Hamas.
According to this articlein yesterdays Salt Lake Tribune, it isn't a new accusation. It reports that
quote:an August, 2006, blog entry by conservative political commentator and self-proclaimed expert on "radical Islam" Debbie Schlussel claimed Mormons were "the new financiers of Islamic terrorism."
Evidently the LDS church has donated over 20 million, largely in the form of blanket, food and medical supplies, to Islamic Relief USA over the past several years.
I think it demonstrates how just about any one or in organization could get targeted if we allow our country to be swept up in anti-Islamic hysteria. Luckily the people who write this kind of thing don't have the kind of power that McCarthy had. Hopefully we won't give it to them.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I heard this snippet yesterday, besides embarassing myself in front of an active Romney booster, I had to say that Mormons sort of do treat women like the Taliban.
Of course, most of these are ways in which most conservative Christians also view women, like that if they dress immodestly, they might make someone think lustfully, and that they should only have authority over other women and children. Men and women suffer equally from our modesty requirements, which are most palpable in the summertime.
Of course, there is a cultural disconnect where in the Arab world, women are seen as the sexual aggressors, where men punish their wives by withholding sex.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: When I heard this snippet yesterday, besides embarassing myself in front of an active Romney booster, I had to say that Mormons sort of do treat women like the Taliban.
Of course, most of these are ways in which most conservative Christians also view women, like that if they dress immodestly, they might make someone think lustfully, and that they should only have authority over other women and children. Men and women suffer equally from our modesty requirements, which are most palpable in the summertime.
Of course, there is a cultural disconnect where in the Arab world, women are seen as the sexual aggressors, where men punish their wives by withholding sex.
While I somewhat agree, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Mormons treat women like the Taliban.
I think it would be fairer to say that most modern religions are patriarchal(sp?) in nature and thus treat women as lesser, but in varying degrees.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, most of these are ways in which most conservative Christians also view women, like that if they dress immodestly, they might make someone think lustfully, and that they should only have authority over other women and children. Men and women suffer equally from our modesty requirements, which are most palpable in the summertime.
I've never once heard sermons on modesty use the reasoning, "If you dress inappropriately it might make the men look at you lustfully." It has always been the reasoning, "The way you dress is an expression of your self respect and how you honor the creator who gave you your body."
As for only having authority over other women and children that is a bit of a twist on the truth if you ask me. While it is true that women are not ordained to lead the church proper, they still head auxilery organizations. Not only that they exert plenty of influence over their husbands and other men in the church. I have never heard a woman told in church, "You are a woman your views are therefore subserviant to all men." I have heard MANY times the leaders of the church exhort the men of the church to counsel in everything with their wives and treat them with respect as well as view them as equals. Abuse of women is anually decried, and when my wife came home and kicked me out the door so I could be at work earlier and thus come home earlier the last thing on my mind was, "Who is she to make me do anything?"
Javert: For me being a leader in the church or in any organization does not inherently = greater.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a talk about pornography by Elder Oaks a couple of years ago where he advised that women not dress in a way to be pornographic. I thought it was a pretty weird thing to say, but there are those extreme cases. I just tend to assume such people are not watching Saturday conference, so it was just ... kind of... weird. But it was also when midriffs were really big.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think also I don't see the Taliban quite as overwhelmingly evil. That was part of the conversation, Britain knighting Rushdie and whether most people really think they are doing the right thing most of the time.
I quoted myself out of context, I guess. My thought on Britain was that of course I would defend their right to do that, but what were they thinking?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I've never once heard sermons on modesty use the reasoning, "If you dress inappropriately it might make the men look at you lustfully."
I have heard that reasoning used on several occasions although never by men. I distinctly remember lessons in Young Women's where we were told that if we dressed immodestly we could be causing men to sin. We were told that when men saw immodestly dressed women they couldn't help but feel lustful so it was our responsibility. I've also heard several women in the church complain that immodestly dressed young women are causing their husbands to lust.
Admittedly, I have heard the reasoning that our bodies are sacred and we should treat them with respect and dignity far more often and it is the only reasoning I've heard espoused over the pulpit or in writing. But I have heard the other reasoning enough times to know it isn't an anomaly.
BTW: I've always found this to be a very animalistic and dehumanizing view of men. While I understand that men are generally more easily turned on by visual stimuli than women, the idea that men have no control over this is very degrading to men.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: I guess my point was that I have never head the, "It will make men lustful" line of reasoning posed as the REASON to avoid immodest dress. I just felt like people were listing Mormons as people who MIGHT subscribe to ideas like, "Women are the devil's tools to seduce men." and "Women ought not to orgasm because it distracts them from focusing as they ought to on their husband's pleasure."
edit: Agreed on the point of how that idea animalizes men and is degrading.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I never heard the latter. And that would be very at odds with the Arab view of female sexuality, though I suppose there are muslims who are not Arab. But I'm pretty sure I could characterize an authentic Taliban as generally having an Arab view on women.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Wow, I never heard the latter. And that would be very at odds with the Arab view of female sexuality, though I suppose there are muslims who are not Arab. But I'm pretty sure I could characterize an authentic Taliban as generally having an Arab view on women.
Though the reasoning is not always uniform I have heard MANY Arab Muslims and African Muslims all state that it is not right for a woman to orgasm during intercourse.
edit: Female circumcision exists because of that belief.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to recall a concern about women wearing backpack/messenger straps across the chest at BYU, but I don't remember who raised it. The issue was that this would outline the breasts and lead men to lustful thoughts.
I think Tatiana may have addressed it as a concern that went beyond the pale, but I could well be misremembering.
*goes looking
---
I have also seen the incitement of lustful thoughts being raised as a modesty concern at the Nauvoo forum, but I would neither link to there from here nor consider those fine folk as necessarily speaking as representatives of the LDS Church.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I thought female circumcision existed to make sure the woman wouldn't be tempted to cheat.
-pH
Among other things.
*Warning: Alittle disturbing comments to follow,
There is also the enhancement of the experience for the husband by stitching the vaginal opening partially closed so that its tighter.
*/Warning
Like I said the reasoning is not uniform, but the idea that women should not orgasm during intercourse is not unique to Islam but it has found a place there to an extent.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though the reasoning is not always uniform I have heard MANY Arab Muslims and African Muslims all state that it is not right for a woman to orgasm during intercourse.
I'd want to know more about those people to consider whether they would be rightfully viewed as representative of the culture, just as I'd extend the same courtesy to my friends in the LDS Church (see above).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
From the article, "Many women know nothing about their bodies, not to mention sex, and they were raised to believe sex is for men and a dirty thing," she says."
I'm a big fan of Heba Kotb.
Perhaps I should clarify though. I DON'T think the idea that women should not orgasm is in Muslim doctrine. Indeed the opposite is true as Ms. Kotb says. I think the idea is older then Islam but alot of Muslim men and women are taught it along with their religion and falsly believe it is part of the religion.
But then again I was not raised Muslim, nor am I scholar, I just have a good portion of experience living amongst them, as well as being very interested in their religion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"You young women, when you dress immodestly, you become pornography."
That's the provocative line in Elder Oaks's talk, from the April 2005 General Conference.
I suppose I have lots of issues with this sort of thing; firstly, what it means to 'dress immodestly' is terribly unclear. In the fall 1951 General Conference, Spencer Kimball gave a talk in which he denounced shorts as being immodest. Anyway, this sort of preoccupation with dress takes up far too much of our attention as Mormons, I think; there are more sublime things which we should be thinking about.
Secondly, and certainly the larger issue, Oaks's statement manages to both dehumanize women and implicate the entire gender in the problem - that is, it paints women as both villains and passive objects. Not to mention (as others have indicated) that it implies that Elder Oaks has given up on men controlling their own urges.
Now, to be fair, the larger talk did spend a fair amount of time discussing the problem of addiction to pornography and counseling men to control themselves; that's why this statement was so jarring. Troublingly, of course, it's been the best remembered line of the whole general conference, and has no doubt been repeated by many well-meaning Young Women leaders.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Javert: For me being a leader in the church or in any organization does not inherently = greater.
I meant patriarchal vs. matriarchal, not patriarch vs. subjects.
I'm not sure how that helps. I don't view a patriarchal society, whether based on a particular religion or not, as inherently valuing men over women. Nor does a matriarchal society necessarily do the reverse. (To the contrary, I recall reading an SF short where female lives are not valued much, but the very few remaining fertile males are. Even though it was a matriarchy.)
(Oh, and as far as spelling, my spellcheck approves. )
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't view a patriarchal society, whether based on a particular religion or not, as inherently valuing men over women.
The issue isn't one of VALUE. After all, if we "valued" women so much that we kept them locked in closets and dipped in Lexan to avoid any possible damage to their perfect selves, I'd wager that women would still feel oppressed.
It has nothing to do with how much a given society claims to "value" you, but instead with how much freedom -- and how many unscripted choices -- a society is willing to entrust to you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
He's down with Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and pretty much anyone who likes a good bowl of noodles now and again.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB] While it is true that women are not ordained to lead the church proper, they still head auxilery organizations. Not only that they exert plenty of influence over their husbands and other men in the church.
How does the first sentence not equate to inequality? In an organization where men are the only ones allowed to be in positions of sanctioned authority, women are NOT equal. As such, they are oppressed. The oppression doesnt necessarily have to be overt or egregious, such as the practice of FGM. But a religion that teaches that women are not "worthy" or sanctioned by God to be in a position of authority over men is a religion that oppresses women. So, yeah, pretty much all of Islam and Christianity encourages oppression of women. Pointing out the egrarious nature of some Muslims abuse of that policy seems a little hypocritical when combined with a complete denial of ones own religious policies along those lines.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by foundling: So, yeah, pretty much all of Islam and Christianity encourages oppression of women.
Pretty much all the "mainline" Christian denominations -- United Methodist, Presbyterian, Disciples, United Church of Christ, ELCA Lutheran, etc. encourage full and equal participation of women in all leadership roles. So, yeah, not so much with the sweeping generalizations, please.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I understand your reaction. You view yourself as a strong, independant woman, and this fits quite neatly into your relationship with your religion. As an Orthodox Jewish woman, you might not feel oppressed, but you cant be a ordained Rabbi(according to my limited knowledge). Whether or not you actually want to be. Why is that? So how is this statement false? "In an organization where men are the only ones allowed to be in positions of sanctioned authority, women are NOT equal."
Individual experiences notwithstanding, I believe religions that refuse to acknowledge a womans equal footing with a man are being oppressive.
Dkw, all right. Minus the sweeping generalizations, women clergy still only comprimise less than 15% of the clergy as a whole, and that mostly among Protestant denominations, right(based on old research, and I'm quite willing to admit to the #s being off)? Roman Catholicism does not allow women to be ordained, nor do most Orthodox and conservative Baptist churches. Is this not a majority? It is certainly more common now for a woman to be seen in a ordained leadership role in SOME churches than it was 40 years ago. But again, individual experience notwithstanding, how do you think MOST churches handle the idea of female leadership? Would you say that acceptance of official female leadership is part of the majority of religions basic doctrines? (I'm fully well aware of how well educated you probably are on this particular subject, being a female minister, so please dont take this as a "challenge" to your position. I've done alot of research on this particular subject for personal reasons and come away "slightly" bitter and cynical from it)
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That said, the whole point of ANY news media is to take something that happened somewhere inherently local, and let others in non-local places hear about it. So on the face of it, I don't see it being insipid, as you seem to.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
