I LOVE comments. Please leave some even if they are brief half-formed ideas
that you aren't even sure you really believe. I just love comments.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Less Backlash More Back and Forth

It saddened me when Arizona and other states passed initiatives attacking the GLBT community, an often demonized and misunderstood minority. As an American, I saw equality for all fall; as a Christian I saw love held less important than tradition.

Since the passage of these Jim Crow style initiatives, there has been backlash against the initiatives’ supporters, specifically against the LDS Church. I understand the need to express anger. Surely I would lash out against a law declaring love between a Protestant and a Catholic invalid and illegal?

But I suggest that we move away from retribution and toward understanding. As Americans, we must tirelessly fight for equality for all, and at the same time as Christians, we must help those mired in tradition to understand that Christ commands that love, not tradition, be our guide. The latter can be achieved only through honest dialogue, not by punishing those who disagree.

A final note, it concerns me that of the triumvirate of intolerance—LDS , Catholic and Christian Fundamentalist churches—the LDS Church is bearing the brunt of the backlash. Is it because of the three that church is an easy target, an often demonized and misunderstood minority?

I sent this off to the Arizona Republic and the East Valley Tribune. The Republic only allows 200-words, which probably made this a better post than most of the stuff I write.

5 comments:

Luke said...

I'm interested in this from a more political standpoint. How much influence from out of state should be allowed in state initiatives/amendments/etc? My understanding is that part of the backlash against the LDS church is that a lot of LDS money from out of state donors flowed into California to support Prop 8. I know that ultimately the CA voters did the voting, but money and advertising clearly pay a big role in shaping opinions on these things. I find it quite annoying that monetary influence and power from outside a state can potentially have a big impact on how voters respond in a state election.

JimII said...

I suppose the counter point would be the "out-of-state Jew lawyers" going down to Mississippi and Alabama etc. trying to change things, right?

I really have become increasingly torn over the idea of regulating monetary contributions to campaigns. I like matching funds; I like more speech as long as it is not dishonest. (Note: I'm just saying that is what I like, no that is what I think is functional.)

Matt Dick said...

But I suggest that we move away from retribution and toward understanding.

Not me, I want to lash. Why is the interfaith ban something you'd lash out against and this is not?

JimII said...

I'm saying that I understand the initial lashing out. My point is not that I think we should not have lashed out--there was absolutely lashing--but, I think it is time to be constructive. I think organizing boycotts is a waste of time.

There is little likelihood of change through intimidation. Ultimately, the anti-gay crowd outnumbers the gay rights crowd. If the tone remains purely adversarial the only solution is to wait for the anti-gay crowd to die out. I think there is a better solution.

Luke said...

I suppose the counter point would be the "out-of-state Jew lawyers" going down to Mississippi and Alabama etc. trying to change things, right?

Well...of course it is okay when the meddlers are right.