Comments on: On Stereotypes and the University of Michigan Law School Graduation http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/ An overly eclectic, likely inconsequent[ial], and blatantly fo[w]l blog on life, family, literature, law, and religion. Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:50:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: john fowles http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-265 Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:38:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-265 Yes, Batch, that is the point! Stated much more succinctly than my iteration. . . .

]]> By: Anonymous http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-264 Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:17:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-264 To me, the problem with the original graduation statement is simply that it is overtly about tolerating minorities, and yet the statement itself is intolerant of a particular minority. 

Posted by Batch

]]> By: Anonymous http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-263 Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:57:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-263 Excuse me while I differentiate attack on certain policies in a particular state or in a particular branch of a church with an attack on the people of that church. I’m not an anti-Semite, in fact I’m Jewish, but I would find Israel too theocratic — I would not want to move there. There is no such thing as civil marriage, if you want to get married you have to find a rabbi (or minister or imam) to officiate, which means no intermarriage. many cities have fairly strict blue laws. In fact, the theocratic nature of the country is getting worse due to the disproportionate power that religious parties have. IIf criticizing these facts about Israel makes me a self-hating Jew than so be it, but I don’t think it does. I’ve only been to a small corner of Utah (camped out at Dinosaur Nat’l Monument, really cool by the way), so I’m not qualified to speak of the accuracy of the speaker’s comments, but to say that this these accusations are prejudice per se is disingenuous.
As far as the racial issues are concerned, I am not tolerant of intolerance or prejudice. I don’t think that hatred of the KKK makes me a bigot, and I don’t think that disgust with the pre-1977(?) LDS church’s teachings on the matter (and with the multiple fundamentalist LDS churches that Krakauer writes about) which preach/ed racial prejudice, makes me an intolerant person. I don’t have to be a self-hating Jew to say that Meir Kahane was an evil man. All faiths have had people who preached racial hatred, and while I applaud the decision of the LDS to allow black priests, the LDS, like members of all faiths, need to critically examine the unsavory aspects of their history. 

Posted by Larry

]]> By: Anonymous http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-262 Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:00:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-262 The problem these critics have is with a large number of people voting their values when those values also happen to track the doctrines and teachings of a major religious group in the area. Democracy, it seems, isn’t fully valid anymore at this point. Nevermind the both the Utah state constitution and the federal Constitution mandate and provide for the protection of minorities’ rights against such cohesive value-voting. If it happens at all (and if those making up the cohesive voting block are religious rather than some other cohesive definer) then it is decried as theocracy, despite the democratic rights of those in the majority to vote according to their own beliefs. 

Posted by john fowles

]]> By: Anonymous http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-261 Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:33:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-261 What got said at T&S as justification for the cheap shot at Mormons by the Michigan speaker was:

(a) The church is an organization comprised of voluntary membership, and is intolerant towards racial minorities;
(b) Racial status is immutable; therefore
(c) My belief system requires me to prioritize tolerance towards minorities over tolerance towards church members; thus, I should criticize the church’s treatment of minorities.The important part of that justification for taking cheap shots based on stereotypes is that it really translates into a creed of:

(A) I believe in tolerance for anything I agree with.
(B)If I disagree with you, then my priorities require me to be intolerant to you, and make your life a living hell, given the chance.
(C)That is perfectly ok, as I am in the majority and you are in the minority and I can get away with it as a matter of casual spite.
(C) And no, my claims of espousing “tolerance” are not a matter of hypocracy.I know, I’ve been blunt, but the justification logic ignores the metalogic pattern behind it.

Most simplified prioritizing really devolves into “I am justified in seeking tolerance only for things I agree with.” That is the application that comes about.

Once you get to that point, you have a better line on why there is an intuitive feeling that the speaker is being hypocritical in claiming to be part of a group that repeats the tolerance mantra routinely, but seems to be shunning it when it comes to the LDS groups they snidely disdain.

As for “legislating religion” — little things like legislating against theft, murder, adultry, incest and the sexual abuse of children are all legislating of religious norms. It begs the question to claim that Utah is a theocracy for legislating on those and similar points, but California or New York are not theocracies.
 

Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)

]]> By: Anonymous http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-260 Mon, 03 Jan 2005 08:28:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-260 i have a problem with legislating religion…even if its just your belief about alcohol or marriage or whatever. We have the right to believe what we will and our government should defend that right, not infringe upon it. Further, if someone feels that the political culture in Utah isn’t conducive to good government, it’s not a personal attack on the members of the church. It’s an opportunity for you to consider that maybe Utah politics are a little whack and we need to consider the possibility that we need to change the state laws a little to respect non-members’ right to act according to their beliefs and not ours. One of the values that we believe in in the church is the right to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. 

Posted by r blades

]]> By: Anonymous http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-259 Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:24:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-259 So, r. blades, you have something against people voting their values if there are too many people with the same or similar values concentrated in one place? 

Posted by john fowles

]]> By: Anonymous http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-258 Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:04:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-258 I read the comments, and the impression I got was that she believed that a ‘true theocracy’ means that you kill people if they don’t agree with you religiously. That isn’t the case. A theocracy is a state subject to religious authority. I would argue that Utah is subject to religious authority to a degree greater than is good for it. As an example: the liquor laws in Utah are stricter than in other states because of the Church’s position on drinking. This infringes on Utah citizens’ right to believe that drinking isn’t morally bad. There are other examples. Point being: members of a special interest group should not take contrary opinions as personal attacks and call the person who made the comment rude.  

Posted by r blades

]]> By: Anonymous http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-257 Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:29:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-257 R. Blades: Over at Times and Seasons a commentor named JCP has spoken directly to the point your are trying to make in comment 34 and comment 43. He/she has put it so nicely, I will just refer you there. I will also just ask that if NOW or NARAL (which are, like the Church, special interest groups when it comes to politics) had the same institutional integrity of the Church so that people that belonged to those groups simply acted according to the party line without any specific directive from the institution, then would you similarly support criticisms of those groups as creating a theocracy or dictatorship by their very institutional nature (that is, absent any single characteristic of a true theocracy)? 

Posted by john fowles

]]> By: Anonymous http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-256 Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:03:00 +0000 http://abev.wordpress.com/2004/12/27/on-stereotypes-and-the-university-of-michigan-law-school-graduation/#comment-256 Most Mormons can’t handle criticisms of Mormon culture. Criticizing the political culture which prevails in Utah isn’t a criticism of our belief system. It’s a criticism of our application of those beliefs. While I didn’t hear the speech, that’s the feeling I get from your post and the posts sympathetic with your viewpoint. We are unable to separate the criticism of the actions of the members of our church with comments critical of our church. If you think it was rude of her to make a criticism of our actions, think about all of the comments and awkward situations that she was involved in where members of the Church were less than kind to her. I say that because I have been in many situations where I was embarassed by the behavior of other members towards non-members. She should be no more considerate to you because of your membership in the Church than members of the Church are to her as a non-member.
Her comment is particularly relevant today because of the political atmosphere and I can understand why she would have made it. The religious right has developed a great degree of influence in recent campaign seasons. Despite what you may think, Utah has strong resemblances of a theocracy. The laws in Utah are greatly influenced by the Church. Even though our ecclesiastical leaders do not have positions in the government, they still have influence over our voting patterns(I refer you to official statements regarding the constitutional amendment concerning same sex marriage). Minorities(of the political and religious sort- not the racial sort) have very little sway in Utah politics. It seems to me that what this speaker made was a warning inspired by her experience with Utah political culture- and if she wanted to warn people because she feels that the bad aspects of Utah politics is infecting the rest of the nation, I say go ahead and do it.  

Posted by R Blades

]]>