Opinionated @ CFE

Blatant Hypocrisy

Nov
14

If there’s one thing most of us can agree on, it’s that double standards are bad. We expect to be held to the same rules and laws as everyone else. Unfortunately, too many will happily apply differing standards when it suits their purposes. This week’s endorsement by the LDS Church of Salt Lake City’s anti-discrimination ordinance is one such instance where the standard changed depending on which side of the issue the player was supporting.

Rewind your brain to last year. Do you recall some of the statements being made regarding the LDS Church and Prop 8? There was a loud group shrilly crying that churches had no place in the political process whatsoever. So what did these same people do when the LDS Church once again involved itself in the political process with its public endorsement of this new ordinance? Were there calls to get out the political process? In-your-face demonstrations at places of worship? Petition drives topped out with hyperbolic appropriation of historical emblems?

No, it was silence. Deafening silence. Not a discernible peep of protest that the mean old nasty Church was trying to mix politics and religion yet again.

Apparently, it’s just fine for churches to be involved in the political process so long as they are on the “right” side of the issue. (I noted the same hypocrisy when churches were demonstrating in favor of President Obama’s proposed healthcare legislation.) This kind of blatant hypocrisy has no place in the political process. You can either claim that churches have no right to participate in the political process or you can accept their endorsements of issues you support, but not both.

(Now before you start thinking that the former of these two is the better option, I would remind you that churches played significant roles in the American Revolution, abolition, and the civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was also Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

6 Responses to Blatant Hypocrisy

  1. Surely there is a difference of degree of involvement in an issue between merely expressing an opinion and mobilizing thousands of people and more than $17 million dollars for an election campaign.

  2. In short, you are saying that a particular type of group should have restricted political speech rights. I think that’s just a socially convenient excuse for sidelining a political opponent when it suits your needs.

  3. Actually, certain groups do have restricted political speech rights. It’s written in the law that some types of non-profits which have certain types of tax exemptions, e.g., churches, are forbidden from political speech. Idividuals who belong to various and sundry religious institutions cannot be silenced simply on the basis of that membership, as in the Rev. Dr. King. However, when it is the institution itself, or its representatives, that are politicking, it’s a violation.

    This is true whether it’s the LDS Church supporting Prop 8 or the Catholic Church supporting Health Care Reform.

  4. Spot On. Thanks for pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. You have no right to influence the political process unless you are on our side. It’s this same hypocrisy that is often exhibited by those who demand that others have tolerance for them and yet deny others that same tolerance. Hypocrisy pure and simple.

  5. Here’s what I see as blatant hypocrisy:

    When the issue was Prop 8, Paul Mero suggested that those members who disagreed with the LDS position were courting apostasy.

    But now that it’s Paul who’s in disagreement, Sutherland frames it as merely a public policy debate.

    In Paul’s words:

    “My point is that I have witnessed apostasy over these sorts of issues. And I pray that LDS members hung up on this particular issue of gay marriage can recover their reason and faith to, at least, keep their struggle of faith to themselves so that the pressures of apostasy don’t overwhelm them.

    “For those of you who consider yourselves faithful Latter-day Saints, take a step back, above the trees of contentious debate, and look introspectively at which way you are facing. For those of you supporting gay marriage, you will look around and see your Brethren across the chasm of faith.

    “Legal arguments, political contentions, and speculations will come and go. Anybody can be right or wrong at any given time. But for faithful Latter-day Saints, this is a no-brainer. Face the right way or you might find yourselves out of the Church of your own doing.

    “Not preaching…I just care about you all.

    http://kvnuforthepeople.com/2008/10/17/lies-damned-lies-the-six-consequences-of-marriage-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-42090

    How utterly convenient for Paul.

  6. I think those criticisms of Sutherland and Paul Mero are perfectly valid. If you’re going to appeal to authority, it cannot be selective. I like Paul. I respect Paul. I usually agree with a lot of what he says. But I can’t let that interfere with the fact that both he and Sutherland and dangerously close to the very behaviors they criticized last year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Bad Behavior has blocked 169 access attempts in the last 7 days.