Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
To respond to an earlier post, I don't see SU as an "anti-" anything (if I may take such liberties in describing his persona). To define him in such a derivative way is overly simplistic and hardly does justice to his advocacy for placing Mormonism in a broader context. Those who define themselves by opposing Mormonism (or anything else) merit the label "anti-". Those whose ideas, research, and opinions touch LDS topics tangentially, albeit in a so-called detrimental way, are something else. Seattle's pro-secularism is hardly anti-Mormonism, strictly speaking.
|
I think that if it weren't for the contempt that so apparent in SU's tone and choice of words I would be tempted to agree. I think Waters is more on the right track when he suggests that there is a high level of bile towards the church there that SU knows he has to tone down if he wants people to continue to engage him on these topics. There has been push back in the past.
This is not to say that what he contributes has no value nor does the personal aspect have any bearing about whether he is right or wrong. Saying that SU is simply pro-secular only, I think, respectfully, is a reflection of your short tenure here.
As I say, I like SU and value his imput, but Waters has him more or less pegged even if he says it in jest, IMO.