For those of you not totally sick of the Prop. 8 debate

[SeattleUte]

I find the epilogue to the Prop. 8 vote a fascinating morality play. What's the right answer to the issue? I think I know. I've had an exchange with LA Ute and he didn't disuade me. But I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

I'm referring to the picketing, the forced resignations, businesses boycotted, etc. If it's non-violent, if it involves an exercise of First Amendment rights, what's the problem? I heard the recent piece NPR ran on these events. The piece was sympathetic to the Prop. 8 supporters who have suffered a backlash. I didn't hear the whole show, but interestingly enough three of the four people they featured were Mormons.

But all these people said the same thing essentially, "Hey, gays are some of my best friends, they have spent a lot of money in my business, our theater has run plays written by gays about gays [and so on, etc. etc. etc.], they have helped me pay my mortgage." Then the clincher: "I was just doing what my bishop told me to do." They all say essentially the same thing.

My reaction: HELLLLOOOOO!!!!!!! What did you expect would happen? You're a grown up. Maybe next time you won't just do what an authority figure tells you to do. Dipshit, you blindly do what you're told then don't want to suffer any consequence for your actions. You're a baby! Sorry, that's my reaction. I'm asking here if I'm wrong.

I've started reading "The Kindly Ones." The narrator is an unrepentant former member of the SS who committed terrible atrocities and then slipped through the allied net at the conclusion of the war. The book is one of those rare ones that perfectly blend repulsive horror story and compulsively readablility; it's unputdownable. In the opening pages the narrator lays out a very articulate rationalization for himself and others in his position. It boils down to this: "Go ahead and judge me, but I never asked to be a mass murderer. In war, we all lose our right to live, and to not murder. The difference between you and me is who is telling us to do what. Most people do what their authority figures tell them to do."

These people all seem to be saying the same thing. What am I missing?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I find the epilogue to the Prop. 8 vote a fascinating morality play. What's the right answer to the issue? I think I know. I've had an exchange with LA Ute and he didn't disuade me. But I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

I'm referring to the picketing, the forced resignations, businesses boycotted, etc. If it's non-violent, if it involves an exercise of First Amendment rights, what's the problem? I heard the recent piece NPR ran on these events. The piece was sympathetic to the Prop. 8 supporters who have suffered a backlash. I didn't hear the whole show, but interestingly enough three of the four people they featured were Mormons.

But all these people said the same thing essentially, "Hey, gays are some of my best friends, they have spent a lot of money in my business, our theater has run plays written by gays about gays [and so on, etc. etc. etc.], they have helped me pay my mortgage." Then the clincher: "I was just doing what my bishop told me to do." They all say essentially the same thing.

My reaction: HELLLLOOOOO!!!!!!! What did you expect would happen? You're a grown up. Maybe next time you won't just do what an authority figure tells you to do. Dipshit, you blindly do what you're told then don't want to suffer any consequence for your actions. You're a baby! Sorry, that's my reaction. I'm asking here if I'm wrong.

I've started reading "The Kindly Ones." The narrator is an unrepentant former member of the SS who committed terrible atrocities and then slipped through the allied net at the conclusion of the war. The book is one of those rare ones that perfectly blend repulsive horror story and compulsively readablility; it's unputdownable. In the opening pages the narrator lays out a very articulate rationalization for himself and others in his position. It boils down to this: "Go ahead and judge me, but I never asked to be a mass murderer. In war, we all lose our right to live, and to not murder. The difference between you and me is who is telling us to do what. Most people do what their authority figures tell them to do."

These people all seem to be saying the same thing. What am I missing?

Had I been able to vote on Prop 8, I would've voted against it because I oppose gay marriage.

I'm referring to the picketing, the forced resignations, businesses boycotted, etc. If it's non-violent, if it involves an exercise of First Amendment rights, what's the problem?

There's something inherently amusing about organizations named Californians Against Hate doing this kind of stuff.

[MikeWaters]

There are ways that people could have helped push through Prop 8 without appearing on the radar. But they helped in ways that PUT them on the radar.

Lesson learned, I hope.

Me, for example, I joined the NRA. Might that bite me in the ass someday with someone? Perhaps. But at this point in my life, I don't care, because I believe in the cause.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I find the epilogue to the Prop. 8 vote a fascinating morality play. What's the right answer to the issue? I think I know. I've had an exchange with LA Ute and he didn't disuade me. But I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

I'm referring to the picketing, the forced resignations, businesses boycotted, etc. If it's non-violent, if it involves an exercise of First Amendment rights, what's the problem? I heard the recent piece NPR ran on these events. The piece was sympathetic to the Prop. 8 supporters who have suffered a backlash. I didn't hear the whole show, but interestingly enough three of the four people they featured were Mormons.

But all these people said the same thing essentially, "Hey, gays are some of my best friends, they have spent a lot of money in my business, our theater has run plays written by gays about gays [and so on, etc. etc. etc.], they have helped me pay my mortgage." Then the clincher: "I was just doing what my bishop told me to do." They all say essentially the same thing.

My reaction: HELLLLOOOOO!!!!!!! What did you expect would happen? You're a grown up. Maybe next time you won't just do what an authority figure tells you to do. Dipshit, you blindly do what you're told then don't want to suffer any consequence for your actions. You're a baby! Sorry, that's my reaction. I'm asking here if I'm wrong.

I've started reading "The Kindly Ones." The narrator is an unrepentant former member of the SS who committed terrible atrocities and then slipped through the allied net at the conclusion of the war. The book is one of those rare ones that perfectly blend repulsive horror story and compulsively readablility; it's unputdownable. In the opening pages the narrator lays out a very articulate rationalization for himself and others in his position. It boils down to this: "Go ahead and judge me, but I never asked to be a mass murderer. In war, we all lose our right to live, and to not murder. The difference between you and me is who is telling us to do what. Most people do what their authority figures tell them to do."

These people all seem to be saying the same thing. What am I missing?

This reminds me of War and Peace, and Tolstoy's theory of free agency. I'm sure you read it, but Tolstoy's essay on War and Peace explains that his primary aim was to show that over large events, people have little choice. That is, a person born in Russia during the Napoleonic wars was likely to be a part of those wars; no choice. But the Russian soldier in the war did have a choice at the minute level; he had a choice over what kind of soldier he'd be. So free agency expands and contracts based on the level of generality or specificity.

Contemporary Mormons would provide a good example for Tolstoy's theory. They can't help to be caught up in the gay rights battle at the moment; it's beyond their powers. But they have a choice how they are going to wage that battle.

Of course the freedom of agency depends where you place in the heirarchy, which is what the SS officer is appealing to: he was in the SS, and so his freedom over how to wage the war was less than someone working in a munitions factory. A Stake President or Bishop has less freedom to oppose Prop 8 than a deacon. What if an apostle disagreed with the Church's position on Prop 8? What are his choices? Probably the same as if one of Hitler's generals who disagreed with the invasion of Poland.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Had I been able to vote on Prop 8, I would've voted against it because I oppose gay marriage.

And as I've noted, you are such an LDS company man you yourself seem more a character in a (satirical) novel than a real person.

Originally Posted by Tex

There's something inherently amusing about organizations named Californians Against Hate doing this kind of stuff.

You may find it amusing, I find it interesting, as I've stated. You haven't convinced me I'm wrong.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

And as I've noted, you are such an LDS company man you yourself seem more a character in a (satirical) novel than a real person.



You may find it amusing, I find it interesting, as I've stated. You haven't convinced me I'm wrong.

I find the equating the debate of the Holocaust with the sensible discussions regarding government intrusion and unwarranted authorization of religious rites offensive. The analogy is horribly attenuated and offensive.

Let's see the extermination of people, versus voting on whether government should extend its authority over religious rites into a new social transaction.

While mildly amusing you find the superficial resemblance "following leadership", you ignore the fact that the Jews were completely powerless to affect government whereas the the sympathizers for gay marriage rites are both wealthy, powerful and hateful. Their actions do not parallel the actions of the victimized Jews in the least. Again, by drawing the analogy you desecrate the deceased.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

This reminds me of War and Peace, and Tolstoy's theory of free agency. I'm sure you read it, but Tolstoy's essay on War and Peace explains that his primary aim was to show that over large events, people have little choice. That is, a person born in Russia during the Napoleonic wars was likely to be a part of those wars; no choice. But the Russian soldier in the war did have a choice at the minute level; he had a choice over what kind of soldier he'd be. So free agency expands and contracts based on the level of generality or specificity.

Contemporary Mormons would provide a good example for Tolstoy's theory. They can't help to be caught up in the gay rights battle at the moment; it's beyond their powers. But they have a choice how they are going to wage that battle.

Of course the freedom of agency depends where you place in the heirarchy, which is what the SS officer is appealing to: he was in the SS, and so his freedom over how to wage the war was less than someone working in a munitions factory. A Stake President or Bishop has less freedom to oppose Prop 8 than a deacon. What if an apostle disagreed with the Church's position on Prop 8? What are his choices? Probably the same as if one of Hitler's generals who disagreed with the invasion of Poland.

I have read and re-read War and Peace throughout. Tolstoy is more arguing against the great man theory of history, and one thing that makes the novel so long and unusual is he has essays of this sort all through it though the narration is third person. There are editions that eliminate them, but I love them.

The unrepentant SS officer addresses your point. He meticulously shows that the ones who were placed in the hierarchy such that they had some degree of choice were a miniscule percentage. On the other hand, had they not been aided by millions of hard working citizens manning the trains, the trucks, the cement factories, the pharmaceutical labs, etc. etc. who knew what was happening they couldn't have accomplished what they did--i.e., kill something like 30 people a second for four years (the 30 people may be off but he arithmatically some horrific figure like that).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I find the equating the debate of the Holocaust with the sensible discussions regarding government intrusion and unwarranted authorization of religious rites offensive. The analogy is horribly attenuated and offensive.

Let's see the extermination of people, versus voting on whether government should extend its authority over religious rites into a new social transaction.

While mildly amusing you find the superficial resemblance "following leadership", you ignore the fact that the Jews were completely powerless to affect government whereas the the sympathizers for gay marriage rites are both wealthy, powerful and hateful. Their actions do not parallel the actions of the victimized Jews in the least. Again, by drawing the analogy you desecrate the deceased.

Our fictional SS officer woud say that if you are wont to do as you're told without moral reflection when you aren't being asked to murder, you can't argue you wouldn't murder if the same people told you to do so.

You are missing the point and your outrage at my simile is a smoke screen.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Our fictional SS officer woud say that if you are wont to do as you're told without moral reflection when you aren't being asked to murder, you can't argue you wouldn't murder if the same people told you to do so.

You are missing the point and your outrage at my simile is a smoke screen.

You simplistic analogy is not lost on me, but to desecrate the memories who lost their lives fighting true tyranny against make-believe insults is an affront against the intellect, and possibly anti-Semitic.

Are any lives lost? Is anybody denied exercise of property? Is anybody denied a sexual right?

The analogy is poor at best.

I get it, "following your leaders without thorough thoughtful examination can lead to unfavorable consequences sometimes." That's neither a great insight nor very poignant when compared to the Holocaust, where even the LDS Church has a much more poignant example in Huebner. Try a tighter analogy, yours is but a slovenly attempt to tie two very unrelated events.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

And as I've noted, you are such an LDS company man you yourself seem more a character in a (satirical) novel than a real person.

Company man or no, I wouldn't have voted based on anything a bishop would've said, so right there I've broken your mold.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You may find it amusing, I find it interesting, as I've stated. You haven't convinced me I'm wrong.

Wrong about what? I don't think it's a violation of the 1st amendment. I do think it's ironic and hypocritical, but we allow that here in America.

BTW, nice touch starting off with Godwin's Law in the first post.