A point that has been a long time coming

15 July 2008 @ 7:18 pm | 6 comments

Geoff B. makes a point that has been a long time coming.

There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in the old “the blogger is claiming I’m not righteous” complaint that we see all over the Bloggernacle these days. I have seen literally hundreds of posts and comments in the last five years claiming in one way or another that you can’t be a true follower of Christ is you support the Iraq war/war on terrorism/Guantanamo. Yet I have never seen anybody on the opposite side say, “you are claiming I’m not righteous – how dare you!” It may have happened, but the point is that the politically correct position in the Bloggernacle is to never, ever question somebody’s righteousness when they question the Church’s position on, for example, same-sex marriage, but it is completely okay and indeed expected to question somebody’s righteousness when they support the Iraq war.

Amen.

Tags: ,


  1. David B’s avatar

    David B on 15 July 2008 at 10:28 pm

    Hang out on USENET and on some of the mailing lists out there–it may not be found on the blog side of things (and i wouldn’t know, since i only regularly read a couple), but the more old-school discussion fora…Yeah, both sides get pretty vicious.

  2. Chino Blanco’s avatar

    Chino Blanco on 16 July 2008 at 6:43 am

    And thank goodness you’ve taken such care not to dismiss the opinions of real people by summarily chalking up their protestations to “political correctness” … that move’s gotten pretty stale as well.

  3. David H. Sundwall’s avatar

    David H. Sundwall on 16 July 2008 at 9:35 am

    David B -

    I’m sure you’re right. I haven’t read the USENET for ten years when I saw you doing your best to tamp down the flame wars of yore.

    I guess the LDS blogosphere has developed its own political atmosphere, that is slightly different. I’m sure a lot of it is a response to the prevailing Mormon (or maybe just Utah Mormon) culture, but it’s interesting that conservatives are somewhat marginalized. We shouldn’t complain (too much) but it’s worth pointing out.

  4. Chris H.’s avatar

    Chris H. on 16 July 2008 at 11:08 am

    Of course, the only real sin on the internet is to disagree with Geoff B. I do not think that I have ever hinted (or seen hinted by others) that somebody should not carry a temple rec. because they support the Iraq War. A lack of judgement maybe….

  5. Velska’s avatar

    Velska on 24 July 2008 at 10:45 am

    As a European, I can say that I choose to side with the Prophets on the SSM issue & find it a bit strange to see so many people professing to be LDS and criticizing the Church’s stand on the issue. At times it seems to me that some are just looking for a “good enough” reason to quit. Whatever the case, the American justice system being the way it is, it’s good to have the issue thoroughly aired. I can well see a religious group being challenged in court for not recognizing SSM for their members.

    As for Iraq, I don’t want to appear to be smug, but as I understand there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until the invasion created a vacuum (was Saddam *that* much worse than Pinochet?) - Afghanistan we all understood. Then there’s D&C 98:16 “…renounce war and proclaim peace…”. But still, international politics is messy at best.

    As far as I’m concerned, I would hesitate to question anyone’s worthiness outright, although I might disagree on some points.

  6. Chris H.’s avatar

    Chris H. on 24 July 2008 at 12:58 pm

    “I can well see a religious group being challenged in court for not recognizing SSM for their members.”

    I see no legal, constitutional (or rational) basis for this concern. I does make a great scare tactic.

    In Europe, this might be easier, since it is widely accepted and therefore not a big political debate. I tend to be the European perspective in most political debates in the US, though usually the debate is about healtcare than SSM.