The New Yorker: Prop. 8 a last stand

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SeattleUte
    Faith crisis consultant
    • Nov 2008
    • 20837

    #1

    The New Yorker: Prop. 8 a last stand

    In this week's column the iconic New Yorker political commentator Hendrik Herzberg does a post mortem on Proposition 8. He describes proposition 8 and similar ballot measures around the country, albeit successful, as having "the feel of a last stand." "The Field Poll, one of California’s most respected, found last month that while the state’s over-sixty-fives oppose gay marriage by a thirty-point margin, the under-thirty-fives favor it by thirteen points—and it’s hard to think of a reason that getting older should change their minds." Herzberg summarizes how in the past decade attitudes have changed. "Now large majorities of Americans favor laws under which same-sex couples have all or most of the same rights as couples of opposite sexes, and five states, including California, have enacted them. Gay marriage itself is legal, and not terribly controversial, in Massachusetts and Connecticut. In 1993, most Americans thought that open homosexuals shouldn’t be permitted to serve in the military; now three-quarters think that they should."

    Herzberg suggests, but is too much of a gentleman to draw explicitly, the connection between lack of educational opportunities and a tendency to fall prey to the mendacity of Prop. 8 proponents. He summarizes some of the most dishonest Prop. 8 tactics such as representations that Obama supported Prop. 8 and that gay marriage would mean that churches would eventually have to start performing gay marriages.

    The twice divorced, thrice married serial adulterer Newt Gingrich once again reveals his shamelessness and narcisism.

    In the opening paragraph Herzberg summarizes LDS lack of self-awareness and hypocrisy this way:

    "You might think that an organization that for most of the first of its not yet two centuries of existence was the world’s most notorious proponent of startlingly unconventional forms of wedded bliss would be a little reticent about issuing orders to the rest of humanity specifying exactly who should be legally entitled to marry whom. But no. The Mormon Church—as anyone can attest who has ever answered the doorbell to find a pair of polite, persistent, adolescent 'elders' standing on the stoop, tracts in hand—does not count reticence among the cardinal virtues. Nor does its own history of matrimonial excess bring a blush to its cheek. The original Latter-day Saint, Joseph Smith, acquired at least twenty-eight and perhaps sixty wives, some of them in their early teens, before he was lynched, in 1844, at age thirty-eight. Brigham Young, Smith’s immediate successor, was a bridegroom twenty times over, and his successors, along with much of the male Mormon élite, kept up the mass marrying until the nineteen-thirties—decades after the Church had officially disavowed polygamy, the price of Utah’s admission to the Union, in 1896. As Richard and Joan Ostling write in 'Mormon America: The Power and the Promise' (2007), 'Smith and his successors in Utah managed American history’s only wide-scale experiment in multiple wives, boldly challenging the nation’s entrenched family structure and the morality of Western Judeo-Christian culture.'"

    Last edited by SeattleUte; 11-29-2008, 10:55 AM.
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

    --Jonathan Swift
  • TripletDaddy
    sweet triple
    • Nov 2008
    • 58186

    #2
    It is interesting that iconic New Yorker political commentator Hendrik Herzberg would state that Joseph Smith was lynched.

    Are his other facts equally accurate?
    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

    sigpic

    Comment

    • SeattleUte
      Faith crisis consultant
      • Nov 2008
      • 20837

      #3
      Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
      It is interesting that iconic New Yorker political commentator Hendrik Herzberg would state that Joseph Smith was lynched.

      Are his other facts equally accurate?
      He wasn't lynched? Not what I was taught in Sunday school.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lynched

      Sport, a "lynching" may but need not be by hanging.
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

      --Jonathan Swift

      Comment

      • il Padrino Ute
        Junior Member
        • Nov 2008
        • 19161

        #4
        Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
        It is interesting that iconic New Yorker political commentator Hendrik Herzberg would state that Joseph Smith was lynched.

        Are his other facts equally accurate?
        Did you really just display the gall of questioning the accuracy of a New Yorker political columnist?
        "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


        "I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader

        Comment

        • TripletDaddy
          sweet triple
          • Nov 2008
          • 58186

          #5
          Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
          He wasn't lynched? Not what I was taught in Sunday school.

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lynched

          Sport, a "lynching" may but need not be by hanging.
          Lynching has a very specific connotation in common parlance and it doesn't really include being shot.

          I promise you that you were NEVER taught in Sunday School that Joseph Smith was "lynched."
          Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

          sigpic

          Comment

          • SeattleUte
            Faith crisis consultant
            • Nov 2008
            • 20837

            #6
            Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
            Lynching has a very specific connotation in common parlance and it doesn't really include being shot.

            I promise you that you were NEVER taught in Sunday School that Joseph Smith was "lynched."
            Not to me. Apparenlty Herzberg, Merriam-Webster and I disagree with you. You probably also think ignorant means rude and funner is a word.
            When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

            --Jonathan Swift

            Comment

            • TripletDaddy
              sweet triple
              • Nov 2008
              • 58186

              #7
              Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
              Not to me. Apparenlty Herzberg, Merriam-Webster and I disagree with you. You probably also think ignorant means rude and funner is a word.
              I don't disagree with the definition.

              As I stated, lynching has a very specific connotation that is almost universally limited to hanging, not death by bullet or ball.

              If you want to get technical, such a broad application would include an entire litany of crime that we generally do not attribute to lynching.

              Maybe you could help me out. Are there examples in history of other famous "lynchings" that do not include death by hanging?

              So yes, I still do disagree because such usage is misleading. Why didn't Herzberg state that Joseph died a martyr? That would also be technically correct, but likely doesn't suit his agenda.
              Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

              sigpic

              Comment

              • The Rambam
                Wandering Rambam
                • Nov 2008
                • 394

                #8
                I wonder if Church leaders realized that if they won, they would have to fight this battle every two years in California. The Church claims over 650,000 members in California. It takes about that many signatures to put the issue on the ballot in any given election cycle. Banded with the self-mortifying Opis Dei, the snake handling evangelicals, and the John Birch Society/Eagle Forum political wackos, the Mormons will be able to fight this battle forever. Yeah, baby.

                There is no good way the Church's involvement in this political campaign ever ends well and they should have seen it, being Seers.

                I wonder if the members in California realize that in 2010 they will be asked for 4 hours a week and more millions of dollars. And then again in 2012. And then again in 2014. I wonder if they are really willing to go to the mat every two years like they did this year. I wonder if they will like being part of an organization that is primarily known for wanting to deny legal rights to gays.

                The old, white, corporate systems men in SLC I sustain as Prophets, Seers and Revelators are probably praying that the revision/modification court challenge to Prop 8 succeeds and the issue dies a quick death. If not, they will have to choose either to (i) call the the California members into a perpetual war with homosexuals and lesbians or (ii) publicly give up standing for something in 2010.

                Of course the self-righteous homeschooling, food-storage hoarding, second-coming sign-watching, government loathing, multi-level marketing "health" food selling members will be all in all the time. They will be the future of the Church in California as the tent continues to shrink. But they like their cult better when it is small and familial and persecuted and hated anyway.

                Come, Come Ye Saints, indeed!
                A Mormon president could make a perfectly patriotic, competent, inspiring leader. But not Mitt Romney. He is a husked void. --David Javerbaum

                Comment

                • RobinFinderson
                  Banned
                  • Nov 2008
                  • 10548

                  #9
                  One of the most disappointing moments of the election season -- I walk to my mailbox and find a large color glossy flier with Obama's smiling face and the quote, "I don't support gay marriage." Underneath it says "Vote Yes on Prop 8." I live in a largely black neighborhood where the Obama enthusiasm was running as high as any place in the country, and where education levels are probably as low as any place in the country. I knew that every house received one of those. Ugh.

                  Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
                  Why didn't Herzberg state that Joseph died a martyr? That would also be technically correct, but likely doesn't suit his agenda.
                  DDD, you have said some pretty smart stuff on CUF, so I am inclined to accept that lynching and hanging tend to go hand in hand, based on your reading, but I am pretty decently read myself, and I have never thought that lynching meant hanging exclusively. But I am also a person who likes to flip words around and use them out of ordinary context, so whatever.

                  Comment

                  • SeattleUte
                    Faith crisis consultant
                    • Nov 2008
                    • 20837

                    #10
                    Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
                    I don't disagree with the definition.

                    As I stated, lynching has a very specific connotation that is almost universally limited to hanging, not death by bullet or ball.

                    If you want to get technical, such a broad application would include an entire litany of crime that we generally do not attribute to lynching.

                    Maybe you could help me out. Are there examples in history of other famous "lynchings" that do not include death by hanging?

                    So yes, I still do disagree because such usage is misleading. Why didn't Herzberg state that Joseph died a martyr? That would also be technically correct, but likely doesn't suit his agenda.
                    Lynching is the less loaded term and more precisely usd than martyr would have been in a political column like this written by a non-Mormon for a general audience. I guarantee you that in the pantieon of a civil libertarian like Hertzberg lynching victims are martyrs. Anyway, Jesus was martyred but he was not lynched. Hertzberg's usage is more precise and descriptive of what actually happened.

                    The Jews murdered by brown shirts per Kristallnacht were lynching victims, as was Mousollini.

                    On the cotrary, you are the one who bastardizes and robs potency from the word, narrowing its application to one specific means of killing. If not lynching how woud you describe murder by a mob heedless of the rule of law?
                    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

                    --Jonathan Swift

                    Comment

                    • TripletDaddy
                      sweet triple
                      • Nov 2008
                      • 58186

                      #11
                      Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                      Lynching is the less loaded term and more precisely usd than martyr would have been in a political column like this written by a non-Mormon for a general audience. I guarantee you that in the pantieon of a civil libertarian like Hertzberg lynching victims are martyrs. Anyway, Jesus was martyred but he was not lynched. Hertzberg's usage is more precise and descriptive of what actually happened.

                      The Jews murdered by brown shirts per Kristallnacht were lynching victims, as was Mousollini.

                      On the cotrary, you are the one who bastardizes and robs potency from the word, narrowing its application to one specific means of killing. If not lynching how woud you describe murder by a mob heedless of the rule of law?
                      I think I would just call it murder.

                      again, if you can come up with some good examples of the term "lynching" being used in common parlance to include death by shooting, that would be helpful.
                      Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

                      sigpic

                      Comment

                      • The Rambam
                        Wandering Rambam
                        • Nov 2008
                        • 394

                        #12
                        Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
                        I think I would just call it murder.

                        again, if you can come up with some good examples of the term "lynching" being used in common parlance to include death by shooting, that would be helpful.
                        You've lost this one. Just stop and walk away.

                        The NewYorker isn't using lynch to mean any common death by shooting. It is applying the term to the murder by mob of the leader of a persecuted minority group. Perfectly appropriate. That a bullet stopped his heart is irrelevant to the spirit of the usage. Save your credibility for disagreements that matter.
                        Last edited by The Rambam; 11-29-2008, 06:00 PM.
                        A Mormon president could make a perfectly patriotic, competent, inspiring leader. But not Mitt Romney. He is a husked void. --David Javerbaum

                        Comment

                        • LA Ute
                          Receiver of Memory
                          • Nov 2008
                          • 19512

                          #13
                          Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                          In this week's column the iconic New Yorker political commentator Hendrik Herzberg does a post mortem on Proposition 8.
                          . . . Herzberg suggests, but is too much of a gentleman to draw explicitly, the connection between lack of educational opportunities and a tendency to fall prey to the mendacity of Prop. 8 proponents. . . .
                          I guess the debate is over. The "iconic" Hendrik Hertzberg has spoken. To make matters worse for all us mendacious hypocrites who supported Prop 8, Hertzberg has exposed us as deceiving the poor uneducated slobs who voted for the measure.

                          Meanwhile, Seattle give us all a terrific demonstration of unintentional self-parody. I don't think anyone else here could not have done a better job sending up the sneering, condescending elitists who write for magazines like the New Yorker and the readers who eagerly lap up what those writers serve, because they are so eager to agree with it.
                          Last edited by LA Ute; 11-29-2008, 01:08 PM. Reason: typo
                          “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
                          ― W.H. Auden


                          "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
                          -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


                          "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
                          --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

                          Comment

                          • SeattleUte
                            Faith crisis consultant
                            • Nov 2008
                            • 20837

                            #14
                            Originally posted by LA Ute View Post
                            I guess the debate is over. The "iconic" Hendrik Hertzberg has spoken. To make matters worse for all us mendacious hypocrites who supported Prop 8, Hertzberg has exposed us as deceiving the poor uneducated slobs who voted for the measure.

                            Meanwhile, Seattle give us all a terrific demonstration of unintentional self-parody. I don't think anyone else here could not have done a better job sending up the sneering, condescending elitists who write for magazines like the New Yorker and the readers who eagerly lap up what writers like Hertzberg serve, because they are so eager to agree with it.
                            I often disagree with Hertzberg. I bet he and I voted for different presidential candidates. But his logic seems unassaillable in this column, as the responses here confirm.
                            When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

                            --Jonathan Swift

                            Comment

                            • ERCougar
                              Junior Member
                              • Nov 2008
                              • 10978

                              #15
                              Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                              I often disagree with Hertzberg. I bet he and I voted for different presidential candidates. But his logic seems unassaillable in this column, as the responses here confirm.
                              Awww...it's nice to see the unifying power of Mormon bashing.
                              At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                              -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                              Comment

                              Working...