Skip navigation.

True colors

from the less-than-representative-samples dept.
Check out these photos of the anti-bush rally they had yesterday out in San Francisco. It's quite a site. Just brace for a few F-bombs.

(Via Instapundit)

Who's true colors?

?

A bunch of idiots...

...IMHO

San Francisco is a

very different kind of place, you know.
I didn't see any of that kind of behavior
in the coverage of his talk at UVSC.

The Mikey Moore Crowd

San Francisco, Seattle, New York, DC, Chicago, LA, I could go on. The Mikey Moore wing of the Democratic party doesn't really have a place here in Utah because people here in Utah are generally intelligent. But outside of Utah, go to a major metropolitan area and Mikey Moore wing of the Democratic party is so incensed over the "wrongs" of the right that they have to protest, loot, pillage, destroy because that's what the mob does. Peace loving liberals can be so very warlike. Interesting isn't it?

Nothing to do with Moore

ProvoJoe,

My previous post was stupid. Sorry.

This is absolutely NOT representative of San Francisco, the Democratic Party, Lbierals, or Michael Moore. Its just a bunch of random, left-leaning loose cannons. The right has their loose cannons too - Timothy McVeigh and the abortion-clinic bombers to name just a few.

When all is said and done I guess these kind of folks serve a purpose: They remind us that Democrat vs. Republican is perhaps not so important a conflict as the conflict between those who uphold the rule of law and promote civilized discourse, and those who do not.

simple math

Michael Moore = left-leaning loose cannon

Michael Moore

Michael Moore is often wrong, but so is Rush Limbaugh. Neither one is in the same class as the people in the pictures you see above.

What distinguishes them is simple - Limbaugh and Moore do not promote violent means to acheive their ends, whereas McVeigh and the folks you see in the pictures above, do. That's a significant difference.

Sweeping Generalizations Take Over the Blog!

Porgo,

So, you were a long-time resident of San Francisco? I have to say, that really changes my opinion of you. That must mean you're a liberal! I've heard you guys protest and riot about EVERYTHING. I know your type - you parade around naked, insulting people with the F-word. You San Francisco residents just don't get it, do you? You think we're ignorant, but we're not the ones throwing feces at passing cars! Why do you guys do that?

(Normally, I judge individuals by their individual behavior. But since today appears to be paint-everyone-with-a-broad-brush-day, I thought I'd join the fun.)

Broad brush

I believe one of the reasons there are more liberals in bigger cities is because in that more densely populated and diverse situation you are forced to interact with weird, foreign, smelly, etc. people and when you do your stereotypes are destroyed so many times that you can't help but have feelings for the variety of individuals you meet and value them and the effect that they and diversity in general has had on your heart and world-view. At some point, if your heart is open you no longer have the need or desire to make swift and dehumanizing calculations about entire segments of the population that are unfamiliar-and-therefore-suspect or any other provincial nonsense. And this because you remember Juan and Mike and Depak and Christen and Mohamed and Tomer and Wai-man because when you got to know them and they were interesting and human not at all what you expected. I wish this automatically came with a mission, but despite what the missionary guide teaches (who reads that?) about maintaining an equal relationship many too many come back still insisting that we're the best and everyone else is backwards and needs to shape up. That's about as tragic and un-Christian as it gets. I realize I make myself a target of scorn by those who may not know what the heck I'm talking about, but it is true nonetheless. Jesus' example illustrates the point well.

I agree with most

of what you said. I believe that loving people is feigned unless you like them, too. Granted some people don't want to be liked or loved by certain categories of people (narrow-mindedness goes both ways), but we should always try. My brother went to a training for ward leaders in Salt Lake a few weeks ago and heard some rather enlightening council. Among other things he was told that the best thing a gay man can have is a straight, close male friend. They said that inappropriate sexual desire will decrease in proportion to the closeness of that relationship. I thought that was interesting. We'd actually heard that exact thing from a gay friend and member we knew in San Francisco. Of course, these are people in the church that are struggling and seeking to stay on the path. Even those who aren't members can benefit from straight male friends I believe. I was once subtley hit on by a gay guy at work who of course I turned down. We continued to work together until after a while he got another job and quit. A few months later he paid us a surprise visit. He walked up and I made a quick, and I believe, inspired decision to hug him. When I shook his hand and pulled him in I could tell he was a little surprised. I felt a sincere feeling of gladness to see him and it was as wholesome, warm and appropriate as any hug I've ever given. I venture to say he felt it, too. I believe that feeling came from from the Lord. I think of that scripture where Paul describes homosexuals as being without natural affection. I believe the more natural friendship and affection they feel from people with no ulterior motive the better chance they have of moving away from sin, whether inside or outside the church. So personally, I really don't believe that an arms length approach is good enough, literally or figuratively. That's not to say that I believe that marriage should be free-for-all, either. Gay marriage shouldn't be legal, but it probably will be eventually. As we voice our opinions to influence governmental policy we should do it clearly but as lovingly and gently as we can. We should always avoid fighting individuals, I believe.

does this represent happy valley?

should we base the attitudes of the people of happy valley by the actions of some when the savior of happy valley, sean hannity, came to rally his hatred of liberals?

as my professor was trying to ask sean hannity about bush's flip=flopping position on the ideology of nation-builiding, he was threatened by the happy valleyians behind him and told to "f---ing go to afghanistan and join al qaida" among other similar attacks, threats, and vulgarities.

by dJake and porgo's ever-continuing use of pathetically poor logic, these imbeciles are the norm for the cookie-cutter clones of happy valley.

Pathetically poor logic?

Admittedly, I have made some rash arguments, or in the case of this thread, just started typing and hit post comment when I should have just deleted it all.

imbeciles? pathetically poor logic? blanket statements with no backing are worthless.

I'm sure you were all happy when the fat bastard came into town preaching the "truth." At least when Sean Hannity was in town he actually let people ask him questions.

Show me examples of pathetically poor logic and I'll be more than happy to give you a dignified response. Otherwise, I'll refer to you as I do any other dimwit... a troll.

Trolls and Logic

As to the name calling, anybody who anonymously hits and run gets referred to as a troll. Had I known it was you tyler I would have left that line off.

You are right... My logic in my prior post here is filled with incomplete garbage. I've already noted why. My implication though that the environment supports and breeds this kind of activity is totally based off of living in both the Bay Area and New York City. Personal experience is a pain in the butt isn't it.

As to the logic, I was going to say the same thing about you. You know, we can go the rounds of sad logic, because I think much of your logic is the same way. And if I stop running circles with you I'm sorry, we can keep going around and around. You are so far off the reservation that it becomes an exercise in futility. As to our last conversation back in Bush vs. the Geneva Convention, my post was the oldest one there. It seems like you moved on.

sorry if it seemed that way

i haven't moved on, i just haven't had time to post anything substantial. i pulled another all-nighter on tuesday for a 10 page mid-term and will most likely be pulling another one tonight for a 10 page report. wow. i ahte school. as i usually work until ten or eleven, i haven't had much time to do much anything but survive.

i'll try to have more to say later. if you have more time, i'd love to have some replys to the dozen or so responses from previous posts that have seemingly been ignored.

peace.

the michael moore faction ...

... of the democratic party.

not representative of SF?

uh, hello. minor point here, but having been born and raised in the bay area, yes, this is EXACTLY how SF residents respond to EVERYTHING. the city is 90% liberal, and protests and riots of some fashion are the weekly norm. i hated driving into work down in SOMA on any friday, for fear i would get stuck in the middle of one of the bicycle revolts and have rocks or human matter thrown at my car. a state law passes by an overwhelming majority? (DOMA) let's riot! let's have a parade where half the participants sport signs featuring the F word -- or just go naked! why not? its SF!

but you are right, Laurence. they do remind us all just how radical an increasingly large part of the Democrat party is becoming. yes, many of those folks are Greenies or Socialists or some other psychopathic group. but the vast majority of them recognize themselves as Dems.

but its interesting how comparisons to thousands on the left can only be compared to a few nut jobs on the right. and the mainstream Conservatives in this country make it clear that they do not support these idiots -- unlike the Dems, who make excuses for the refuse in their party, and constantly "reach out" to them. and that's exactly the reason why the Dems lost this week.

and they just don't get it. they still don't know why they lost. they call us ignorant, failures, and religious wackos. this kind of thinking is why the number of Republicans is growing, while the Dems are shrinking, many switching over to Independents because while they disagree with the Republican ticket, they just can't stomach the Dems any more.

How is

Michael Moore not intelligent?
What do you have against those cities?

So you're saying we should ne

So you're saying we should never draw generalizations about any group of people? Not even when they repeatedly show themselves to act in a particular way?

lets keep painting

yes, and people who live out in rural areas have no way of feeling compassion for those city folk, because they've never lived there, seen the sights, smelled the smells, never interacted with different people. so they couldn't possibly know what it is like to truly be Christian-like. i'm right there with you, man. right on.

but hey, that also seems to explain why those same, peace-lovin city folk get along so well with each other, but couldn't give a rats A for those people way out there in the country, who might have some different life experiences that they just have no way of empathizing with, cause they don't live out there. hmmmm...

Careful with you're own broad brush

I believe one of the reasons there are more liberals in bigger cities is because in that more densely populated and diverse situation you are forced to interact with weird, foreign, smelly, etc. people and when you do your stereotypes are destroyed so many times that you can't help but have feelings for the variety of individuals you meet and value them and the effect that they and diversity in general has had on your heart and world-view.

That's definitely a factor. But having grown up in precisely that situation I came to have very different political convictions. I'd like to think that this is because--while I can see the merits of the liberal message of multiculturalism--I don't let allow it to trick me into believing the false conclusions reached by liberals about how government / society should respond to the message's truths. (And I especially don't want government to respond to it's falsehoods.)

At some point, if your heart is open you no longer have the need or desire to make swift and dehumanizing calculations about entire segments of the population that are unfamiliar-and-therefore-suspect or any other provincial nonsense.

Whoa ... now I'm not saying it was, but I sure hope this wasn't directed at myself, or even at conservatives in general. Just for what it's worth, let me make one thing clear. I love racial / cultural diversity. I grew up in an environment that was about as diverse as they come. I love black people. I love them. I just do. Though I definitely have a problem with certain aspects of american black culture the same as I have criticism for aspects of mormon culture, or argentine culture among whom I served as a missionary. But I love being around a diverse group of races and cultures. (Though I distaste having anyone force their culture on me. I like to explore it for myself, not be compelled to do so. But that's a different tangent.) I honestly have a culture shock every time I come back up here to Provo after spending a summer back home, and then another shock when I go back again. But living in Utah has been a good thing just for the fact that it has exposed me to another world which I only knew from what I'd been told about it.

Now I'm not sure if you're implying otherwise, but let me just say that it is quite possible to be both a lover of diversity and a not a lover of the gay rights movement or the larger moral relativist movement in general. Racial / cultural diversity is one thing, but a diversity of sexual perversions is something entirely different. I will not accept gays as upstanding members of society. Now I'm not saying I discriminate against someone merely for having homosexual inclinations, but for acting on them, I do. And for evangelizing them, I definitely do. (Especially when planned parenthood tries to make their preaching an integral part of public school sex education courses.) Yes, I discriminate against people based on their actions.

I consider homosexuals to be somewhat "unfamiliar", but to be very "suspect," as you put it.

Anyway, back to your comment:

And this because you remember Juan and Mike and Depak and Christen and Mohamed and Tomer and Wai-man because when you got to know them and they were interesting and human not at all what you expected.

Right on the money, except for that I really never expected them to be otherwise because I grew up with these sorts of wonderful people my whole life.

I wish this automatically came with a mission, but despite what the missionary guide teaches (who reads that?) about maintaining an equal relationship many too many come back still insisting that we're the best and everyone else is backwards and needs to shape up. That's about as tragic and un-Christian as it gets. I realize I make myself a target of scorn by those who may not know what the heck I'm talking about, but it is true nonetheless. Jesus' example illustrates the point well.

It's true, many do come back expressing these sorts of sentiments, but I think that a lot of times we mix up the culture of a foreign land and their willingness to listen to the gospel. (Now, the two really go hand-in-hand I guess, so you actually can't separate them.) From the average missionary's viewpoint, a culture's value is tied to how willing it makes it's people to listen to the gospel. So some cultures, like that of Argentina, are especially frustrating given this context. It's tough to see the redeeming values of a culture when the culture itself is what is working against you missionary efforts.

If a missionary is able to look at a culture from a more neutral perspective they'll usually recognize that it has many things of value. I felt like with Argentina I kind of had two different judgments of the culture ... one from each angle. They don't exactly reconcile well with one another, but I think that having the two helps me to more fully savour my experience and to love the people in spite of their stiffneckedness.

But now, you've got to recognize that not all cultures are of equal value. Let's not get too carried away with multicultural ideals. Just because something is a part of a particular culture doesn't make it good, or even acceptable. And some cultures have more bad characteristics than others. Modern Argentine culture has many bad characteristics, and so does modern American culture. Spending two years of your life trying to help people in Argentina recognize that your gospel message is better than the religious and sometimes cultural ideas they currently hold is a tough job, and it's hindered by their culture. This gives you a whole lot of time to think about their culture / religion and how it's holding them back. And I'm sure state-side missionaries experience the same thing, just with a culture more close to home.

But I'll tell you this. I think our general US culture is superior to Argentine culture. Not in every single way of course, but overall I think it is. I'm sure there are cultures that are superior to our general US culture as well. I don't know of one in particular though.

What's good about multiculturalism is the idea of studying and learning from other cultures so that you can incorporate what's good about them into your own way of life or even influence adoption into your own culture. That's a great thing, because though I think that overall our American culture is superior to most, I no we're not superior in every aspect. We're no where close to it.

But what's bad about multiculturalism is this notion that is often pushed about all cultures being of equal value, and of having nothing "bad" about them, just "different." That's such a load of bull. Just another example of the moral relativism I mentioned above. Moral relativism is the same line of thought that people use as their basis for claiming that gays deserve equal everything, including the option to mary people of their own sex, to adopt, etc. They argue that homosexuality isn't "bad," just different, which is a lie. Multiculturalism has it's merits, but they stop right at the point that it starts demanding open armed acceptance of people and groups who should not receive it.

wow, nice comment

I believe you've helped me see this from a slightly different perspective ... I had never heard this concept of a gay man being benefited by a close clean relationship with a straight man. But it makes sense.

i'll let this simmer.

that was me

i just realized i made that post without logging in.

notice that i did not call you any names. in fact, in most (if not all) of my posts, i have refrained from personally attacking YOU, but rather your techniques and reasoning.

the people i am referring to as being imbeciles are those who told my professor to "f---ing join al qaida"

the "pathetically poor logic" i am referring to in this last post is your fallacious logic that paints everyone in SF (and as you imply, all democrats) as those who were protesting in the given link.

other examples of your extremely lacking logic would be your attempts to relate this iraqi war to WW2 and the wars of the book of mormon. i could go on with plenty of other examples, but i've already done so in the several posts i have made. if you want more examples, just look them over. rather than defending my criticisms of your sad logic, you usually just ignored them and moved onto another post. a trend, i feel, others haev noticed and have been bothered by.

I lived

in SF two years and became active
in the church there in the greatest ward
I've ever attended. I remember seeing
one or two Critical Masses (bike demonstrations)
and drove past a gay pride parade once or twice.
Maybe you're exaggerating, or we were there
during a different time than I was.
Is charity an ideal of yours?
If so, how do you reconcile that with your
treatment of these other people in
your comment? How do you know these
people's party affiliation? Do you know
any of them? It's really not safe to go
around claiming superiority over other people.

beautiful comment progo

You're right on the money. I find it interesting that on the exit polls so many people ranked values as their deciding factor. It's hilarious because the dems are absolutely dumbfounded, they just fail to understand.

Check out what a democrat quoted in this Instapundit post has to say about the loss:

Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."

Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.

And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right?

That's pretty insightful.

Going back to what you were saying progo, i think the reason the dems lost is because they've alienated so much of the country. Embracing all these wacko groups has finally caught up with them.

What's funny is that they're much better positioned to appeal to common people (the majority) than are the republicans. Without doing a close inspection the Democrats appear to be much more kind and fair and generous than the republicans. They should stop the republicans at the polls, but in recent years they increasingly just don't.

During the civil rights movement they truly had the moral high ground. It was tough for their detractors to deny it. But this whole idea of the gay rights movement being not only analogous to, but an extension of the civil rights movement just doesn't fly with most folks, and rightly so. The moral high ground is now squarely in republican hands, and I think that's what made the difference this election.

of course not

generalizations should only be contrived out of pure ignorance. or immortalized through interpretive dance.

(i'm guessing with that second one)

Generalizations

Mason,
That's a fair question, and a good one. Thank you for making an effort to have an honest discussion.

Here's my answer (your mileage may vary):
The concept of generalization in and of itself is not altogether invalid. But I believe generalizations are more fair as their sample group becomes proportionally larger, and as their target group grows smaller.

For example: It is obviously not fair to say that one sadistic killing of a gay kid in Wyoming means that all Republicans are homicidal bigots. It would be less unfair, however, if twenty kids in Wyoming had been killed - because the sample group has grown. Incrementally better would be to state that the twenty deaths means that Wyoming Republicans are homicidal bigots - because the target has shrunk. Needless to say, if two hundred kids were killed by confirmed Republicans in the town of Laramie (expanding the sample and shrinking the target again), it would be quite legitimate to paint the Republicans in Laramie as homicidal bigots.

Returning to the case in San Francisco and applying my standard, I do not believe that we can make generalizations about million of San Fransicans, or about millions of Democrats, based on the actions of a very small sample group - which we all agree is a "bunch of idiots".

That's the way I see it anyway. What do you think Mason?

Thanks for the thoughtful response Mason

[sorry if this format is confusing, I don't know many tags and I ran out of time. italics are your words]

...having grown up in precisely that situation I came to have very different political convictions.

In the Church? That and family are important influences for sure.

I'd like to think that this is because--while I can see the merits of the liberal message of multiculturalism--I don't let allow it to trick me into believing the false conclusions reached by liberals about how government / society should respond to the message's truths. (And I especially don't want government to respond to it's falsehoods.)

I just see people trying to use what tools they feel they have available to bring about a just and equitable future. Equality is something the Lord requires, too. What saddens me is that many on the left have a clear vision of what the future should be and it's the same vision the gospel paints; The only difference is how to go about getting there. It's foolish to hold them to the same standard because there are some things they don't know yet. Their means of persuasion are limited, unlike the true Latter-Day Saint. Unfortunately some among us likewise feel our contempt and anger will somehow win the prize, but they never will.

Whoa ... now I'm not saying it was, but I sure hope this wasn't directed at myself, or even at conservatives in general.

I wasn't directing it at you personally or any group in general, my whole point is not for anyone to use sweeping generalizations. What I see in some of the threads is the kind of carelessness that results when you're surrounded by enough like-minded people that you feel comfortable getting very close to or crossing the line cause you figure no one else is listening or you have enough buddies around to back you up.

Just for what it's worth, let me make one thing clear. I love racial / cultural diversity. I grew up in an environment that was about as diverse as they come. I love black people. I love them. I just do. Though I definitely have a problem with certain aspects of american black culture the same as I have criticism for aspects of mormon culture, or argentine culture among whom I served as a missionary. But I love being around a diverse group of races and cultures. (Though I distaste having anyone force their culture on me. I like to explore it for myself, not be compelled to do so. But that's a different tangent.) I honestly have a culture shock every time I come back up here to Provo after spending a summer back home, and then another shock when I go back again. But living in Utah has been a good thing just for the fact that it has exposed me to another world which I only knew from what I'd been told about it.

Now I'm not sure if you're implying otherwise, but let me just say that it is quite possible to be both a lover of diversity and a not a lover of the gay rights movement or the larger moral relativist movement in general. Racial / cultural diversity is one thing, but a diversity of sexual perversions is something entirely different. I will not accept gays as upstanding members of society. Now I'm not saying I discriminate against someone merely for having homosexual inclinations, but for acting on them, I do. And for evangelizing them, I definitely do. (Especially when planned parenthood tries to make their preaching an integral part of public school sex education courses.) Yes, I discriminate against people based on their actions.

I consider homosexuals to be somewhat "unfamiliar", but to be very "suspect," as you put it.

I don't love the gay rights movement either, but many of them are doing their best given the knowledge they have. We don't fully understand it, and I'm glad to live in an era where the brethren acknowledge this. What do you tell a 24 year-old widow who is a faithful member? Some situations call for extreme caution and sensitivity, not snap judgements. We don't understand all the Lord's dealings with his children. That's why we are asked to love everybody, no matter what.
Here's a point. Sin isn't sin if a person doesn't know it's sin. That's doctrine. We don't necessarily know when a person knows something is sin, or wrong. You may say, come on, it's unhygnenic, obviously unnatural, etc. My point is that spiritual motivation to change doesn't come from the taunts of society, especially if that society called you fag all through school. Speaking of that here's a tangent: How many guys end up turning to a homosexual lifestyle because they were just a little different, i.e., liked girls at too young an age, were creative, weren't good in sports, etc. The world needs sensitive fathers and our society promotes homosexuality by being stupid, cruel group-thinkers (that is non-thinkers). Arab men, some of the most macho men in the world walk around holding hands and now we've got knuckleheaded mercernaries over in Iraq trying to rid them of this bad habit, assuming it means something sexual. Idiots. Speaking of imposing your culture on someone else. We do live in a society that often believes just being different is wrong because it's, as I said before, unfamiliar.

It's true, many do come back expressing these sorts of sentiments, but I think that a lot of times we mix up the culture of a foreign land and their willingness to listen to the gospel. (Now, the two really go hand-in-hand I guess, so you actually can't separate them.) From the average missionary's viewpoint, a culture's value is tied to how willing it makes it's people to listen to the gospel. So some cultures, like that of Argentina, are especially frustrating given this context. It's tough to see the redeeming values of a culture when the culture itself is what is working against you missionary efforts.

If a missionary is able to look at a culture from a more neutral perspective they'll usually recognize that it has many things of value. I felt like with Argentina I kind of had two different judgments of the culture ... one from each angle. They don't exactly reconcile well with one another, but I think that having the two helps me to more fully savour my experience and to love the people in spite of their stiffneckedness.

But now, you've got to recognize that not all cultures are of equal value. Let's not get too carried away with multicultural ideals. Just because something is a part of a particular culture doesn't make it good, or even acceptable. And some cultures have more bad characteristics than others. Modern Argentine culture has many bad characteristics, and so does modern American culture. Spending two years of your life trying to help people in Argentina recognize that your gospel message is better than the religious and sometimes cultural ideas they currently hold is a tough job, and it's hindered by their culture. This gives you a whole lot of time to think about their culture / religion and how it's holding them back. And I'm sure state-side missionaries experience the same thing, just with a culture more close to home.

But I'll tell you this. I think our general US culture is superior to Argentine culture. Not in every single way of course, but overall I think it is. I'm sure there are cultures that are superior to our general US culture as well. I don't know of one in particular though.

The idea of ranking cultures is a dangerous and losing indeavor. The only culture that has any value is the gospel culture which is not tied to any ethnicity or nationality or race. Within that there isn't a whole lot of "flavor" per se, that's where our earthly cultures come in, that's where it gets fun. Food, music, dance, etc. is what make it fun. That's what we help to contribute to, not to mention our individual family cultures. The gospel is anything but the monoculture that too many LDS families try to impose on themselves to "fit in". The gospel puts very few constraints on us really. Among them are the freedom from sin, the performance of ordinances, service in the kingdom, personal neatness, recognizability, and lifestyle conditions that are conducive to the spirit among a few others. I'm glad President Hinckley has instituted the jubilee celebrations preceding temple dedications. That's what I'm talking about.

Yes, our country's founders were inspired, yes our government allows us more freedom than most if not all other countries, but I'm happy to let it rest there. Superiority is a dangerous idea, especially in the hands of the ignorant. I much prefer the idea of gratitude humility that President Hinckley is constantly encouraging in us, instead of using our good fortune as a measuring stick with which to put others below us.

But what's bad about multiculturalism is this notion that is often pushed about all cultures being of equal value, and of having nothing "bad" about them, just "different." That's such a load of bull.

The bad in other cultures can be simply defined as the sin in other cultures, the things they need to repent of. It's pointless to rail against people who don't understand what sin is.
Their policy considering their lack of information, is really the best one. Include everybody and condemn no one. Our job is to teach them and love them, plain and simple.

Just another example of the moral relativism I mentioned above. Moral relativism is the same line of thought that people use as their basis for claiming that gays deserve equal everything, including the option to mary people of their own sex, to adopt, etc.

They argue that homosexuality isn't "bad," just different, which is a lie.

It is just different, if you don't know any better, and that knowledge comes from the Lord.
We should be in dialogue with these people, not with each other about these people.

Multiculturalism has it's merits, but they stop right at the point that it starts demanding open armed acceptance of people and groups who should not receive it.

We accept everyone with open arms, inasmuch as they refrain from committing moral sin, and if they do commit moral sin we may have to disfellowship or excommunicate them, but we still accept them with open arms while adhering to the conditions of that discipline. For the nonmember, we should love and teach them and only legislate against them when absolutely necessary. I love the example of David A. Christensen, former Salt Lake Mission President. He eats lunch once a month with a one of his ex-missionaries who is gay, suicidal and living with a partner who is dying of AIDS. This person has been to the temple, made covenants and he still is loved by at least one member of the Church. That's what we need to be willing to do and the longer we, in any degree regard them as untouchable vermin corrupting our society the further we'll be from that ideal and, I feel, the ultimate goal of our religion which is what some used to make ourselves feel superior in the first place. No I'm not referring to you or other Provo Pulsers.

Personally I think the ultimate balance between right and left is the true Latter-Day Saint. That's what I've been trying to describe.
I'm amazed at how quick we are to jump in bed with the born-again religious right. The Salon article doesn't apply to us because our doctrine doesn't encourage blind faith and we don't condemn others to hell - if we are truly Saints.

In case you're interested

A couple other snipets from the ward leadership training on homosexuality.

-Every Bishop should assume there are 4 or 5 people in their ward struggling with same-sex attraction. (One Bishop at a previous session flat out denied that that was possible in his ward and the speaker asked him to just mention the topic from the pulpit and the Bishop did so in a list of things the atonement can heal. That week several people came out of the woodwork to meet with him).

-Same-sex attraction is not a choice.

-Bishops were counciled not to use pop-psych on them but to get them to someone who is qualified to really help, i.e., it is complex and not just a matter of shaping up.

-With that in mind the Bishop is the only one who can help with the spiritual role that is uniquely his.

I personally wonder if the church's experience with internet porn is shedding any light on the subject of homosexuality inasmuch as they both involve addictive sexual behaviors that can come about through urges that aren't chosen.

anyway, for what it's worth...

get off your horse, joe

i've attended church down in the Daly City building, and that was a great ward. such a diverse crowd -- i think there was only 1 english speaking ward in the building. a couple Pacific Islander wards. for those who have never attended one of these, its a great experience. such a beautiful and friendly people. the Bishop of the english-speaking ward was a 25 year old graduate student and UCSF. i've known a few converts from that area who had a difficult time adjusting to moving into wards outside of the city because they had such a wonderful experience -- a great testament to the faith of the members and missionaries living in the city, and their efforts to embrace new converts and build a spiritual environment in such an anti-religious city.

and my comments were not exaggerations. funny how you would turn my calling a spade a spade into an attack on me. i worked in the city and on the peninsula for 6 years, and have been around the city all my life. how do i know their party affiliation? registration numbers. how do i know any of them? from working there, watching events on TV, talking to friends going to school there. in other words, first hand knowledge. during the summer, there is critical mass every friday. and then depending on what celebration is going on, or politcal rally, there is some kind of protest every other week. the gay pride parade is only the most obvious event. the only place more prone to protest is Berkeley across the bay.

moral majority

mason, i don't necessarily agree with your comment that the Dems are "better positioned to appeal to common people (the majority) than are the republicans," but i get your point. the division we're seeing now really has nothing to do with Democrat versus Republican - the Repubs have just done a better job of picking up on societal changes in the short-term. some will argue that "hey, its only a 3% difference" but i think what's really going on here is much bigger than that. i'm sure to the consternation of a handful of your readers, mason, i view these things through LDS goggles: what we're seeing is the slow but steady attack on all things good.

and before anybody starts hollering, i am not suggesting that Repubs own the high road here. there are good people within both parties who are honestly trying to make the world a better place and get along with everyone. my personal belief, however, is that right now the balance of people defending good (family, faith, the constitution, freedom for the oppressed) sit on the right side of the aisle.

people recognized that, and voted at historic levels to defend it. and i think we're going to s shift of more and more moderates from Dem to Repub as long as Republicans continue to defend these positions.

but so much of the discourse in this country is just so petty, and over the silliest things. your blog is a great example of that. most of the content is light and fun, and then things get a little heated. here we are, mostly members of the church and sharing the same fundamental beliefs - but most of the "debate" is really just sweating over the small stuff. who cares if Adam had a belly button or not, it does not change the simple truths of the gospel. instead of addressing the hard questions, for example, a person is attacked for being lazy and never capitalizing his words.

i'm not so naive that i believe that this election has been a sustainable shift toward what i believe are the right positions for our country. again, its not a Repub/Dem issue. things have to get a lot worse before they get better. and, sadly, the majority will not always go toward those positions that defend good. but what is clearly happening is that the lines are being drawn, the divisions are being made clear.

as members, its fine to disagree on the implementation, as long as we all agree on the underlying plans