PLANK JULY 16, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
When discussing the subject of bigotry, it is helpful to discriminate (no pun intended). It's more difficult to do so when reporting on poll results, and the latest attempt, in The Washington Post, shows just how difficult it can be.
The headline of the piece, 'Mormons, African Americans Face Substantial Prejudice, Poll Finds,' is part of the problem. The poll's findings are as follows:
"Sizable pockets of voters say they would be uncomfortable with a close family member marrying someone who is black or Mormon. Twenty percent of voters report discomfort with the idea of a Mormon marrying into their immediate family; 14 percent say the same for African Americans."
Part of the problem is the word "discomfort," which does not really tell us much. But the bigger issue is that not wanting someone in your family to marry a member of a particular religious group is different than not wanting a relative to marry, say, a black person. In the former case, you are judging people by his/her actions, rather than his/her skin color. Moreover, I would imagine a lot of Christians would be uncomfortable with relatives marrying Jews or Muslims or Hindus. In some cases this is likely bigotry, but it also may have to do with ensuring that the next generation of your family carries on your religious traditions, or other such considerations. Nothing similar applies in the case of race.
One gets the sense, reading the piece, that "discomfort" with a religion, or disliking a religion, is--for the author--equivalent to bigotry. Thus:
The share of all Americans with an “unfavorable” impression of the Mormon Church has dropped eight percentage points from 2007 — when Romney first sought the Republican presidential nomination — to 31 percent in the new poll. But positive ratings remain at 39 percent, hardly changed from 42 percent five years ago. Instead, more Americans express “no opinion” when asked about the Mormon faith. It is unclear what impact such lingering discomfort is having on voters’ decision-making. Prejudice is difficult to capture accurately in polling data; voters are often reluctant to express views they perceive as socially unacceptable.
The clear implication here is that having an "unfavorable" impression of the Mormon Church is a sign of bigotry. It need be nothing of the sort. Surely other, more established religions would poll better on this question, and surely Mormons do face more bigotry than many other faiths. But people are allowed to have negative opinions of (sorry) man-made institutions. Disliking people who happen to be born with dark skin is entirely different.
10 comments
Racial prejudice, religious prejudice*, ethnic prejudice, sexual preference prejudice are all so yesterday. However, I asterisked religious because there is so much prejudice/discrimination against atheists. How many open atheists can be elected to public office. Before we were married, my mother-in-law (who seldom went to church) was so fearful her daughter (secretly an atheist) was marrying an [open] atheist, she demanded we be married in a church. I fooled her, though. We were married in a Unitarian Universalist Church, those closest you can be to religious atheists you can get without buning crosses in church each Sunday. Though not original with me, I attended an actual atheist church in the last couple of months and I am establishing/evangelizing one on Whidbey. I actually have four people signed up. You are welcome to join if you perform a black Mass. But only if you are black yourself.
- skahn
July 16, 2012 at 2:14pm
Not sure I agree with the premise of the article. One way of measuring bigotry is by measuring it's impact. If the impact were only that people had "negative opinions", then yes. The casual bigotry Muslims face in Republican political conversation today may not compare to blacks getting lynched some decades ago, but Hindu-Muslim riots in India where hundreds have gotten killed on both sides (thousands over the years since India's independence) certainly do stand out as an example, as does the Holocaust. And those are just two examples. The single biggest reason I am a non-practicing Hindu is because of how fucked up religion can be.
- austinous
July 16, 2012 at 2:48pm
How about marrying a Scientologist or a Moonie, if you have discomfort about that, is that bigotry as well? If you have a relative marry a Mormon you can not attend the marriage ceremony (provided it is a Mormon one) unless you become a Mormon yourself. The religion has a penchant for secrecy that is offputting to most people (if they knew about it). I hate to say it, but it like it is a religion for people with the spiritual maturity of children. It has fantastical beliefs, God has a wife, they have celestial sex that creates new souls, he lives on the planet Kolub, it has the whole secret club vibe that only members can know about. Its leadership has the quality of hucksters, shaking down members for 10% tithing using the money to buy theme parks in Hawaii, for example. Joseph Smith himself was an obvious huckster, the book of Abraham alone is proof of that. It is also incredibly cruel to those that leave the church (if they live in a Mormon dominant area) Given all of this, still I would never treat a Mormon any different than anyone else. It does not harm me personally. Free will and live and let live and all that should be enough for everyone.
- blackton
July 16, 2012 at 3:59pm
Austinous: all the more reason for maintaining skepticism of those religions which may be dangerous because of their practices, traditions or sacred writings (i.e. those which advocate mistrust or violence against other religions, as, say, sections of the Koran do).
- Curran1
July 16, 2012 at 4:41pm
Come on! I wouldn't bat an eye if one of my (very white, very Northern European) children married someone of another racial background. Black, bronze, sloped eyes or otherwise, I don't really care. And indeed, my pale-skinned, red-blond daughter is married to a rather swarthy Ashkenazi. Both are more or less athiest as nearly as I can tell, so I doubt religion will be their bete noir. But I would be concerned if one of my children proposed to marry someone with exclusionary religious views wildly incompatible to their own. I emphasize exclusionary here. I myself (about as thoroughly a-spiritual and a-religious a person as you could ever find) am married to a deeply spiritual Buddhist. It's a source of friction, and sometimes quite uncomfortable friction, but because neither of our understandings of the world demand that we own the absolute unvarnished truth about meaning and ethics and humanity generally, we mostly get along pretty well, reasoning and compromising our way to agreement on the important things in life, even if often getting to common ground from different directions. It would not be so were I married to a Mormon, or a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. I'm happy to allow that we can get to agreement on actions and responsibilities without agreeing on authorities and spiritual practice, but the day someone expects me to worship Allah or Jesus, or recognize the absolute authority of any deity, or express concern for their or my immortal soul through prayer or any other piety, is almost certainly the beginning of irreconcilable differences. I don't see how it could be otherwise for my children, and frankly, I don't want such religious knotheads in my family. It's hard enough sharing a community and planet with them.
- IowaBeauty
July 16, 2012 at 5:04pm
"Given all of this, still I would never treat a Mormon any different than anyone else. It does not harm me personally. " Nor in any civil relationship would I. But I disagree that "it does not harm me personally." A determination to hold fantastical, exclusionary and just plain immature beliefs, and to evangelize these across the world, lowers the emotional, spiritual and general IQ of the planet, and that DOES harm all of us. Humanity faces huge challenges, some of its own making, and some inherent in being limited to a fragile globe about which the cosmos cares not a whit. Every person who dedicates themselves to a view that is counter-factual or counter-reason, and particularly those who promote such view to others, is a danger to the future of humanity. Since I care deeply about that future, I am harmed by their nonsense.
- IowaBeauty
July 16, 2012 at 5:14pm
Curran, my point was that there has scarce been a religion that has not advocated violence against The Other at some point in it's history, Buddhism being the only exception I know of. Sure, today we look at the Koran and point to the parts advocating violence, but in practice, again, I point you to the Holocaust, the Crusades, and any number of other examples.
- austinous
July 16, 2012 at 5:53pm
What Curran said.
- arnon1
July 16, 2012 at 7:15pm
Iowa, you are right, but the remedy for that is dialogue, not treating people disrespectfully.
- blackton
July 16, 2012 at 7:20pm
Blackton, Of course. As I said, "Nor .... would I [treat Morman's differently in a civil relationship.]" I was disagreeing only with your claim that they do me no harm.
- IowaBeauty
July 16, 2012 at 10:17pm