Another Gauntlet Hits the Ground

[Zakuska]

If there ever was any doubt that the Salt Lake Tribune wasn't a biased news source, or if anyone ever had the Illusion that Ms. Stack was what the call a "Journalist" its been layed to rest.

Ms Stack should be fired! What kind of yellow Journalism is this?!

[Daniel Peterson]

I've been scanning a few places online where Elder Oaks's speech is receiving considerable hostile comment.

It strikes me as ironic that those who supported Proposition 8 were routinely characterized in certain circles as "haters." Why? Because the hatred that I've seen expressed in connection with this issue -- and it's been strident, vocal, and virulent -- has invariably come from people opposed to Prop 8. Seriously. And the reactions to Elder Oaks's speech that I've read tonight have continued that trend. I'm amazed that the folks expressing such hatred don't seem to see the irony.

If there ever was any doubt that the Salt Lake Tribune wasn't a biased news source, or if anyone ever had the Illusion that Ms. Stack was what the call a "Journalist" its been layed to rest.

Ms Stack should be fired! What kind of yellow Journalism is this?!

I get along with Peggy pretty well. I've known her for over thirty years. We probably cancel each other's votes out, though.

[Theseus]

I am not sure the parallel of the 1960s is valid, but that the democratic process was attacked is. One side lost the election. Rather than living to fight another day they through temper tantrums due to the fact they were very sore losers. Furthermore their tantrums were misplaced, they came to Utah to protest the fact they were smacked down by CALIFORNIA VOTERS.

I think people from California were ticked off that Utah got involved in the California democratic process. I'm sure that people from Utah would be upset if Californians were dupming money into propositions that would change Utah law. I think California is right to say to Utah, "Mind your own business."

It looks like Oaks is really getting hammered for his comparison to Blacks in the 1960's. Apparently the only people that liked it were Mormons who think "he's the man."

Theseus

[stux]

I think people from California were ticked off that Utah got involved in the California democratic process. I'm sure that people from Utah would be upset if Californians were dupming money into propositions that would change Utah law. I think California is right to say to Utah, "Mind your own business."

It looks like Oaks is really getting hammered for his comparison to Blacks in the 1960's. Apparently the only people that liked it were Mormons who think "he's the man."

Theseus

Irrc, the money from the church given for prop 8 was a very small amount. Your assessment is not very accurate. Most the money came from members of the church in California. That would be California's citizens, meaning Utah really had little to do with prop 8.

[Calm]

I think people from California were ticked off that Utah got involved in the California democratic process.

Not too many protests about the money from Utah that went to fight against Prop 8, which was about a third of the money donated from Utah according to the SLT: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11044453

According to this only 5% of all donations to the fight came from Utah which means that only about 3.6% of were pro8.

What I find interesting is the huge todo over the donations for Prop 8 even though the against Prop 8 actually got and spent more money nor was there any todo over the donors of around $1 from outside CA that gave to the opposed side even though just their five donations totaled almost a million more than all of Utah's pro total.

[Deborah]

Our local news stations are of course covering this and emphasizing the comparison to a prior time in history. I'm wondering why it is a certain group has ownership of a certain type of persecution. In other words how is comparing persecution for support of a political issue to a prior time in history somehow not appropriate simply because of who was involved? The point is we are seeing the same thing, perhaps on a lesser scale now but one that can escalate.

I hope we have more and more powerful and no-holds-barred talks from GA's. Although it will invite further protest, but how entertaining to watch the small minded flailing their arms and legs in excitement, demonstrating by their very actions the hypocrisy of their words.

[Nofear]

In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.

I contrast Elder Oaks statement with having been told, on this board, that my support of Proposition 8 meant that my political voice should be suppressed.

[USU78]

Irrc, the money from the church given for prop 8 was a very small amount. Your assessment is not very accurate. Most the money came from members of the church in California. That would be California's citizens, meaning Utah really had little to do with prop 8.

There was no money from the Church itself: the in-kind "deemed donation" to the effort was in the nature of travel expenses and logistical support which was estimated at less that $200K (a paltry sum as these things go) and was reported to CA state election officials.

[ERayR]

One more time. CFR on all your baloney and that doesn't mean a random newspaper report of "arrests".

And only two arrests from a croud of over 2000. I echo your sentiments.

[Zakuska]

I think people from California were ticked off that Utah got involved in the California democratic process. I'm sure that people from Utah would be upset if Californians were dupming money into propositions that would change Utah law. I think California is right to say to Utah, "Mind your own business."

It looks like Oaks is really getting hammered for his comparison to Blacks in the 1960's. Apparently the only people that liked it were Mormons who think "he's the man."

Theseus

There was more outside money Given to No-on-8 than there was given to Yes. You need to get your facts straight. (Pun intended)

[Daniel Peterson]

I think people from California were ticked off that Utah got involved in the California democratic process. I'm sure that people from Utah would be upset if Californians were dupming money into propositions that would change Utah law. I think California is right to say to Utah, "Mind your own business."

I'm unaware of anything to suggest that "people from California" were upset, as a class, about money coming in from Utah to support Proposition 8. Some people, from California and elsewhere, were upset about it -- but the divide appears to have been ideological much more than geographic.

And there was, of course, a very good. legitimate, and sufficient reason for the enormous interest outside of California in this particular California proposition: Under the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, and given the unique position of California within the Union, this particular state proposition would have had dramatic impact well beyond the borders of California.

It looks like Oaks is really getting hammered for his comparison to Blacks in the 1960's. Apparently the only people that liked it were Mormons who think "he's the man."

I would like to think that there are also people beyond the LDS community, those who think rationally and not in soundbites and slogans, who will be able to grasp his point. But perhaps I'm too optimistic?

[Vance]

My mom thinks I'm smart.

Do you have a note from her declaring this? If not, then I don't believe you.

[DanGB]

It looks like Oaks is really getting hammered for his comparison to Blacks in the 1960's.

Theseus

I was afraid of this and am not surprised. I believ he could have made his point without the analogy he chose. I hope other media outlets don't pick this up and bring another wave of negative publicity for the Church.

[Avatar4321]

Why is he getting hammered for an accurate analogy?

[gtaggart]

Apparently, I haven't repeated this often enough, so I'll say it another way: Elder Oaks did not compare Mormons in California to Blacks in the South. He compared the "effect" of the voter intimidation efforts in California by anti-Prop 8 supporters to the "effect" of voter intimidation efforts of those in the South who wanted to keep Blacks from the polls. That is the only comparison he made. In other words, he was comparing what Klansman-like twits did in the South to what anti-Prop 8 twits did in California. Nothing more. Nothing less.

What he didn't do was:

1. Compare what has happened to Mormons historically to what has happened to Blacks historically.

2. Say that Mormons and Blacks have basically suffered the same.

3. Say, "you think Blacks have suffered? Look at what's happening to us!"

4. Equate the the biting dogs and bullying sheriffs in the South to the Internet harassment and broken windows in California.

He was comparing "effect" to "effect." That's all.

Elder Oaks's analogy is apt. His argument is spot on. And the race-baiting outrage of his critics is way off base.

[DanGB]

Apparently, I haven't repeated this often enough, so I'll say it another way: Elder Oaks did not compare Mormons in California to Blacks in the South. He compared the "effect" of the voter intimidation efforts in California by anti-Prop 8 supporters to the "effect" of voter intimidation efforts of those in the South who wanted to keep Blacks from the polls. That is the only comparison he made. In other words, he was comparing what Klansman-like twits did in the South to what anti-Prop 8 twits did in California. Nothing more. Nothing less.

What he didn't do was:

1. Compare what has happened to Mormons historically to what has happened to Blacks historically.

2. Say that Mormons and Blacks have basically suffered the same.

3. Say, "you think Blacks have suffered? Look at what's happening to us!"

4. Equate the the biting dogs and bullying sheriffs in the South to the Internet harassment and broken windows in California.

He was comparing "effect" to "effect." That's all.

Elder Oaks's analogy is apt. His argument is spot on. And the race-baiting outrage of his critics is way off base.

I think you are spot on. You are probably preaching to the chior in this case. I just think the potential for criticism and linking it to the Church's history with blacks was so obvious that a different analogy could have been a better stradegy if he intended it to be a public response. Unfortunately, perception becomes reality far too often!

[gtaggart]

I think you are spot on. You are probably preaching to the chior in this case. I just think the potential for criticism and linking it to the Church's history with blacks was so obvious that a different analogy could have been a better stradegy if he intended it to be a public response. Unfortunately, perception becomes reality far too often!

I understand your point; however, what analogy could he use that 1.) would be strong enough to make his point, 2.) relevant, i.e. one related to voter intimidation, and 3.) wouldn't offend another critic/group with little or no critical reading skills?

The analogy he chose was the best one to hand. As a Church, we can't forever be afraid to speak out because of a past practice. Besides, the people who are currently twisting Elder Oaks's words, would find a way to twist any other analogy he used. Critics = Moth. Church = Flame. It's that simple.

[gtaggart]

Actually, the current race-baiting that's going on with regard to Elder Oaks's statement is another form of intimidation, and we shouldn't let it stand. Of course, this type of intimidation is rampant today. It's going on right now with Rush Limbaugh. It happens virtually ever other time someone criticizes something President Obama does. It's laughable anymore when the media or a talking head or someone talking to a talking head calls someone a racist simply because they criticized something someone else did--and that person happens to be black.

If we used the word "fire" so indiscriminately, nobody would exit the crowded theater, let alone run for the door. The word "racist" has almost lost its meaning--at least for me. Yes, racism offends me, but only when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and goes by the name Donald.

[Zakuska]

Aaaa... is it just me or did The Tribune just correct Ms Stacks Misquote of Elder Oakes?

"In their effect," Oaks said, "they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation."

The Article just changed before my eyes.

[Zakuska]

This is what it originally said...

"The anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement, a high-ranking Mormon says in a speech to be delivered Tuesday."

or is that some one poor paraphrase from CARM?

[Jaybear]

I understand your point; however, what analogy could he use that 1.) would be strong enough to make his point, 2.) relevant, i.e. one related to voter intimidation, and 3.) wouldn't offend another critic/group with little or no critical reading skills?

The analogy he chose was the best one to hand. As a Church, we can't forever be afraid to speak out because of a past practice. Besides, the people who are currently twisting Elder Oaks's words, would find a way to twist any other analogy he used. Critics = Moth. Church = Flame. It's that simple.

Analogies are supposed to clarify a point. Frankly, I don't know what point he was trying to make.

The analogy was a poor one, on so many levels.

First, he was comparing voter intimidation (preventing votes) with backlash that occurred after the votes had been counted. As far as I am aware, unlike what was happening in the deep south, there was not a single instance of a Mormon being prevented from voting.

Second, he was equating the LDS Church which sought to deny gay rights, with blacks who were seeking to secure civil rights. The better analogy would have been to the backlash suffered by those groups that opposed civil rights.

Third, the "backlash" was for the most part expressed by protests, boycotts and letters, all of which are protected free speech. Those opposed to civil rights in the south were not boycotting black owned businesses, and marching in the street.

[Zakuska]

Analogies are supposed to clarify a point. Frankly, I don't know what point he was trying to make.

The analogy was a poor one, on so many levels.

First, he was comparing voter intimidation (preventing votes) with backlash that occurred after the votes had been counted. As far as I am aware, unlike what was happening in the deep south, there was not a single instance of a Mormon being prevented from voting.

Oh but the Intimidation started way before all that.

Second, he was equating the LDS Church which sought to deny gay rights, with blacks who were seeking to secure civil rights. The better analogy would have been to the backlash suffered by those groups that opposed civil rights.

Whos rights where denied? Gays still had ever right and priveledge that they had after prop 8 passed that they did before as Guaranteed by California law. The only thing that was "denied" was their priveledge of calling their union a marraige under law.

Third, the "backlash" was for the most part expressed by protests, boycotts and letters, all of which are protected free speech. Those opposed to civil rights in the south were not boycotting black owned businesses, and marching in the street.

Youd better brush up on your American History. The Intimidation of Blacks and voting was what brought all the laws around voting we have to day.

http://en.wikipedia....55%E2%80%931968)

Voter Registration Organizing

After the Freedom Rides, local black leaders in Mississippi such as Amzie Moore, Aaron Henry, Medgar Evers, and others asked SNCC to help register black voters and to build community organizations that could win a share of political power in the state. Since Mississippi ratified its constitution in 1890, with provisions such as poll taxes, residency requirements, and literacy tests, it made registration more complicated and stripped blacks from the polls. After so many years, the intent to stop blacks from voting had become part of the culture of white supremacy. In the fall of 1961, SNCC organizer Robert Moses began the first such project in McComb and the surrounding counties in the Southwest corner of the state. Their efforts were met with violent repression from state and local lawmen, White Citizens' Council, and Ku Klux Klan resulting in beatings, hundreds of arrests and the murder of voting activist Herbert Lee.^[16]

White opposition to black voter registration was so intense in Mississippi that Freedom Movement activists concluded that all of the state's civil rights organizations had to unite in a coordinated effort to have any chance of success. In February 1962, representatives of SNCC, CORE, and the NAACP formed the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO). At a subsequent meeting in August, SCLC became part of COFO.^[17]

In the Spring of 1962, with funds from the Voter Education Project, SNCC/COFO began voter registration organizing in the Mississippi Delta area around Greenwood, and the areas surrounding Hattiesburg, Laurel, and Holly Springs. As in McComb, their efforts were met with fierce opposition

[Jaybear]

Oh but the Intimidation started way before all that.

Dude, he was comparing the "backlash" to voter intimation.

"Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California

[Ray Agostini]

Youd better brush up on your American History.

http://en.wikipedia....55%E2%80%931968)

Hmmm Blacks where fired from their Jobs and evicted from their homes for trying to Vote. Similarly Mormons where fired from their Jobs for voting and for supporting causes.

The Intimidation of Blacks and voting was what brought all the laws around voting we have to day.

How does most of this equate with what happened to some Mormons (a small minority, and wrongly so) with what happened to Blacks seeking voter rights?

Incidentally:

In an interview posted on the LDS Church's Web site after the speech, Oaks called his analogy a "good one," but acknowledged that intimidation of Mormons in the wake of Prop 8 has not been "as serious as what happened in the South."

Salt Lake Tribune.

"No way near", would be a better term. If we were talking about early Mormon persecution where they some were killed, driven from their homes, and forced to flee the states - that would be a very different matter.

[Zakuska]

Dude, he was comparing the "backlash" to voter intimation.

Apparently You havent even read his discourse.

His whole point was that all the "Backlash" as well as all the Intimidation that happend before the Vote (You do remember that BOTH Yes-on-8 and No-on-8 sent out letters threatening reprisal and boycott to businesses who supported the other side, wasn't anti-religonist. He then says that it was More a kin to Intimidations and threats of backlash heaped against the Blacks.

Did you miss that fact that Blacks where fired from their jobs, and even evicted for trying to vote?

In addition, employers fired blacks who tried to register and landlords evicted them from their homes.^[18]

http://www.crmvet.or...m#1962greenwood

Sounds just like what happend on both side of Prop 8. And exactly what elder oakes was eluding to.