Editor's Note: CNN Salt Lake City affiliate KSTU has this report about a protest outside the headquarters of the Mormon Church.
I read this CNN news article with great interest this afternoon. The thought came to me, are we moving into an period where we cannot disagree in a civil way. The argumentation of the protesters seem to be if you disagree with us you're driving people to suicide. That seems like a slippery slope to me. With loss of life in the balance, I must wonder if it is possible to have a civil disagreement over this issue?
Please don't read this thinking that I am aligning myself with the Mormon Church. I’m not. Also, don't read this thinking that I'm condoning the harsh and dishonorable way many people who are in the more conservative moral group have spoken and acted toward homosexuals. I am not. The question for me is can we actually disagree? I can envision how the suicide issue could be turned into a leverage point to legislate criminal action against disagreement over the issue of homosexuality.
What are your thoughts on this?
Well put John. I think we are tracking. I think I can be agree (affirm real people) and disagree (hold varying perspectives) because of honor and love for real people. I will doggedly hold to a hope that we can be in dialogue, agree-disagree and still love one another.
If we can’t figure that out, we are in pretty deep water – and we can’t hope for a authenticate, healthy pluralism.
Thanks for weighing in.
Huh.
It makes me uncomfortable because the protest and the commentary represent two different oppositions whose juxtaposition is dangerous.
An LGBT protest of someone’s commentary can be both civil and appropriate, just as this Mormon leader’s commentary can be. A time of mourning for the dead can be civil and appropriate as well; it seems to me that the “peaceful” protest here is still one reeking of aggression and anger.
If we separated the two actions instead of multi-tasking to increase press coverage, the entire problem in question would be solved: we would have civil discourse and expression on the topic.
Westboro Baptist was kind enough to give us an example of sensationalism from the other side of the fence: http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre69548o-us-usa-court/
In this they turn it into a sensationalist question of First Amendment rights instead of the real problem at stake, which is privacy and respect. WB is disrespecting a family and disrupting their time of mourning instead of choosing an acceptable forum to voice their disapproval.
I think we can disagree civilly; I think the problem is the degree to which we try to showboat our positions.