'Non-Christian,' 'Cult' Usage Have Same Motive

Have I mentioned that I love Michael Otterson, Head of Public Affairs for the Church? Well, I do. If I could have a dream job, it would be his, but I doubt I'd be able to state things as 'English' as he does.

In his most recent article written for the Washington Post, he talks about how the word 'cult' is still used (albeit in a sometimes roundabout way) to describe Mormons by many publications around the world. He got a little feisty. And I liked it. He explains why good journalists, who should know better, keep throwing around the word cult as a way to describe Mormons:

Because it’s a neat, shorthand and rather lazy way of putting a whole group into a box. Once labeled as a cult, there is not much need to explain all of the baggage that comes with it - the implicit ideas of extremism, mind control, authoritarianism and secrecy that play perfectly into the kind of rigid stereotypes beloved of the ignorant and bigoted. Journalists could and should do better than perpetuate this kind of shallowness when referring to the fourth largest church in the United States. Rather than continuing to parrot it, it’s time they pushed back against those who choose to use it.

My first reaction is, "Yeah, that's right! You're being lazy journalists!"

My second reaction is that using this type of pejorative language is also the reason many continue to claim that Mormons aren't Christian. As soon as a person (especially politician or pundit), says Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, and all Mormons are not Christians, they are not necessarily attacking our doctrine (because they probably don't know it). They are attempting to put Mormons in a neat little box that is 'implicit of ideas of extremism, mind control, authoritarianism and secrecy...' I would also add that they are attempting to imply that Mormons are less patriotic, less moral and have a secret agenda...because only Christians can be patriotic, moral and have pure intentions (please not that last part is dripping with sarcasm). It's easier to say Mormons are a cult and not Christian than to actually do the work, research and be fair with such labels.

And probably not for the last time, it should not matter if someone is Christian or not when running for the Presidency. If Barrack Obama says he's a Christian, than he's a Christian to me. If he said he was a Muslim, fine. It is not a person's religion that matters to me, it is whether their politics, morals and views are similar to mine. If that means the agnostic candidate is most similar to me, than great; I'll vote for him or her. Come on people!

Courts Should Not Be Involved in Hindu-Vegetarian Case

This news story about 16 strict vegetarian Hindus who are suing a restaurant that mistakenly gave them samosas with meat in them has a lot of people talking. They are suing for the restaurant to pay for all of them to go to India to bathe in the Ganges River as part of a cleansing ceremony that can, apparently, take anywhere from three to thirty days.

Are these restaurant patrons taking advantage of our litigious society? Have they really been irreparably harmed? I think the answer is no to both of these questions.

I don't want to discount the feelings and emotional distress that these people probably genuinely feel by (even accidentally) offending their faith. As a person who holds strict religious standards (and Mormons are notorious for their guilt over mistakes), I can understand how seriously they are taking this. That being said, it does seem extreme to demand a trip to bathe in one of the dirtiest rivers in the world for a month...especially if there's another solution as mentioned at the end of the article.
In discussing this story, a local radio show host stated that these people had no case because they were not actually harmed. If they had been made physically sick, then they would have a case. But, because the harm was spiritual and emotional, and, thus not tangible, they should not be rewarded monetarily. He went on to say that the harm was fake because all religion was fake, even if they individuals think it is real.

While I certainly don't agree with this host that religion is fake, I do think there is a fine line to be walked when suing tangible gain for harm that one believes has been done and harm that has actually been done. I am certainly not an expert on the Hindu religion, however, as stated at the end of the article, there must be a way for this restaurant to pay for its mistake without spending the thousands of the dollars it would cost to send all these people to India for a month (maybe putting that restaurant out of business). Perhaps the cleansing ceremony at a local temple would suffice, but these people see an opportunity for more and want to take advantage. How to prove what one believes will actually cleanse them will be a tough case in the court of law with each side bringing it's own Hindu 'experts' to discuss proper cleansing rituals, etc. Seems like this case will go round and round eventually showing that no one is right or wrong.

So, maybe in that sense the lawsuit is wrong, not because of the restaurant's negligence cannot be proven, but because an appropriate way to cleanse cannot be agreed upon. The courts should have no place determining what is and is not a proper cleansing ritual for these individuals; that should be left up to their religious leaders. Since both the restaurant and the patrons and Hindus, perhaps, if the courts decide to not take this case, it will force the religious leaders of these two sides to come up with an alternate solution that can be agreed upon in the appropriate religious arena.

What's the Big (Love) Idea?

Could I share my husband with another woman? No, I can't even share my chocolate. Does that mean other women shouldn't have the choice to share their husband if they want to? I think they should have that choice. So, I LOVE that 'Sister Wives' polygamist family is bringing this law suit...even if it is doomed to fail. The fact that they are not necessarily seeking recognition, simply an escape from legal prosecution, speaks volumes to the fact that all they want to do is be left alone and practice what they believe in. More power to them.

First things first. I am a member of the mainstream LDS church, which stopped participating in plural marriage in the 1890's; Mormons who are a part of the practice are excommunicated and/or are usually members of a fringe Mormon sect. I do not think the LDS church will bring polygamy back (now there's a Justin Timberlake song) nor is it a practice I personally believe in. It served its purpose in our history and is no longer practiced.

However, I do not understand why polygamy has been and continues to be labeled as such an evil practice. I am no expert, but I did minor in Anthropology at university and with that comes quite a bit of study of different marital practices in different cultures. In a non-Mormon context, polygamy is explained as a way for several women to be taken care of financially, socially, etc. by one man. It's not a condescending situation, it's practical. Historically, when people died young and at very high rates, women needed someone to help them as they raised their families, took care of their homes, and (rarely) worked to make a small income. Women in these situations participated in polygamy because it met their needs...not because they were sexual prey. In fact, because women in polygamous marriages did not have the constant presence of their husbands and everything that brought, one could argue these women were, in fact, more independent than their monogamous counterparts.

However, in every single anthropology class I took, whenever 'polygamy' and 'Mormons' were mentioned in the same sentence, there were dismissive laughs and giggles. These were slightly offensive since it was obvious people were ignorant about the Church's current position on polygamy, but I also never understood the double standard. How was polygamy perfectly acceptable historically and currently in foreign cultures/religions, but not for Mormons? True, our Norther-European, Puritan heritage explains why people worked fervently against Utah statehood for many years because of polygamy. But in this academic setting of supposed higher learning, open-mindedness, and objectivity in the 21st Century, I expected a little more...consistency.

And now, in a country where 41% of children are born to unmarried mothers, how does it make sense to prosecute (and persecute) consenting adults who want to be married, but cannot because the government says they can't be married to more than one person? Would they prefer them to be unwed and supported by the government instead of by their spouse? I'd be interested to know how the state figures out what is a polygamous marriage and not just a few 'co-habitating, swingers'. I bet if they stated it that way on their census forms, then the people would just think 'Oh, that's just an alternative lifestyle. Whatever works for them.' But label it polygamy and you've got instant judgement...and criminality.

What's more, where there are so many vocal gay marriage proponents in this country, how does polygamy not make sense? It's just another kind of family, right? Gay rights proponents (and celebrities) should jump on this bandwagon.

Of course polygamous marriages should follow the same rules as monogamous marriage in our culture. Everyone getting married should be consenting adults; no 12 year old brides. Husbands (and wives) entering into a polygamous marriage have an obligation to support all their children; if they can't do it, then don't add another wife (or use birth control). Anyone should be allowed to the leave marriage as they see fit, especially if their is abuse, emotional neglect, etc. As long as these standards and others are being met, leave polygamists alone.

Instead of prosecuting these families who try to take care of each other and work together (at least the way the family on this show portrays it), I'd much rather see law enforcement going after baby daddies (including professional athletes) who have many children by different mothers and baby-mamas who have multiple children by different men and depend on the government for support.

I wish these 'Sister Wives' the best of luck in their legal endeavor, but am under no illusions it will do more than bring attention to their cause, which is what they want. I hope they succeed in informing the public, but I'm not about to start sharing my chocolate because of it.