civility

You are currently browsing articles tagged civility.

Sen. Reid sounds a little desperate for a guy who’s in charge of the Senate. Maybe just frustrated.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

UPDATE: Added video.



Do those bothered by Elder Oaks’ comparison in October feel the same about Sen. Reid? Elder Oaks merely said that Prop 8 Supporters faced voter intimidation as did those in the Civil Rights era. He didn’t suggest that Prop 8 opponents were like Jim Crow apologists, or in Reid’s case that Republicans are like slavery apologists.

7 December 2009 @ 12:00 pm | 7 comments

Newsroom commentary: “The Mormon Ethic of Civility”

So many of the habits and conventions of modern culture — ubiquitous media, anonymous and unsourced online participation, politicization of the routine, fractured community and family life — undermine the virtues and manners that make peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society possible. The fabric of civil society tears when stretched thin by its extremities. Civility, then, becomes the measure of our collective and individual character as citizens of a democracy.

16 October 2009 @ 5:16 pm | No comments

“Romney strikes bipartisan tone at GOP fundraiser”

“I also think it’s important for us to nod to the president when he’s right,” Romney said, after chiding the president’s budget. “He will not always be wrong, and he’s done some things I agree with.”

Romney, who spoke at a dinner for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he’s pleased with the president’s plans to “finish the job” in Iraq and Afghanistan — lines that drew applause from the partisan audience. He also applauded the president for standing up to the auto industry.

This strikes me as not only smart politics but the right thing to do. No pretending to be civil with snarky back-handed compliments, but sincere praise when it’s called for. The GOP needs to be the loyal opposition but also needs voices to tamp down any signs of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

2 April 2009 @ 11:49 am | 2 comments

“The Publicity Dilemma” – The Church Responds to Big Love

9 March 2009 @ 12:38 pm | 4 comments

Despite apologies, Tom Hanks and his show, Big Love, continue to show a deliberate insensitivity to Mormons. As outrageous and offensive as I find the description of Big Love’s upcoming episode, I suppose the best thing to do is what I’ve always done and not watch it. Vocal protests or boycotts seem counter-productive and probably just what the show’s producers would like.

The Church’s Newsroom’s response encapsulates the best way to approach this controversy and the many more that will follow in “The Publicity Dilemma.” Essentially: don’t take the bait.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series. As Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Robert D. Hales of the Council of the Twelve Apostles have both said recently, Latter-day Saints in the public arena should conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness.

Not only is this the model that Jesus Christ taught and demonstrated in his own life, but it also reflects the reality of the strength and maturity of Church members today. As someone recently said, “This isn’t 1830, and there aren’t just six of us anymore.” In other words, with a global membership of thirteen and a half million there is no need to feel defensive when the Church is moving forward so rapidly. The Church’s strength is in its faithful members in 170-plus countries, and there is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long-term negative effect on the Church . . .

If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

The commentary also lists recent controversies aimed at the Church (Lawrence O’Donnell, South Park, September Dawn) and its interesting to note how many of them have long been forgotten.

UPDATE: I had forgotten that HBO’s publicists had laid out boycott bait for Mormons when it announced Big Love back in 2005.

EVEN MORE: DKL make a good point that the Church’s statement seems as much for the benefit of members as it does for the media (“don’t go overboard”). In fact, the Church’s homepage now links to it.

While there is much not to be happy with the efforts to bully the LDS Church and other unpopular religions, it’s a good thing that people can still do it.

Unfortunately, the U.N. is making (non-binding) efforts to limit criticism of religions:

In an 83 to 53 vote, with 42 abstentions, the U.N. General Assembly urged nations to provide “adequate protections” in their laws or constitutions against “acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

Only Islam and Muslims are specifically named in this resolution against religious defamation, sponsored by Uganda on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, and cosponsored by Belarus and Venezuela. Opponents included the United States, a majority of European countries, Japan and India.

It turns out that policies like this actually foster violence and give religious fanatics license to kill their critics with a slap on the wrist for “‘failure to inform the police that blasphemy was under way.”

3 February 2009 @ 10:50 am | No comments

“Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Are Two Sides of the Same Coin“:

From the avalanche of vehement and ignorant attacks on Bush v. Gore and the oft-made and oft-refuted allegation that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq, to the remarkable lack of interest in Mr. Obama’s career in Illinois politics and the determined indifference to his wrongness about the surge, wide swaths of the media and the academy have concentrated on stoking passions rather than appealing to reason.

Some will speculate that the outbreak of hatred and euphoria in our politics is the result of the transformation of left-liberalism into a religion, its promulgation as dogma by our universities, and students’ absorption of their professors’ lesson of immoderation. This is unfair to religion.

2 February 2009 @ 3:14 pm | 2 comments

Pray for the President’s Success

21 January 2009 @ 4:14 pm | 8 comments

President Uchtdorf and Elder Ballard reported on their inauguration experience yesterday:

“We could feel the deep emotion around us — we were surrounded by people of all colors, of all creeds and of all languages,” said President Uchtdorf . . . “It was a great experience we had — to see a unity there that I hope will last on and continue throughout the years of this administration.”

and

“I left with a feeling that the people of America are going to unite behind this new president and his administration and that we need to pray for him,” Elder Ballard said. “We need to exercise our prayers and help him accomplish the great objectives that he has set.”

Helpful counsel to encourage all of us to support our new president. After all, we are supposed to honor our rulers.

I don’t think they mean we are supposed to necessarily sign on to the specifics of President Obama’s agenda but his overall efforts to strengthen our nation.

Some encouragement for those of us who didn’t vote for him: the Barack Obama who spoke yesterday sounded a lot different from the one of last year’s primary campaign. Plus, we have an opportunity to not return in kind the derangement syndrome that afflicted many of our fellow citizens for the past eight years.

As my father-in-law wrote in an op-ed this Sunday:

At this point let’s give Obama the benefit of the doubt. After all, his success will be our success.

I agree. I’m sure there will be plenty of issues to disagree and argue over but he is our president. We should hope at the least that he is successful in running and defending our country.

If you need more specifics on how the loyal opposition should behave (or anyone else for that matter), consult this excellent “To Don’t” list for the right.

The Ad Slinging Continues

10 December 2008 @ 3:23 pm | 8 comments

In response to the NY Times ad placed last week defending the LDS Church and others for the Prop 8 backlash, a NY group “Truth Wins Out” is placing an ad in tomorrow’s Salt Lake Tribune.

Rather than refuting the claims of the NY Times ad, the SL Trib ad,  “Lies in the Name of the Lord,” seeks to make out some of the signers of the ad into “some of the most notorious Mormon bashers in America.”  But the ad merely shows that they have theological differences with the Mormon Church.  Not quite Mormon bashing.  It turns out that the Mormon Church has theological differences with the Becket ad signers too.

While Chuck Colson, William Donohue and others may not believe what the Mormon Church teaches, they at least agree that Mormons and other religious people have the right to express themselves, politically and religiously, without threat of intimidation or fear of losing one’s job.

NY Times Ad Defends Mormons

5 December 2008 @ 3:09 pm | 21 comments

Here’s one thing the internet still can’t provide: advocacy ads printed in the NY Times.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has placed a full-page ad in the New York Times today assembling various religious leaders to denounce the recent attacks on the Mormon Church in the wake of Proposition 8. You can see the ad at its companion site NoMobVeto.org.

The ad begins:

We’re a disagreeable lot. We differ about a great many important things. Most, but not all of us, are religious believers. We likewise differ on important moral and legal questions, including the wisdom and justice of California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless we’re united in this: The violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or “Mormon” church, or other religious organizations – and even against individual believers – simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop.

This is the latest of efforts to rally behind the Church’s as it has faced backlash in its support for Propostion 8 (also, see AboveTheHate.com and its open letter to President Monson). There has been speculation that the Church’s involvement with Prop has been a “fiasco.” But such handwringing seems to be from the perspective of those who think a boycott of Sundance would hurt Mormons.

Instead, the Prop 8 aftermath appears to have won the Mormon Church new appreciation among social conservatives. Whether that is momentary or incremental remains to be seen. I don’t think that’s necessarily a gain for the Mormon Church, but it is among those religious conservatives who were too religiously blinded to realize the Church should be a natural ally in many causes.

Did Church critics really want to push the Mormon Church closer to the religious right?

UPDATE: The LDS Church expressed appreciation for the ad:

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expresses its gratitude to the signatories of the full-page advertisement that appeared today in the New York Times. This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack. We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation.”

In short, we preach unity among the community of Saints and tolerance toward the personal differences that are inevitable in the beliefs and conduct of a diverse population. Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.

Strong calls for diversity in the public sector sometimes have the effect of pressuring those holding majority opinions to abandon fundamental values to accommodate the diverse positions of those in the minority. Usually this does not substitute a minority value for a majority one. Rather, it seeks to achieve “diversity” by abandoning the official value position altogether, so that no one’s value will be contradicted by an official or semiofficial position. The result of this abandonment is not a diversity of values but an official anarchy of values. I believe this is an example of BYU visiting professor Louis Pojman’s observation in a recent Universe Viewpoint (October 13, 1998, p. 4) that diversity can be used “as a euphemism for moral relativism.”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Speeches, 9 February 1999 [emphasis added]

3 November 2008 @ 10:17 pm | 1 comment

More Proposition 8 Attacks and a Deep Breath

22 October 2008 @ 9:30 am | 39 comments

I was unaware how crazy it has been in California:

I am not aware of attacks against those who oppose Prop 8 and hope there haven’t been any. But it’s ironic that those who claim Proposition 8 is all about hate seem to have plenty to share.

That said, I hope people don’t use this an an excuse to target gays and lesbians or to retaliate in any way. Too often in politics, a beleagured party hypes up its own martyrdom and some even fake attacks on its own side to provoke more outrage and sympathy (I’m not suggesting that’s the case here).

Regardless of the very troubling actions by an ugly few, it’s important to stick to facts and keep doing what is right.

As frustrating and alarming as these attacks can be, reading Elder Robert D. Hales’ conference talk, “Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship” adds some valuable perspective.

Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to “love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]” (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.

The Prophet Joseph Smith demonstrated this courage throughout his life. Though he “suffer[ed] severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men, both religious and irreligious” (Joseph Smith—History 1:27), he did not retaliate or give in to hatred. Like all true disciples of Christ, he stood with the Savior by loving others in a tolerant and compassionate way. That is Christian courage.

When we do not retaliate—when we turn the other cheek and resist feelings of anger—we too stand with the Savior. We show forth His love, which is the only power that can subdue the adversary and answer our accusers without accusing them in return. That is not weakness. That is Christian courage.

Targeting Mormons on Proposition 8

21 October 2008 @ 10:45 am | 35 comments

The Daily Kos does not appear to be a champion of free speech.

Last week Daily Kos removed a post criticizing the site for its anti-Mormon bigotry.

Now it is rallying its followers to target Mormons who have donated to the Proposition 8 campaign. Once identified, the plan is to dig into their backgrounds, with the hopes of harassing and discrediting their efforts.

As a matter of fact, the No on Prop 8 folks told me recently that the “Protect Marriage” campaign has raised $30 million dollars–over half of it from the Mormon Church. Now, I have nothing personally against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They most certainly have the constitutional right to worship in their own way. They have the right to minister in whatever way they see fit and to marry whomever they see fit in their churches based on any qualifications they choose. And they will be well within their rights.

But when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state’s constitution and divorce my friend Brian against his will, there will be hell to pay.

So what am I asking you to do?

Some distributed research.

There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here’s a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here’s what I’m asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign–donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars. And, as you can see, there are a lot of them. It also indicates if they’re Mormon or not.

If you’re interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here’s how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal. Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to…shall we say…less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious. If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity . . .

Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using “morality” as their primary motivation to support Prop 8…if you find anything that belies that in any way…well, you know what to do . . .

Here’s the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny–because I, for one, won’t take it lying down.

Unfortunately, the media has played along with this emphasis by making Mormon donations to support Proposition 8 a major issue (never mind the millions big celebrities and others have given to opppose it).

I thought it was odd that the Associated Press included a link in this story to a site called Mormons for Proposition 8, which at first blush would appear to be a pro-Mormon site in the church’s efforts to preserve traditional marriage. However, it’s a ruse to “out” all Mormon donors and its purported benign motives have been betrayed by the Daily Kos.

Forget debating on the merits. When your personal politics is on the line, “by any means necessary” is an acceptable tactic. Personally attacking people and making their lives miserable is acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of your idea of “fairness.”

P.S. Besides this coordinated harassment campaign, here’s an isolated but a very disturbing incident of violence against a Prop 8 supporter.

P.P.S. How are donors being identified as Mormon?

[via The Corner]

J. shares Heber J. Grant’s thoughts on politics:

I regret exceedingly that in political controversies men seem to lack that courtesy and that respect for their opponents that I believe all Latter-day Saints ought to have. I have never yet heard a Democrat make a political speech that I felt was fair to the Republicans. Being a Democrat, I shall not say anything about what I think of the speeches of Republicans regarding Democrats…From my own personal contact with dear and near friends, Republicans and Democrats, I have not been able to discover the exercise of what you might call charity, if you like, for the opinions of others who oppose them politically; at least not as much charity as should exist among our people.

19 August 2008 @ 12:32 am | 2 comments

Mormon Grassroots: The Sutherland Institute

22 July 2008 @ 7:27 pm | No comments

This is the third of occasional posts looking at various Mormon-related grassroots political organizations.

Although the Sutherland Institute is not strictly a Mormon organization, it’s focus on Utah and its culture invariably lends it to cover issues that are of concern to latter-day saints. The Institute has published an essay series for civic-minded LDS called Transcend for Latter-day Saints.

Katie Christensen, Manager of Public Relations of The Sutherland Institute was kind enough to respond to some questions.

1. Why and when was the Sutherland Institute formed?
The Sutherland Institute was founded in 1995 by Gaylord Swim as a way to transcend impulsive, convenient, or self-serving policies and politics by looking for truly lasting solutions – solutions that both serve the common good and that also sustain time-tested principles of freedom and prosperity.

2. What are the priorities of the Sutherland Institute?
Simply put, Sutherland is most concerned with strengthening families, promoting a culture of faith and morality, and securing our God-given liberties for ourselves and future Utahns. As such, Sutherland Institute is committed to shaping Utah law and policy based on a core set of governing principles:

• Personal Responsibility as the basis of self-government
• Family as the fundamental unit of society
• Religion as the moral compass of human progress
• Private Property as the cornerstone of economic freedom
• Free markets as the engine of economic prosperity
• Charity as the wellspring of a caring community
• Limited Government as the essence of good government

We believe that these principles will ultimately make Utah an example of good government for the rest of the nation and a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

Read the rest of this entry »

Elder Ballard’s Call to Inform

21 April 2008 @ 5:10 pm | 3 comments

On the heels of attending a prayer service for Pope Benedict the 16th, Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke at the BYU Management Society dinner this weekend.  The dinner is an annual gathering in Washington, D.C. that includes area members as well as prominent people and dignitaries. 

Elder Ballard’s speech surveyed the church’s experience in the public eye for the last year and repeated his recent calls to engage in public and online discussions about the Church. His overall conclusion was that the past year has been a good experience, saying “I’d much rather have people talking about us than ignoring us.”  Most of the confusion results from those caught between two extremes of critics: conservative Christians who try to marginalize the Church as a cult and those opposed to the Church’s political stands on moral issues.
Read the rest of this entry »

“The Mechanics of the Man Hug.” This was required on my mission in Costa Rica almost as much as prayers were.

11 March 2008 @ 2:57 pm | No comments

The ‘I Hate Romney’ Club.  It just doesn’t appear that the other campaigns hate Romney, they have been colluding behind the scenes as well. 

To be sure, the candidates’ staffs do seem to have bonded in their dislike of Romney. “It was very common for e-mails to be flying around between the Thompson, McCain and Giuliani campaigns,” says the former Thompson staffer, “Saying, ‘No matter what happens with us, we all need to make sure it’s not him.’” The staffer says that campaigns would share opposition research on Romney and offer each other tips on how best to undermine him: “Like, ‘Hey, I saw you hit Mitt on immigration — have you thought about going after him on this issue?” In some cases, the attitude even extends to the top of the campaigns. The night of the Iowa caucuses, after getting a congratulatory call from McCain, Huckabee told the candidate, according to aides: “Now it’s your turn to kick his butt.” . . .

But such jibes mask more substantive complaints that many of the candidates have about Romney. “What Romney has done,” says a Huckabee adviser, “he’s attacked people for positions he once held. That annoys people. And he uses his own money to do it, which rubs it in.” He’s gone after McCain on campaign finance reform (which he once supported), Huckabee on tax increases (Huckabee countered that Romney’s raised “fees” amounted to the same thing), and nearly all the candidates on immigration.

Of course, McCain and Huckabee have similarly “evolved” on issues and seem downright jealous that they don’t have his personal fortune or fundraising success.

4 February 2008 @ 10:29 am | No comments

George Weigel was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on dealing with radical Islam and gave a great explanation of what true tolerance is:

The prerequisite for serious inter-religious dialogue is a frank acknowledgement of differences. Tolerance does not mean ignoring differences, as if differences don’t make a difference. Tolerance means engaging difference with civility and respect, but with a clear understanding of your own moral values as applied to politics, and why they’re worth defending. That’s the only kind of dialogue that’s going to support those Islamic reformers, and they do exist, who wish to create an Islamic case for civility, tolerance and the free society as we understand it.

3 January 2008 @ 11:19 am | No comments

Don’t Forget, Mormonism is Not the Issue!

13 November 2007 @ 10:05 am | 3 comments

Last week, John McCain was quick to repudiate his mother’s pointed comments on Mitt Romney and “the Mormons of Salt Lake”:

“Mormons are great people and the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon should play no role whatsoever in people’s decision,” McCain said. 

But, Jay Nordingler observes a pattern that I have noticed especially coming from the McCain camp (thanks, Article VI Blog).

In future weeks — especially if Romney remains strong in the polls — we should expect to hear statements from the other candidates, along the lines of, “I don’t think the governor’s Mormonism should be an issue in this race.” I think of what John Edwards did, in the vice-presidential debate of 2004: He talked about the Cheneys’ gay daughter (he used the word “lesbian”). (At least he didn’t say “lezbo.”)

Question: Was Edwards simply and innocently making a point about gay marriage? Or was he reminding Americans that the Cheneys had a gay daughter?

And when Republican candidates say, “I don’t think the governor’s Mormonism should be an issue in this race,” will they be making a genuine statement about religion and politics — or reminding people that Romney is Mormon?

I’ve long suspected this as a clever way to focus on the negative implications of a Mormon candiate while appearing otherwise.

The McCain campaign seems to do this especially.  I remember this from this past April:

Stevens, a McCain media adviser, picked up on what McInturff said, seemingly sounding a sympathetic note about what may be a problem for Romney’s campaign. “Mitt Romney is not saying elect me because I’m Mormon and I think that is an important distinction,” he said.

But Castellanos didn’t see the McCain team’s comments as sympathetic to his candidate. He saw them as a backhanded way to put the issue of Romney’s religion into play. “I appreciate the defense today just as much as I appreciate the attacks by the other folks,” he said icily. “It’s awfully nice to be able to whack an opponent and defend him in the same breath.”

Advisers for both campaigns agreed that the media has contributed to this problem by highlighting polls that show, for example, that a third of voters say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who happens to be a Mormon. But Castellanos would not let got of his contention that Romney’s rivals were feeding that story line by decrying it.

Castellanos said he found it interesting that the campaigns of the two best-known GOP candidates appeared anxious to define the lesser-known Romney at least in part through his religion, saying they knew well the political implications of focusing on that topic.

I guess this beats the more direct and ugly attacks that a McCain surrogate tried last year.

“Let me keep reminding you, this man’s strange religion should not be the issue!“

Harry Reid Blew It

12 October 2007 @ 10:55 am | 8 comments

Speaking before one of the most conservative schools in one of the most conservative areas in the country (registered Republicans outnumber Democrats 11 to 1), Senator Reid was before an audience that is rarely visited by a prominent Democrat.  Senator Reid’s speech on “Faith, Family and Public Service” (PDF) (video and mp3 audio) did a very good job discussing his humble uprbringing, his conversion, and how his personal beliefs inform his Democratic politics.  

Discussing why ”I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it” was a great demonstration that a faithful Mormon can be a Democrat.  Indeed, Senator Reid couldn’t be a better asset in the Church’s continuing struggle to show that it is politically neutral.  I imagine that the Church was very happy to welcome Reid to show that that it is hospitable to both parties and to highlight the fact that the most prominent LDS politician, ever, is a Democrat.

Unfortunately, Senator Reid’s talk was overshadowed by his comments in a following BYU press appearance where he:

  • criticized President Benson and other conservative church leaders who have “taken members of the church down . . . the wrong path”
  • implied church members are easily swayed and became politically conservative because they were misled
  • childishly insulted our President (not the first time he has done this at a school)
  • slammed conservative evangelicals: ”They are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right.”  (Does anyone see the irony in that statement?)

Whatever you may feel about his opinions, the resulting headlines:  “Reid: Right-wingers have taken LDS Church members down ‘wrong path’ ” and “Reid speaks out against past Mormon leaders” probably aren’t going to help sway anyone who thinks that being a good Democrat and Mormon is a paradox.

Even more embarassing for the Church are his comments about President Bush and conservative christians.   This has received some attention (and justifiable outrage) from conservative blogs but not enough in the Bloggernacle, unlike some subjects.  Not living in Utah, I don’t know how this has played out beyond newspaper articles.

At the end of his speech, Sen. Reid quoted Alma and  and then bore his testimony where he said (transcribed from audio, not in his prepared text but partially included in the BYU press release):

“I want each of you to leave this great education you have and go out and do good things for people.  Represent the Church.  Make people like President Gordon B. Hinckley happy with what you are doing, the life you are leading.”

Senator Reid promptly forgot his own counsel and undid any good he may have done with his impressive talk.  Too bad.

A Civil Welcome for Sen. Reid

9 October 2007 @ 10:04 am | 1 comment

Does it say anything that very conservative BYU won’t be protesting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s BYU appearance today?  Take that in contrast to the hype and hysteria that attended Vice-President Cheney’s commencement speech six months ago.  Maybe it doesn’t mean anything, Reid is LDS after all.  But I imagine many, if not most, at BYU have more in common politically with the Vice-President than the Senator.

Fortunately, the Deseret Morning News has the non-story that no protests are expected during Reid’s BYU visit today. The most that could be dug up are some comments on the Free Republic that someone should bring a protest sign. Hopefully, that’s an empty threat.

As much as I disagree with Senator Reid’s politics and rhetoric as a Democratic leader, I do hope all goes well today.  His appearance will hopefully raise his visibility as a prominent (and Democratic) Mormon that will help the Church and its members smooth over some of the political divides among us.  

I liked Dean Magelby’s closing in his op-ed on welcomg Sen. Reid:

Within the church there can be and should be room for disagreement about political matters. At the 1968 Commencement exercises President Hugh B. Brown encouraged students to “strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion, and a depth of spirit which will enable you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of our definition of religious orthodoxy a variation in political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent.”

Senator Reid will be speaking on faith, family, and public service.