Bigotry Acceptable in Utah?
The term “bigot” has become incredibly popular in recent months, especially in light of polarizing political issues like Proposition 8.
After the Big Love controversy between HBO and some members of the LDS Church, the word “bigotry” is being used again, bu this time, to describe the rabid anti-Mormonism of some within the state of Utah.
An article titled, “Bigotry Against Mormons Apparently Acceptable in Utah” was recently published in the Salt Lake Tribune. The author: a professor from the University of Northern Iowa and regularly writes for the Waterloo Courier… oh, and he is a Mormon (that was for all the anti-Mormons who were about to consider reading the piece).
His argument? Utah is a breeding-ground for bigotry, but not necessarily against homosexuals or a certain religious denomination, but against Mormons themselves. And interestingly enough, the author claims that this kind of virulent hatred of Mormons is mostly a Utah phenomenon. And coming from someone who has lived all over this country, I can’t disagree.
From The Salt Lake Tribune:
Here is the response of a Utahn commenting on a Salt Lake Tribune online blog concerning HBO’s attempt in its series “Big Love” to increase its revenues by publicly insulting the religious sensitivity of a minority religion: “Anything that gets the LDS “church’s magical Mormon underwear in a twist is all right with me!!”
I write for a regional newspaper in Iowa. During the last election campaign, I suggested that Mitt Romney lost the Iowa caucus to Mike Huckabee primarily due to anti-Mormon bigotry. A reader argued that my opinion had no credence because I was a lay leader in the LDS Church. The writer was either suggesting that I knew exactly what I was talking about and was therefore credible, or that I shouldn’t be believed because I was a Mormon, which implies that the writer was a bigot.
This person didn’t realize his logical error because once bigotry has become normative within a culture, people come to believe that their biases are not only acceptable, but universal.
This year, I began reading the online version of The Salt Lake Tribune. My experience has been both eye-opening and troubling. First I noticed that The Tribune has a permanent “polygamy” tab on its Web site. Interesting, but I assumed it was just the titillating bait that most online sites have for catching the voyeuristic.
However, after a few weeks of reading messages to the posted blogs, it became apparent that there was a darker side.
It is obvious to an outsider that Utah, or at least Salt Lake City, has within itself a deeply held culture of bigotry. A bigotry so ingrained in the cultural norm that the readers posting comments to the newspaper’s blogs, apparently believing they are freethinking and ironic, are saying things online that would never be allowed into print if written about other groups. The Tribune and Utah bloggers seem unaware of this.
I noticed that after Utah and BYU athletic events, many bloggers simply use the occasion to display anti-Mormon hatred that had little relevance to the actual game.
After a recent BYU loss, readers wrote items such as: “The Angel Moroni must have been taking a smoke break to allow this to have happened!”
“On the bright side, Coug fans … at least you’ll have your whole Saturday to gamble, drink and hit the strip clubs before you go to church tomorrow.”
A common assertion is that “BYU is the most hated team in America.” This is an irrational but characteristic statement of those who think like bigots.
I can assure you that most people care very little about college sports, and even less about BYU sports. But one of the defining characteristics of prejudice is the belief that others hold the same bias as the bigot. During the segregation era in the South, many whites simply assumed that all “right-thinking” people held the same prejudices against blacks as they did.
Another common theme that shows up in Utah blogs is the claim that BYU fans and players are arrogant. This may or may not be true, but having lived in Ohio for a time, I can attest that Ohio State fans are very similar. They are very proud of their school and identify with the teams, but that is simply attributed to the nature of sports.
Marginalized groups, however, are supposed to know their place. They should never get uppity. I can remember how shocked I was as a young man in the rural South at the actions of an adult black couple. Both they and I were going through a door into a business at the same time. It was apparently unacceptable that they should hinder my entrance in any way. They stood back against a wall and looked at the ground until this white boy entered the store.
Mormons are not Amish, they are not blacks in the Jim Crow South, and they have no obligation to meet the standards set by others who despise them for their religious beliefs. There is, however, an obligation to treat the religious beliefs of well-meaning people with restraint and respect.
Dennis Clayson is a professor at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls and a columnist for the Waterloo Courier.
As mentioned before, I agree with Clayson in his charge that Utah is fostering a fierce bigotry which is too often categorized as mere “irony” or “non-conformity.” As I have said many times before, out of the eight different states in which I have lived, Utah is by far the most polarized. Not to mention, in my experience, the anti-Mormonism here is undeniably worse in Utah than anywhere else, including Southern Missouri- a Baptist stronghold.
If you still disagree with some of the points discussed by Clayson, just “go to the source.” It isn’t difficult to find the “bigotry” indicated, especially when you have access to the comments sections of the Salt Lake Tribune, Herald Journal’s homepages, or Utah blogs like OneUtah.org.
Does Utah have a strong culture of bigotry against Mormons? While the LDS population may be the majority, I tend to believe that there is. What do you think?
Oh, and keep in mind that the following comments may just prove Clayson’s point.
- Marc
Leave a Reply
Mar 24th 2009 • 17:03
by Craig
This guy is a professor, and he bases his theory on comments on a newspaper website?!?! I’m sure we could look at the Waterloo Courier website and find quite a few similar comments. Someone should write a response based on that. And then he cites a collegiate sports rivalry as further “evidence?” This is a quintessential case of grasping at straws.
Mar 24th 2009 • 18:03
by North Logan Tyson
Hmmm. Craig has a good point.
But, to address the issue myself, I think that religious bigotry is not accepted by the majority. Despite plenty of anecdotal evidence that there is strong bigotry against the LDS church here, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is not tolerated (or “accepted”)by true believers and non-believers alike. Take this post for example. Religious bigotry exists for sure, but “Acceptable”? Far from it, from where I am sitting.
Mar 24th 2009 • 21:03
by Tom Grover
Though more articulate and subtle than commenters on news sites, I feel that Rebecca Walsh of the Tribune fits this description to a tee. She writes with a pretentious and pious tone as if she were sent here to enlighten the largely ignorant (Mormon and conservative) masses. There has not yet been a social ill that Walsh hasn’t found a way to link to the nefarious LDS Church, its members, doctrine and/or culture.
The “Great Divide” in Utah is a problem everyone is responsible to fix, Mormon & Gentile. Each side has those who are innocent and those who are culpable.
Let me also say that some of the most ugly and unintelligent comments are made following news stories. I don’t read them anymore, especially on the Herald Journal site. This is part of why I insist on distinguishing bloggers from commenters. The qualatative difference is an important distinction to recognize.
Mar 24th 2009 • 22:03
by Jonas
This seems to be an obvious argument to anyone with marginal critical thinking. Anytime a group feels disenfranchised by a majority, controlling the religious and secular environment and they believe that it infringes upon their rights you’re going to have an anti-whateveristhemajority sentiment. In Utah when someone says “the Church” you know exactly what their talking about, living in Utah the thoughts of Mormonism are never far for the believers and non alike. It permeates every facet of society from the culture to the government (not that this is wrong, the culture simply projects the people, with larger groups getting a larger influence) This same argument could be made anywhere with similar circumstances. While this article is an interesting analogy for bigotry everywhere, its basic message is an obvious one.
Mar 25th 2009 • 11:03
by Scott Stevenson
I’d be interested for any of the Mormons here to post what their definition is of an “anti-Mormon”. I’ve come to believe that it’s really lost most of it’s meaning since I don’t see much distinction being made between Ed Dekker, Rebecca Walsh, somebody that jokes about Moroni taking a smoke break, and someone that says they just don’t believe Joseph Smith was trustworthy.
Mar 26th 2009 • 09:03
by Harry Caines
Marc,
I find it peculiar that we should be in a class together where we currently are discussing the tactics of counterinsurgents against superior forces and your publishing of this article.
For decades, Mormon sensibilities not only turned Utah into a theocratic oligarchy, but also subjected Utah to the butt of jokes by both liberals and fundamental Christians across this country. This is a direct result of the laws and “culture” of Utah, which is slightly bizarre.
A minority, as you should know from our current class discussions, does not follow the rules set by the majority; not if they oppose those rules. So, the majority of this state, you know…the MORMONS, take umbrage when they are called out on how they run this state. If someone like, oh ME, claims that Mormon dogma is the main(if not sole) source for the laws that are inflicted upon all Utahns, then I am called a bigot. When reason is used to argue against such quirky, counter-productive, and useless laws, we are given talking points that are loaded with Mormon Doctrine class code words.
Bigotry is a complete intolerance against a group based on beliefs. If those beliefs are being used to pass laws which rule over those who deny the validity of those beliefs, then bigotry is not only acceptable, but also ineluctable.
Those who rule unjustly may be attacked by any means necessary.
I would like to finish this post with my personal explaination of my own behavior. I accept, but will never agree with, the moniker of “Mormon basher”. If thinking the Joseph Smith story is a fraud is the criterion for that title, then I deserve it. If believing Utah is run by small minded people who use Mormon ideology to maintain the laws of this state in lieu of smart, pragmatical, inclusive policy…then put a big ol’ scarlet MB on my Aggie shirts.
Is this truly bigotry? Or, do I just argue in a way that those in the majority simply do not like? Is it not easy to ask for civility when you have the votes to ignore a civil argument when the time to vote comes up?
My “Mormon loving” cred is pretty solid. For 11 years, Mormon missionaries found safe refuge in my home back in Philly. They were fed by me when no one else lifted a finger to cook for them. I called their families to ensure them that their sons were safe and being looked after.
My father and I spent many Saturdays driving to Swedesboro, New Jersey to pick up food orders from the Bishop’s storehouse. We drove those orders to the most hideously dilapidated neighborhoods in Philadelphia. We did this because no one else would. Despite not being True Believing Mormons, we had a problem with children not having food in their kitchen.
I accept the bigotry tag. It is given to me by people who do not know my character. It is given to me by people who rarely find the courage to fight what is obviously wrong. If bigotry is the desire to openly dissent against a majority that is themselves bigots, then I gleefully thank those who call me the B word.
Mar 26th 2009 • 10:03
by North Logan Tyson
It could be said that venomous bigotry is aimed from both sides of the “front lines” of belief in the LDS church.
I have seen plenty of bigotry aimed toward those that do not fall in line and treat the LDS church’s stance with kid gloves or starry-eyed conformity… even those that simply disagree without venom.
I could consider bigotry toward so-called “anti-mormons” is just as acceptable here in Utah as the bigotry against the LDS church if we are to go on anecdotes.
Mar 26th 2009 • 12:03
by Federal Farmer
I think that both Tyson and Harry are missing the point of the post.
I don’t think that your opinions necessary qualify “bigotry.” It is how opinions are expressed that often indicate a deeper hatred which can qualify as bigotry. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with LDS doctrine, leadership, or even thinking that “Mormon culture” is silly. Yet as demonstrated by the comment of many on Utah blogs and news-sites, these “opinions” are not merely ideas but expressions of hatred. When Mormons are all lumped together and assigned sinister character traits by this venomous rabble, it qualifies bigotry.
The article openly discussed a growing trend of outright hatred of Mormons. It isn’t merely a repudiation of LDS beliefs, there is a firery hatred brewing in the hearts of many of these individuals, which if directed against any other recognizable minority group (African-Americans, Latinos, or religiously, Jews and/or Muslims), it would be receiving a lot more attention and scrutiny. Bigotry is being tolerated and even encouraged in Utah by a very vocal group of people.
Tyson in NL (I am from NL also, BTW), bigotry exists in every population, regardless of their background; of course it exists among Mormons. But as I mentioned before, don’t interpret criticism or even impoliteness as “bigotry.” Bigotry deals with hatred, not just petty disagreements and/or disapproval… when Mormons “hate” a specific group the way that these bigots do (as referred to above), then they too are guilty of bigotry.
But what I am witnessing is a bigotry which is being tolerated and promoted by individuals who not only feel that they are perhaps “non-conformists” and “freethinkers,” but they consider themselves in many cases to be “open-minded” in every circumstance. The fact is, they are bigots, and that is clear.
Mar 26th 2009 • 12:03
by BeerGod
In that same vein, Federal Farmer, the LDS Church’s involvement in the Prop. 8 battle in Calif., could also be seen as their pure, outright, hatred of homosexual individuals. I guess when you hate, it’s easy to recognize hatred. Is that what you meant?
Mar 26th 2009 • 14:03
by Dion Rebalkin
@BeerGod
Being “seen as their pure, outright, hatred” and actually expressing “pure, outright, hatred” are different things. And you may be right when you say that “when you hate, it’s easy to recognize hatred.” It may just be as right to say that “when you hate you find hate where there isn’t”
Mar 26th 2009 • 18:03
by Derek
I do believe that there is a strong streak of resentment towards the LDS Church in Utah. But I believe that it is exaggerated by the LDS community, as we have a rather strong persecution complex. I would also note that the resentment is in a great number of cases based on the actions of LDS members, through our self-righteousness and our attempts to use the law to force our values upon others.
Mar 27th 2009 • 01:03
by Federal Farmer
BeerGod,
Proposition 8 was a democratic issue which was not, for many, based on hatred. Opposing “rights” fabricated out of thin air is not hatred. It’s funny how “hatred” is being called out against Mormons who support a citizen-led proposition, but of course the activists who retaliated was just another “expression of free speech,” right? Come on, the gay marriage rhetoric is stale, BeerGod. We are talking about people who specifically attack Mormons for being Mormons. Voting for Proposition 8 wasn’t necessarily a form of hatred, and frankly, to say so is downright ridiculous. I supported Proposition 8, and because I know my own motivations for doing so, I will be the one to tell you that it wasn’t based on “hatred.” Basically, voting for an initiative and publicly demeaning a group of people through hateful language are different… and I don’t understand why you can’t see that.
Derek, some may “exaggerate” the hatred, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or that it is unimportant. And I sense that you are attempting to justify hatred because Mormons have the tendency to be “self-righteous” and force “values upon others.” Maybe you find bigotry more tolerable when directed at your own religious denomination, or perhaps you take it as a personal challenge to try to understand the malicious intolerance of these individuals… I on the other hand believe such attempts to be pointless and degrading. When I meet people who viciously attack African-Americans because of relevant policy issues like Affirmative Action, Reparations, Minority Contracting Privileges, etc., I don’t take the time or thought to rationalize their attitudes or behavior, nor do I entertain the idea that in some way, this minority group is deserving of such trashy treatment because of some injustice committed by members of that group. I see hatred for what it is, HATRED. Undoubtedly if this kind of treatment was directed at a more convenient group of people, one that society has consistently defended, I am sure that you would rally to their defense. But when Mormons are attacked, it is just too tempting to justify the ugly contempt of a group of truly unreasonable people… is the price of their acceptance that attractive?
And no, Derek, legislating one’s values does not justify bigotry. While the vocal minority of Mormon-haters would like to see themselves as special envoys from the “real world,” I would like to point out that any group, be it Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, Jewish, Rastafarian, Orthodox Christian, maybe African-American, Latino, Hmong, or even the high-minded liberals out there… if this group finds itself in a position to exercise power and influence, it WILL attempt to legislate its values. To do so is not only legal, but the very system of government which the United States supports was designed to provide for it.
Don’t believe me? Step outside of Utah for a moment and take a look at California. Wouldn’t you describe the strong support of environmental policy, entitlement programs, and/or a progressive tax code representative of the values of Californians? As a former resident of California, I can tell you that such ideologies, like religious ones, are products of a population’s values; such things aren’t limited to Mormons. If you disagree with this, just consider the power of climate change, and how this issue has become a somewhat relgious phenomenon across the globe.
Mormons will always support issues and individuals that represent their commonly-held values. I can’t help but roll my eyes when I listen to people whine about Mormons in Utah actually promoting (I guess you would say “forcing”) their values through legislation!!! I can’t help but wonder if these victims have ever lived anywhere else outside of this state and/or nation. Do you think that Utah is the only place where this happens? Try living ANYWHERE else and you will quickly find a faction which welds more power, “forcing” their values on the rest of the population… Can you expect people to do any less? When people believe in something or find it important (religious or not), they are going to support it even in the realm of politics. While accusing Mormons of such horrible crimes against democracy, do you also lambast Jewish politicians (Chuck Schumer is a start) and their constituents for their strong support of the state of Israel? Is that “forcing” one’s values? What about Evangelicals in the South who hold political dominance over issues like gay marriage and abortion? What about African-Americans who overwhelmingly support policies which directly benefit their population but not others? Are these things “forcing” values?
Me personally, I would answer “no.” I think that it is pretty obvious from the Founders and the political history of this country that it is to be expected. Mormons will support policies which reflect their beliefs, just as any other group (relgious or not). To seek some utopian state where such things do not exist is naive and frankly, un-American. Don’t justify their hatred, Derek. It is what it is, cruel and unapologetic bigotry.
Mar 27th 2009 • 10:03
by Derek
Farmer, some of the resentment does become hatred. Again the quantity which would qualify as hatred is, imo, grossly exaggerated.
Farmer, some of the resentment does become hatred. Again the quantity which would qualify as hatred is, imo, grossly exaggerated. I know of people who consider the Frontline documentary about the LDS church a couple years ago anti-mormon and an example of persecution. There seems to be a lot within the faith who believe any criticism equals hatred.
I never said that legislating one’s values justifies bigotry. I said that forcing one’s values through legislation leads to resentment. Whether or not you believe that social engineering measures such as Prop 8 to be morally justified, the backlash is a very natural example of chickens coming home to roost.
I should have been more specific about the forcing of values through legislation. Yes, all legislation represents the values of its supporters. But we need to make a distinction between practical, concrete values and metaphysical values. Putting aside the issue of global warming, there can be no question that pollution causes harm to both the public commons and the private property and persons of others. Thus, environmental legislation is absolutely justified. There are very concrete, material negative consequences to society when wealth becomes to concentrated and a wide range of people do not have access to life-supporting resources (health-care, food, shelter, etc); and so various social safety nets are justified. On the other hand, Whatever any given faith may believe about the spiritual and post-mortal consequences to those involved, there is no objective evidence that homosexual relationships are harmful to society or others. And so, government should have no role in making determinations about those relationships. To have the government do so is to unethically use government to force spiritual values on others, inconsistent with the freedom of conscience Madison championed. And when we resort to such unethical actions, we can expect to engender anger. We as a religion need to suck it up and stop whining about it.
Mar 27th 2009 • 13:03
by BeerGod
Fed. Farmer: Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Mar 28th 2009 • 00:03
by North Logan Tyson
I will state again that I do not think that religious bigotry is accepted by the majority. The fact that it exists does not equal acceptance.
That is, unless people are supposed to chase religious bigots out of the state with torches and pitchforks to prove how open minded they really are. If that is the case, well, you got me.
Mar 28th 2009 • 11:03
by The Lady Logician
Marc – great post – thanks for provoking a thoughtful discussion on the subject.
Craig – the internet has a way of allowing people to hide behind a veil of anonymity to allow their inner bigotry’s show. You don’t need to go far in this valley to find it that is for sure.
You all raised so many good points that I wanted to answer, but by the time I got done, it turned into my own blog post on the subject….
Again – splendid post Marc. Well done.
LL