Just a Little Dose of Oaks-Generated Outrage.

I've been thinking about Dallin Oaks in the last few weeks.  More than I would like, really.  First there was his truly awful speech on religious freedom at BYU-Idaho.  I was infuriated by the ridiculous comparison of Mormons post-passage of prop. 8 to African-Americans trying to vote during the Civil Rights Era.  I mean, intellectually I think I know what he's trying to say: that the "intimidation" experienced by Mormons after last year's election is of the same kind, if of radically different degree, as the intimidation experienced by African Americans, that it was essentially voter intimidation.  The problem is he's wrong.  First, what African Americans experienced was not intimidation meant to keep them from voting their conscience; it was meant to keep them from voting period.  And that distinction accepts the premise that what Mormons experienced last fall was even a form of voter intimidation, which it clearly was not.  Mormons were not punished for how they voted; they were not singled out in order to make them feel so much fear that they would not vote in the future (or even that they would not vote their conscience in the future).  What happened to Mormons was the natural consequences of one group funding and promoting and bring to pass the elimination of a legally sanctioned right of another group.  You can't take away the rights of some group of people and expect there to be no negative ramifications.  Hell, Mormons have their own history of having their rights taken away when it comes to non-traditional marriage; you'd think that if anything they'd be sympathetic on the issue.  But no.  Instead they were grossly hypocritical.  And instead they threw around money completely disproportionate to their electoral weight.

And that's not even touching the problem of comparing a few broken windows and a bit of graffiti to people being violently attacked, lynched, and violated in grossly inhumane ways.  Nor the fact that the Mormon church doesn't have an especially good track record when it comes to its past treatment of African Americans.

So yeah.  There was the unfortunate, to put it mildly, comparison.  And then there were the other also  ridiculous assertions the speech made.  Like the right to freedom of religion protected in the Bill of Rights somehow makes religious practice a more privileged practice than your ordinary, run-of-the-mill practice; that somehow when something is said as part of religious speech it deserves more latitude and protection than something said based on some other system of belief.  Because, you know, if you're an atheist and you believe something strongly and say it, clearly you don't deserve as much protection as if you're a Christian espousing something you believe strongly.  I call bullshit.  And I'm not even a constitutional law scholar.  Any ordinary citizen can see the problem in that line of reasoning.

There's so much more that could be said about that particular gem of a talk.  It positions Mormons as martyrs and victims, which is utter bunk.  It argues that atheists are aggressively seeking to destroy religion by demonizing their opponents (something Mormons would never do, of course; coughcough).  It's just a big piece of poop, to put it juvenilely.

And then there was his talk at conference.  Another gem.  One in which he advises parents of "wayward children" to condition how they manifest their love for their children.  Not to have conditional love, mind you; just to have conditional manifestation of love.  Which is radically different.  Because, you know--when you disagree with your parents about basic beliefs and such it's okay for them to tell you you're following Satan and just generally make you feel like you're less than them because you're being disobedient.  Never mind that it's only "disobedient" according to their own personal belief system and not your own.  Never mind that they, like you, have a limited understanding of God's will.  No, no.  Parents do know best and so, because they know what is and is not disobedient, they should carefully and thoughtfully withhold the manifestation of their (unconditional) love in order to let you know that what you're doing is just not okay.

It makes me ill.  There is no such thing as unconditional love which places conditions on its manifestations.  I'm not talking about material support, here.  I understand things like withholding material support from a child who uses that support in order to behave destructively (though I think there's an equally powerful case to be made for continuing that material support).  I'm talking about showing love.  Simple love.  Acceptance of your adult children as your equal, regardless of what choices they make for themselves.  The fact that a child believes differently from her parent does not give that parent the right or create the obligation for that parent to treat their child any differently than they would treat their other, more "obedient" children.  In my mind, that is a violation of the only commandment God has given: to love.