DYSPEPSIA GENERATION

We have seen the future, and it sucks.

An Acceptable Prejudice?

2nd June 2012

Read it.

It was a fairly typical lunch at an academic conference in the East after the New Hampshire primary in 2008. There was a smattering of endowed professorships and international reputations at the table, perhaps eight academics in all.

Along with the sweet tea and penne pasta came the inevitable skewering of George W. Bush.

“Never has a president experienced such horrible poll approval numbers in the midst of a war,” one professor quipped.

“That is, if you overlook Harry Truman,” I interjected into an uncomfortable silence.

It was going to be that kind of meal.

Illustrating once again Jonah Goldberg’s theory of The Tyranny Of Clichés: Nobody in the Crust likes George W Bush, so obviously he’s The Worst President Ever; everybody in the Crust loves Barack Obama (although that love is wearing kinda thin recently), so obviously he’s The Best President Ever. Record? Who cares about the record?

“I couldn’t vote for a Mormon,” one professor said. There was some polite (or perhaps impolite) head-bobbing. “It’s a cult. Very intolerant, and their opinions about women, and, well … ” and his voice trailed off.

Ask him his opinion of Muslims, and I expect that he would fall all over himself proclaiming his willingness to vote for one for President.

I’ve attended numerous scholarly conferences since that lunch where Mormonism has been discussed, and it is amazing to confront snide and disdainful comments and even overt prejudice from intellectually and sophisticated academics. And it seems perfectly acceptable to express this bias. Mormons are abnormal, outside the mainstream; everybody knows that. They don’t drink alcohol and coffee. Their women are suppressed. They don’t like the cross, and their most holy book seems made up. And there’s that multiple-wives thing. At one session involving a discussion of Utah’s history, several dismissive comments were spoken, rather blithely and without any sense of embarrassment. Belittling comments were made about Mormons’ abstemiousness, and there was a general negative undercurrent. The LDS Church was referred to as the Mormon Church, something many members object to. They don’t mind being called Mormons, but their church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS Church. At least some of the professors who were making these remarks knew that.

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/05/29/essay-about-prejudice-academe-against-mormons#ixzz1weV83BeG
Inside Higher EdI’ve attended numerous scholarly conferences since that lunch where Mormonism has been discussed, and it is amazing to confront snide and disdainful comments and even overt prejudice from intellectually and sophisticated academics. And it seems perfectly acceptable to express this bias. Mormons are abnormal, outside the mainstream; everybody knows that. They don’t drink alcohol and coffee. Their women are suppressed. They don’t like the cross, and their most holy book seems made up. And there’s that multiple-wives thing. At one session involving a discussion of Utah’s history, several dismissive comments were spoken, rather blithely and without any sense of embarrassment. Belittling comments were made about Mormons’ abstemiousness, and there was a general negative undercurrent. The LDS Church was referred to as the Mormon Church, something many members object to. They don’t mind being called Mormons, but their church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS Church. At least some of the professors who were making these remarks knew that.

5 Responses to “An Acceptable Prejudice?”

  1. ErisGuy Says:

    Refusing to vote for a Mormon isn’t bigotry, where it’s because you’re a fundamentalist who believes Mormonism isn’t Christian (it isn’t) or an academic who believes Mormonism is insufficiently feminist (let’s hope so).

    If someone subscribes to a set of beliefs with name, be it a religion, ideology, or tradition, and intends to live by those beliefs, it is right and proper to examine those beliefs to decide if someone who espouses them can be trusted to govern.

    I wouldn’t vote for a nazi, communist, feminist, scientolgist, etc., because those beliefs are wrong, and those who subscribe to them believe wrong things.

    Are people prejudiced against Mormons? Of course some are. Check what “prejudiced” means: not based on reason or experience. If an academic is familiar with Mormonism and still regards it as wrong, then it isn’t bigotry.

  2. Jehu Says:

    There is a law, familiar to reactionaries, that goes something like this:
    There must ALWAYS be someone who is forced to sit in the back of the bus
    It doesn’t matter even if you declare the last couple of seats off limits for anyone, whoever is furthest back will profess to be required to sit in the back of the bus.
    The only question is who…whom.
    I like Mormons quite a bit, despite the fact that they’re not Christians (or are at minimum, extreme heretics). I’ve got no wish to put them in the back of the bus. Yes, I recognize that this means that somebody else has to be.
    Who..whom.

  3. Dennis Nagle Says:

    I wouldn’t mind voting for a Mormon. Most of the guys I’ve voted for have been professing Christians, and as far as I can see that’s no less whacky.

  4. Jehu Says:

    Pretty much every politician in the US will profess to be a Christian. That’s the majority faith that people identify with so it’s just good politics. This means that very little information can be inferred from a politician in the US saying that he is a Christian. If he says he’s a Mormon, or another minority faith in the US, he’s probably telling the truth.

  5. Dennis Nagle Says:

    Of course, if he/she were to say, “I think it’s all made-up nonsense,” you would know that for the truth–and you’d vote for someone else.