More Holland -- this time at Harvard fibbing about Prop. 8
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:17 pm
This may have already been discussed here (if so, I apologize for the repeat), but I just recently learned of it. This past March, Elder Holland spoke at Harvard Law School. At the end of his speech, he engaged in a Q&A session. Here's the link to watch the video of his speech and to hear the later Q&A session (for some reason the Q&A is just audio, not video):
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/h ... on-apostle
There was one part of the Q&A (about two-thirds of the way through) when someone asks about the Church's influence in passing Prop. 8 in California (it's very hard to hear the actual question, but I think that was the subject). Here is my transcript of Elder Holland's response (I have edited out the many "uh's" and repetitive words; capitalization is used where he emphasized words by his tone; bold font are the parts I wish to discuss here):
Here are my observations:
1. Elder Holland seems to incorrectly conflate the right of free speech (that all persons AND organizations (like churches) have) with the right to vote (that only PERSONS have). The Church institution does NOT have a right to "exercise a vote" or "cast a ballot." He seems to differentiate between "we" (i.e., the Church) and individual members (i.e., members, particularly in CA, who got involved).
2. He claims at least twice that the Church institution had NOTHING to do with the Prop. 8 campaign. We all know this is a lie. Based on official Church documents that leaked out, we know that GA's, all the way to the top, were involved in organizing the members in CA and elsewhere (particularly wealthy ones) to contribute big money and a lot of time to the cause of passing Prop. 8. These GA's, and the local authorities below them, exerted enormous influence in getting LDS members involved. To suggest that LDS participation was nothing more than some grassroots miracle wrought by a few local members, is disingenuous at best and lying at worst.
3. His reference to neither the Church nor members "blocking the ballot box" or "slashing the tires" is a pure strawman. He throws out such a ridiculous example, but ignores reports that some members who opposed Prop. 8 were singled out by local leaders in an effort to chill their taking a position contrary to that of the Church. I've heard some were told to return their temple recommends.
I found Elder Holland's comments on Prop. 8 very dishonest. If the Church chooses to take such an active role in a political campaign, then it should at least own up to it. Very disappointing.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/h ... on-apostle
There was one part of the Q&A (about two-thirds of the way through) when someone asks about the Church's influence in passing Prop. 8 in California (it's very hard to hear the actual question, but I think that was the subject). Here is my transcript of Elder Holland's response (I have edited out the many "uh's" and repetitive words; capitalization is used where he emphasized words by his tone; bold font are the parts I wish to discuss here):
All we asked in Proposition 8 was the right to exercise OUR vote. We just asked for religious privilege to cast a vote. We did not want to be disenfranchised. Institutionally, not a single dollar, not one red cent, of money from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints went into Proposition 8, or any other comparable proposition that I know of. Now, a lot of Latter-day Saints got involved, and a lot of Latter-day Saints, particularly in California, donated their own time and money to do it, so I’m not being coy, I’m not dodging the fact that there was a terrific involvement and a fairly heavy price to pay – people being fired from their jobs, and people being blackballed in services that they had rendered and were no longer asked to render, and so forth, but that’s ok, that’s the price you pay for a lively democracy. So we choose very carefully what we see those moral issues to be, and we saw that as a moral issue. We saw that not as a political issue, and NEVER, EVER, EVER did we say that somebody could not express his or her vote in a contrary way. Nobody was blocking the ballot box, nobody was slashing tires, you know, as you approach the precinct. I’d really be disappointed if there was some kind of effort to deny somebody their free exercise. But, again, all we we’re asking for is the chance to have our free exercise, and some seem to think that was not right, that we oughta sit down and shut up, and we sit down and shut up quite a bit, but on some things, on that one, we chose to be a little more vocal, a little more visible, and by “we” I just emphasize totally this is a voluntary, lay participation with no money and no formalization institutionally, but something we all cared about, I’m not minimizing that we cared about it. And we’ve taken issues on gambling, we’ve been quite visible when legislation comes along to put casinos in places and various kinds of gambling, we just … that flops over from political to moral for us, and so we’ve been kinda visible on that. We have this quirky -- quirky to you … quirky – we have this health code where we see some of the damage that comes from alcohol and drugs and whatever, so we’re pretty visible about that; that doesn’t tend to get down to legislation as much as we are just kinda vocal about it, we talk about the damage that does to homes and families and parents and kids. So, yeah, there aren’t a lot of them, but where we have them we haven’t been shy, and we hope it’s always appropriate, we hope it’s always allowing everybody else exactly what we’re asking for and that’s the freedom to express an opinion and cast a vote and we’ll all go wherever democracy takes us, but we do feel pretty obligated to stand up for what we believe, and then you kinda let the chips fall where they may.
Here are my observations:
1. Elder Holland seems to incorrectly conflate the right of free speech (that all persons AND organizations (like churches) have) with the right to vote (that only PERSONS have). The Church institution does NOT have a right to "exercise a vote" or "cast a ballot." He seems to differentiate between "we" (i.e., the Church) and individual members (i.e., members, particularly in CA, who got involved).
2. He claims at least twice that the Church institution had NOTHING to do with the Prop. 8 campaign. We all know this is a lie. Based on official Church documents that leaked out, we know that GA's, all the way to the top, were involved in organizing the members in CA and elsewhere (particularly wealthy ones) to contribute big money and a lot of time to the cause of passing Prop. 8. These GA's, and the local authorities below them, exerted enormous influence in getting LDS members involved. To suggest that LDS participation was nothing more than some grassroots miracle wrought by a few local members, is disingenuous at best and lying at worst.
3. His reference to neither the Church nor members "blocking the ballot box" or "slashing the tires" is a pure strawman. He throws out such a ridiculous example, but ignores reports that some members who opposed Prop. 8 were singled out by local leaders in an effort to chill their taking a position contrary to that of the Church. I've heard some were told to return their temple recommends.
I found Elder Holland's comments on Prop. 8 very dishonest. If the Church chooses to take such an active role in a political campaign, then it should at least own up to it. Very disappointing.