Coggins7 wrote:I see the Democratic Party base is out in force here today. Well, that's fine. Forget my friend then. I read Sonja Johnson's book (From Housewife to Heretic) from cover to cover, and followed her antics at the time. I hold to everything I said about her and the pathetic philosophy she represented.
It is easy to forget "your friend," since we know absolutely nothing about this person. As for the rest of this ongoing screed, I am not really all that interested. If you are trying to represent the actions of leaders of the LDS Church as protectors against a tide of leftist hijacking of the Constitution, make your case. Don't simply blather on in jargon about Gramsci and hegemony.
I am simply puzzled as to why you took the conversation here in the first place. You aren't really helping me or anyone else see the relevance of what you are writing. That is why it appears to be a nonsequitur, and an ideological tirade without a real point.
By the way, I am not a registered Democrat, nor do I know who will be receiving my vote in advance. Maybe you should refrain from making blanket assumptions about my politics.
Coggins7 wrote:This is DailyKos or MoveOn.org level invective, and in a long string too. Nice.
How interesting. I do not read these things. Care to try again?
Coggins7 wrote:So what? Some very decent people supported Communism and the October Revolution too. And?
So I suppose that in your imagination we are here battling on the left and right, respectively. Well, sir, you are free to box shadows all you like. In my posts, I was discussing what the LDS Church did with reference to ERA, and how some of the women who participated regretted opposing ERA. Are you implicitly embracing the idea that the LDS Church is an ideological organization with a clear political agenda that is allied with the right-wingers of the Republican party? I sometimes suspect you are right, but most of your compatriots, unlike you, spend a lot of effort arguing against this.
Coggins7 wrote:This is nothing but fluffy rhetoric. What are you attempting to say here?
Fluffy rhetoric because you don't seem to give a damn for much except your ideological take on the whole thing. We aren't really having a discussion here. You are attempting to browbeat me into having an argument entirely on your terms and with little reference to the ideas I conveyed.
Coggins7 wrote:As to reading comprehension, go back and you will see that I never claimed that you had defended Johnson. Your credibility with me has vanished because of your obvious anti-intellectualism and educational deficits regarding that of which you attempt to speak, not because you defended Sonja Johnson (although you have defended the dreary philosophy of radical feminism that she supported and its attempt to destroy normative gender relations and sexual dynamics that were at the heart of the ERA and remain at the heart of the feminist movement today-including convenience abortion on demand-the holy sacrament of the church of boomer materialism).
So tell me, Coggins, why you brought up Johnson in the manner you did? Is it because you feel protective of Orrin, or because you assume that anyone who dislikes Orrin, mentions Sonja, and questions whether the Church's crusade against ERA was a moral cause must be a Marxist loser whose views obviously lack intellectual merit? I mean, unless I take a Straussian position on the utility of religion in forging a stable American society, I must be intellectually and morally bankrupt, no? Or maybe not. Perhaps I should not hastily judge your political views from the vacuum of reliable information I have, as you did to me.
I have no interest in hashing out the culture wars with you, Coggins, especially when this is not the forum for doing that. My interest was in the issue of whether ERA qualified as a moral issue in keeping with the LDS Church's position that its only political interests are in moral issues. Which board are you on Coggins? You want to rejoin the rest of us on Mormon Discussions? Or, if you think your approach is pertinent, I wonder whether or not you are capable of seeing the irony of pursuing the topic this way when the issue was the LDS Church's involvement in politics qua politics? You seem to be making a good case for your opposition.
edited to add phrase I accidentally left out.