Unscrambling the Eggs: Responses Galore

I'm not sure where to start.  So I'll just try the best I can to wrap this subject up and still address everything. 

First - I love all my peeps.  Sarah's comment was meant to provide assurance that I'm not into flaming people on my blog. No need to assign rank ordering to anyone.  (Unfortunately her post had to go bye-bye because she slipped on naming and I can't edit comments - only delete). 

I guess I'll just comment on things (mostly) in order and summarize at the end.

Mike said:

We would expect given the FBI hate crimes statistics that Jews would be the most cohesive religious group in the United States. I don't see it. In fact about 50% of Jews in the US marry outside their religion, a far greater percentage than Mormons. Again, the exact opposite of cohesion.

The problem with that statistic is that Jews are not just a religious group.  They are also an ethnic group.  Even within Israel itself, secular Jews are over 40% of the population.  I don't know what the numbers are in the U.S., but I imagine they're much higher.  And for secular Jews, intermarriage tends not to be an issue.  It's no different than a Swedish man marrying a Spanish woman.  No big deal.  That does not mean that they cease to identify as Jews, or don't feel allegiance to other Jews.  It just means that intermarriage with non-Jews is not a concern.  However, within Orthodox Judaism and other 'religious' Jewish groups, the intermarriage percentage is about 10%, and intermarriage is strongly discouraged. 

I should also note that Jewish secularism (and the resulting massive increase of social integration into parent societies) began when Jews were given equal status in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries (Jewish Emancipation).  This is a concrete example of how group cohesion and religious identity decreased dramatically when persecution decreased against Jews.  Jewish emancipation --> less persecution --> Haskalah --> greater societal integration and less group cohesion. 

Mike said:

I'm not seeing much downside to fostering a culture of general hatred toward the people who make up that church, especially if that church relies on aggressive proselytizing for growth.

That approach may discourage conversion, but you get the same effect by fostering hatred of the religion.  Focusing on the religion instead of the members is a win-win.  It avoids the persecution effect. 

As a sidenote, nearly every religion has its own persecution narrative.  That's not because every religion is necessarily persecuted, but because the effect of persecution on group dynamics is a recognized asset for building group identity.

Jason said:

As an occasional Defender of the Faith, I can say that correcting erroneous theological beliefs is often not easier than changing negative attitudes towards a people's character IF the two are intertwined.

Mike replied with:

I agree. We can talk about attacking institutions vs. individuals all we want, but at the end of the day any organization is the sum of its parts. We see this all the time in politics. Some people can compartmentalize opinions on people separate from their belief systems, but a lot of people -- particularly those with very strong beliefs -- dislike others who hold different belief simply by virtue of the fact that they do hold different beliefs.

The extent to which a person is able to differentiate their opinion of a religion and their opinion of adherents of that religion can be explicitly predicted by the level of interaction they have with people of that faith.  The two constructs are blended when few or no interactions take place.  When interactions are common, the ability to differentiate opinions increases exponentially.  Opinions don't necessarily diverge, but the likelihood increases.  For example, my department is full of left-wing liberals.  They almost universally despise Mormonism due to the religion's view on homosexuality and the incorrect perception that polygamy is still in effect.  However, they all know I'm Mormon and pretty much like me.  There have been several Mormon students in the department recently, and we've all been fairly likeable fellows.  Differentiation achieved.  Remember, James Carville is married to Mary Matalin.  (And Ann Coulter is an overreaching hate-monger)

I will also add that, although hate crime statistics show Jews to be victimized most commonly, Judaism is held more favorably in the court of public opinion than Mormonism is.  Again, the dichotomy between religion and religious adherent is very important, and very, very real.

Mike said:

In any case I can't quite accept the idea that God is the source of the hatred towards Jews.

Jason replied with:

The Jews were subjugated, pushed around, and bullied from ought-six to the arrival of Christ because they were God's people, the keepers of the Truth, and as such suffered the hatred of those without the Truth. God also allowed the Jews to be "tested" or taught a lesson when they went astray. Forty years wandering around a desert could only occur through divine influence. Otherwise, after about two months someone would have found a way out of the rat maze. Or maybe it was pride. Men hate pulling over and asking for directions. God was punishing them for pride.



The early Mormons were punished in a similar fashion for their disobedience. They eventually learned to obey, mostly.

I couldn't do any better than Jason.  But ultimately, I have to add that the original argument does not hinge in any way on agreeing why the Jews have had such a bad run.  We all agree that Jews and not Judaism are the targets of persecution, which still sets Mormonism up as the unchallenged king of wrongfully hated religions.  It is most certainly not Islam, because as Jason said:

I find Michael's comment about the debate on Islam being theological in nature worthy of discussing, if not by me. All I will say is the current backlash against Muslims/Islam (there is plenty of persecution as well as dissing the religion) is the direct result of acts of terrorism by fundamentalist Muslims, which is different in nature than the source of hatred against Mormons/Mormonism. Origins matter.  (emphasis mine)

Exactly.

So a whole slew of nitty gritty details have been batted back and forth.  But I think the original argument still stands:  Mormonism is unique in the level of animosity it unfairly and inexplicably receives (although Islam explicably, if not fairly, receives more animosity).  There is no sociologic reason why this would be.  Theologically, it can easily be explained by Mormonism being the 'one true church'.