Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Our Faith in Christ on the Line: How Do We Respond to Our Enemies in California or Anywhere?

Paul Bishop, a police office in Los Angeles, shares his experiences and perspectives around the Proposition 8 backlash in a Meridian Magazine story, "In the Face of Hatred." (That's Part 1. Don't miss Part 2.) This article is essential reading. In addition to thoughtful discussion of the controversy and some great photos, it reports some aspects not known to many, including the beating of some apparently non-LDS girls who tried to remove hateful signs from the Temple walls (quickly stopped by police, fortunately - God bless those courageous women). To the angry folks who refuse to understand the difference, removing unwanted offensive messages from private property, messages that deface sacred religious grounds, is hardly the same as stripping away legally carried signs from the hands of law-abiding protesters. I am shocked that one commenter dares to equate the mob's hateful actions against a Christian woman with the brave service rendered by those girls trying to remove offensive litter defacing the Temple walls.

Paul is LDS and speaks to LDS members wondering how to respond. He begins by quoting one of our Apostles, Elder Robert D. Hales, and then offers simple, inspired advice:
"To respond in a Christlike way cannot be scripted or based on a formula. The Savior responded differently in every situation. When He was confronted by wicked King Herod, He remained silent. When He stood before Pilate, He bore a simple and powerful testimony of His divinity and purpose. Facing the moneychangers who were defiling the temple, He exercised His divine responsibility to preserve and protect that which was sacred. Lifted up upon a cross, He uttered the incomparable Christian response: 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34)."

We have often been instructed to love our enemies, and despite the current horror of our trials, this is no time to do differently.
The temptation to push back and get aggressive may be strong, but we must remember Whom we follow. I would suggest that we not try to argue with inflamed mobs, that we do not provoke or invite hostility, that we avoid getting in the face of those who are angry, but always seek to have charity informing our actions.

Our example must be one of peaceful endurance, of courage but kindness in the face of hate, of seeking to bless rather than to curse. Remember, many of the outraged souls mocking your beliefs or even harming property believe they are victims of outrageous crimes against their most basic rights. They may be misguided, but they are our brothers and sisters who may yet be touched by the Spirit and see things differently. There are also many on the fence, not sure what to think, who may be touched by a Christlike response in this time of contention and hate. Pray for our enemies, pray for their welfare, and pray for guidance in how to deal with them when conflict becomes unavoidable. (Hint: I'm not sure Mormon ninjas are the answer.)

42 comments:

Connor said...

The Pastor's response in this story was quite inspirational, I think, given the circumstances:

"The church's response? After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer ... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding," De Leeuw wrote.

One wonders what the reaction was like during the actual protest, though.

bunker said...

In the Meridian Magazine article, "In the Face of Hatred" it was interesting to note the love of others in the community. Read this portion of the article:

"The late local news showed scenes of several Hispanic females in tears outside the temple trying to remove the signs desecrating the walls and fences surrounding the temple. As these individuals – who according to a temple spokesperson were not church members – removed the hate-filled signs, the mob exploded and began beating the individuals to the ground."

Wow. These people of another faith, but obviously of a Christian mindset, were showing their love of their neighbor. This shows people of the LDS faith are not alone in this. God bless these women.

gentlyhewstone said...

(Hint: I'm not sure Mormon ninjas are the answer.)

Jeff, c'mon...ninjas are always the answer! :)

J. Davis said...

Mormon Ninjas? I like it. :-)

Thank you for the message. I've been thinking the same thing myself.

I thought I'd add another point:the media is covering the mobs and anger like they always do. But realize that the mobs are only a small percentage of those affected by Prop 8. The majority are angry, frustrated and confused of course, but have not given themselves to hatred. They should be commended for that.

Vanceone said...

Thanks for following this. I'm grateful for the Hispanic women of another faith who tried to help.

But now we'll hear from anonymous and "Dan" and all the other "No on 8" supporters how beating women up is not a hate crime and perfectly acceptable because of their "understandable rage at being denied their rights."

Look, at some point it stops being an isolated group of people. How many near riots have we had now by gay supporters? How many calls for calm and peace from gay groups have we gotten? I've heard of maybe one. Forgive me if I am understandably skeptical of wanting to allow SSM as a solution that won't hurt anyone.

I hope the good women who were beaten by a savage mob of the gaystapo are okay.

Clint said...

I fear the outcome of all of this is a very strong "us" versus "them" rift between the church and the gay community. Gays are often referred to as our "enemies", which I find discomforting being gay and and active Mormon. That being said, I echo Jeff's urging to remember Him who we serve. Independent of whether we are being targeted unjustly or not, we need to show that we truely are Christians and conduct ourselves in a way which He would be pleased with.

Thanks for this post, Jeff. I found it to be encouraging.

Vanceone said...

Clint, that's interesting. Can a gay person be an active LDS member? This is a question that will be asked more and more.

I think it depends. If you have attractions to a member of your same gender, there's no sin in that. I view it as any other issue people have. I myself have a strong addictive personality. As long as I fight and resist those addictions, I'm okay.

But those who celebrate being "gay" I don't think can be a good member. It's the same as if I was promoting smoking or coffee or adultery as normal and desirable--I'd be wrong.

I don't think that being gay should matter--but the community is trying to rationalize and normalize the practice, and many are now targeting the Church. Were all Missourians enemies of the Church in the 1800's? No, but the majority were. And for good reason, members pretty much viewed Missourians as enemies. Once demonstrated otherwise, that's fine. But with a sudden huge surge in gay people, groups, etc openly targeting, harassing, and otherwise trying to destroy the LDS church, the resulting rift is not at all as surprise.

Dan said...

Vanceone,

But now we'll hear from anonymous and "Dan" and all the other "No on 8" supporters how beating women up is not a hate crime and perfectly acceptable because of their "understandable rage at being denied their rights."

Excuse me?

In a post talking about how we should respond as Christians, I don't appreciate this kind of comment that utterly distorts what I say. I believe you are grossly mistaken in what I said in the other post. The most important point is that the old lady was not "beaten." The second is characterizing what I view as a hate crime. Clearly, beating up a woman because of her beliefs is a hate crime. As nothing of the sort happened in that video, it did not constitute a hate crime.

For one who has strongly stood up for the rights of women to be treated equally, I would appreciate not distorting my position or views so grossly.

Mark N. said...

But with a sudden huge surge in gay people, groups, etc openly targeting, harassing, and otherwise trying to destroy the LDS church, the resulting rift is not at all as surprise.

You do realize, of course, that the gays see it as a case where "a sudden huge surge in Mormon and other Christian people, groups, etc openly targeting, harassing, and otherwise trying to take away or deny the rights of gay people as declared by the Supreme Court of California, the resulting rift is not at all as surprise."

Which statement is correct:

A) The California Supreme Court did an end run around the citizens of California by declaring Prop 22 to be unconstitutional.

B) The citizens of California did an end run around the California Supreme Court by taking the wording of Prop 22 and putting it into the state constitution in the hopes that this would remove it from judicial review.

emissary said...

In the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, the supporters and opponents have reacted very differently. Opponents have staged protests around the country filled with anger and frustration. From supporters, the main emotion I feel is puzzlement. They don't understand why Prop. 8 should have provoked such an enormous response. I would like to share both sides of the issue in the hopes that it will contribute to the understanding of others.

The main problem is with the definition of "marriage". In its core is the "husband-wife" relationship ("the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" -- US Legal Code). So when you enter into marriage, you become part of a husband-wife relationship. However, there is also a set of cultural behaviors attributed to this word -- the most common are love and commitment. (Note that the behaviors change between cultures; arranged marriages don't require love, but they do form the husband-wife relationship.)

With this background, let me address the different sides.

For supporters trying to understand those who oppose:

Proponents of same-sex marriage have been taught that marriage is not a husband-wife relationship, but a set of behaviors. Since the word "marriage" is seen as societally-recognized love and commitment, a "domestic partnership" must be something else; a "separate but equal" version that makes them second-class citizens. This is why there is so much anger and frustration over it being taken away.

For opponents trying to understand the supporters:

Supporters of Prop. 8 honestly believe that marriage is just as it's defined: a husband-wife relationship. Since no same-sex union will ever create a husband-wife relationship, they don't see it as discriminatory to call the union between two men or the union between two women as something else. It honestly puzzles them why domestic partnerships with all of the rights and responsibilities of spouses under CA law is not enough.

I hope this helps.

Robert said...

I wrote a a post about what I think we should do as members in response to this incident. Specifically, I think all of us should go to the temple more often in gratitude that we have that right and opportunity.

readerMom said...

Thank you for your post. I worry that a reaction by any LDS member fed up with the protest will spiral out of control. Any member of the church who gives in to the anger and contention will then lose the spirit and more easily do things he/she will regret. That is by far my biggest worry, not what other groups may try to do to us.

Papa D said...

Fwiw, my take is at my blog, entitled "Proposition 8 and the Presidency: A Week of Reviling". I understand and expect protest; I hope both sides can move away from the reviling.

Alex Valencic said...

I have, perhaps, a tangential question, but it is one that keeps popping up in my mind, and so I hope it is related to the general topic that Jeff has been blogging about lately.

The question is this: what, exactly, is a "hate" crime, and how is it different from any other crime?

Perhaps, more importantly, is this question: Should we have such things as "hate" crimes? According to our good friends as Wikipedia, hate crimes are crimes that target certain individuals for their membership in a specific social group. Wiki then goes on to list the forms of these crimes as "physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters". It seems to me that all of these things should be crimes anyway, regardless of their motive.

Regardless, the protesters who are opposed to Prop 8 are, indeed, guilty of committing hate crimes against the members of LDS church. They have cast insults at our members, they have defaced our property, they have harassed our Temples' patrons and other visitors, and they have physically assaulted individuals. How is this behaviour NOT the classic definition of hate crimes? And how on earth is this justifiable?

Anonymous said...

"...non-LDS girls who tried to remove hateful signs from the Temple walls (quickly stopped by police, fortunately - God bless those courageous women). "
haha, are you kidding? So the destruction of other people's signs is OK and courageous but the stomping of someone's cross is off limits?
Someone call the hate crime police on those girls. It was a hate crime! YOU have to see if my way. It WAS a hate crime, please agree with me even though I don't know exactly what a hate crime is.
Ahhh Jeff, you crack us up with the comedy.

Mormanity said...

Are you serious? The signs stuck on the Temple walls were vandalizing someone else's property, like the scrawled messages of hate. The girls were not stripping away signs rightfully carried by protesters, but removing unwanted and offensive messages inappropriately placed on a sacred religious site.

I'm very sorry if you don't understand that.

Fremontagne said...

What's a hate crime? Good question. It's vague and fuzzy, but in practice the meaning is clear: A hate crime is a crime against a class favored by liberals committed by someone from an unfavored class, particularly by a conservative or Christian. Straight white male conservative Christians are the most likely perpetrators of hate crimes. Crimes against Christians and conservatives by liberal-favored groups are barely crimes at all and can be safely blamed on society.

Anonymous said...

Alex,
It's important to recognize that this new vile creature: The liberalmormobloggocrats, don't think anyone in the majority has the right to express an opinion if it offensive to a minority. Hate is a term that has been usurped by the liberals to extort an emotional response. This tactic is often used because they have no better logical recourse.

-NOYDMB

Anonymous said...

Alex,
It's important to recognize that this new vile creature: The liberalmormobloggocrats, don't think anyone in the majority has the right to express an opinion if it offensive to a minority. Hate is a term that has been usurped by the liberals to extort an emotional response. This tactic is often used because they have no better logical recourse.

-NOYDMB

Anonymous said...

Today envelopes containing white powder were received at both the Salt Lake and Los Angeles Temples.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4787495

Andrew said...

I don't think anyone here is targeting the real issue. Of course it's terrible that some people are choosing violence and crime to express their anger and frustration. There is no excuse for this.

But it's missing the point to cherry-pick instances in which people have lashed out at the church.

I just don't think the secular arguments (and that's necessary for public policy) against same-sex marriage are compelling enough to deny them the right - a right they already had in the state.

One more thing: a lot of people in the comments are taking cheap shots at liberals, Democrats, etc. Knock it off. It's not fair when they do it to you; it's not fair the other way.

Clark Goble said...

"Our Faith in Christ on the Line: How Do We Respond to Our Enemies in California or Anywhere?"

Step 1. Stop calling them enemies.
Step 2. Start calling them potential members.

Jayleen said...

mark n.

The answer is A.

Anonymous said...

Let's see.
First you say it is a hate crime in action. Then some people say they don't see a hate crime. So, you go look up what one is cause you admit that you really don't know. After reading the definition you try to make the video fit the definition of what You think a hate crime is. ( good science there scientist ) When some still don't agree with how you see it, you change course and say this, " Some people have had a hard time imagining that any kind of crime was being committed here. "
Huh? You said it was a hate crime and then when some don't see it Your way you change and say that. Are YOU serious?

"signs stuck on the Temple walls were vandalizing someone else's property"
No, writing on the walls was vandalism, spray paint is vandalism. A paper sign stuck on an iron fence is not.

Mormanity said...

Clark, would "self-professed enemies" be better? There's got to be some term to describe the very small group of people that want to vandalize LDS buildings or even drive the Church out of California. Or, in other contexts, those who hate the Church for whatever reason and wish to attack it in some way. I don't think many of them mind the "enemy" label.

An "enemy" according to the dictionary is "someone who is hostile to, feels hatred towards, opposes the interests of, or intends injury to someone else." Is it wrong to recognize that there are those who strongly oppose our interests, and may even take strong steps to express that hostility? Is there a more politically correct term that we both should use to describe each other? "Not quite friends anymore" is a bit wordy. NQFA?

Jayleen said...

Anon 9:31 - How disingenuous of you. Clearly Jeff is referencing different occasions, one where a woman had her sign and cross ripped out of her hands and stomped into the ground while the angry spittle-spewing mob crowded around her ordering her to leave public property.

And another where two women were BEATEN for removing hate-signs placed on a fence that is on private property.

The thing both have in common is that the crimes were perpetrated towards Christians. According to the law, that makes them hate-crimes.

Personally, I don't like the idea of hate-crimes because all crime is hate of sorts. But if anything qualifies, these incidences do. There is no doubt in my mind that you see it, you just want to keep denying it. The thing you need to ask yourself is why?

Jayleen said...

NQFA... LOL

Jeff, thank you for never losing your sense of humor. Your humor and wit is appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Vandalism according to the dictionary is:
Vandalism is a conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure, a symbol or anything else that goes against the will of the owner/governing body, and usually constitutes a crime.

No destruction of property here, no defacement of the structure. And no crime. Sorry, I think you are really trying your best, but, don't think you are right.

To all those that keep saying hate crime. Please post the link where those protestors are being charged with it. If you can't find one, then, go file a complaint yourself. Actions speak louder than words. :)

Anonymous said...

Here, Hate crime being charged

Mormanity said...

Wow, that's outrageous. If Mormons responded with violence, it's terrible. No sympathy for violence. I don't mind people removing graffiti or signs from the Church's private property, but emotions must be kept in check and ugly situations avoided.

This is a time when Mormons should probably stay clear of these kind of protests and let things cool down.

Mormanity said...

Clark Goble said:
"Our Faith in Christ on the Line: How Do We Respond to Our Enemies in California or Anywhere?"

Step 1. Stop calling them enemies.
Step 2. Start calling them potential members.


Clark, I'm puzzled - and sorry if I've offended you. Who's calling them potential members? Your comments are directed at me, I believe, but I have not called them "potential members." My post may not be quite as condescending as you think. Maybe I'm just not good at avoiding eggshells.

Maybe camouflaged eggshells?

Anonymous said...

suzyq says:

It's really easy for me as a white college-educated, sometimes "liberal" Mormon who is anti-war to say that it's wrong for someone to react with violence against the protesters at the temple (having just watched the video linked by anonymous)--

As a white Mormon who is anti-war and likes to see all sides and eschews ethnocentricity . . .

I wouldn't have done that.

But didn't anyone else notice who the young men who ripped up the signs were?

Um, some sort of Pacific Island ethnicity?

Not typical white Mormons--

So . . .

this could get a bit sticky.

I was sad at the language they used; I was truly sorry that they attacked a woman; it made me feel badly.

But there was something in my pre-tolerant *look at all sides and don't be a bigot life* that responded with--

"good for them"--

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They responded from the gut, because that is THEIR CULTURE!!!

While we spend our time apologizing to everyone in the world and trying not to step on any toes--

the Polynesians (Samoans) with their VERY different culture, ripped up the signs and beat a woman (something that Samoans are very good at doing by the way, and does anyone else see how I am throwing my political correctness out the window even as I say that)--

Seriously, doesn't ANYone else out there realize that this isn't just homosexuals against heterosexuals?

MOST of the homosexual protesters are alarmingly, astoundingly--

WHITE!!!

And it was Hispanics, Polynesians and African Americans who turned out to vote for Obama (according to exit polls) who voted proposition 8 in--

I would say that Americans of European descent (white) are embroiled together in a conflict that refelcts upon OUR culture--

Polynesian cultures simply don't tolerate homosexuality, nor do Hispanics, nor do African Americans--not the TRADITIONAL cultures--

Californian Christians that I know find themselves (the white ones) often criticized for our weakness on family values, yes, even Mormons--

traditional cultures (Hispanic and Polynesian especially) are MUCH more family-centered and think that European extraction Christians AND Mormons are sadly lacking in family connection--

so, it's time for white people to . . .

get lost--

whatEVER our sexual orientation--

hey, Mormons aren't marrying and having children that much anymore, and homosexuals aren't, exactly, reproducing in record numbers--

maybe it's time that we, with our tolerance and our carefully calculated lack of passion . . .

pass the torch to someone who can get the job done--

I am wondering how many of us would have stood aghast as Christ drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip--

and said, "naughty Jesus"--

could this be the remant of the tribe of Judah coming in to rip us (whites) up--whether Mormon or irreligious, homosexual or heterosexual?

at least they are real--

horrific, sure, but real--

frightening to me personally, yes, but real--

:(

our tolerance has come back to bite us--or to weaken us so that somebody who doesn't have the patience to carry out long discussions on this on a computer . . . ignites the spark that starts the fire--

what is the Book of Mormon scripture about the remnant coming as a young lion--

didn't say they would be using politically correct language or watching that they softened their blows when they "tore"--

Anonymous said...

suzyq should have said:

WHITE Mormons with college degrees, returned missionary types . . .

aren't getting married as young or in as high numbers as in the past--

there are Mormons of different ethnic backgrounds and in different parts of the world and Christians of non-white backgrounds who are still having fairly high birthrates--

this old white woman will acknowledge the death of her dominant race and go away and make room for a different world now--

Roxy said...

Um..I'd like to know where I can find out that mostly African Americans and Hispanics voted for Obama, because from what I remember hearing, the majority of the people that voted for him were African American and White.

And I know this is off topic and all, but in response to something that some anon said, the first thing I realized when I first joined the church was how loving and caring the families were. I'm Hispanic so I'm speaking for myself and most of the Latinos I know when I say that we aren't as family-centered as you might think. Almost all of my friends are Hispanic and most of them have had it rough growing up not having the support you would expect to get from your own family. Not getting enough care and safety you would want and need. Not saying that all Latinos are the same.

The famiies I met that are members treat me as if I am one of their own. I've learned a lot from them and the church and one day I want to have a family of my own and give my children what I would've liked to have received from my family. Well a little more than what I have received. Okay a lot more.

So please don't get it twisted. I think your just seeing things your way. And if anything I said is incorrect then by all means, feel free to correct me. I am here to learn.

erelis said...

Anonymous of 9:31 and 10:19 -- please view some of the pictures at this link: http://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/tolerance-iv/

There are clear examples of vandalism to the Temple's entrance.

As for removal of signs being a hate crime -- absolute absurdity. If you place a sign on private property, the owner has every right to remove it.

I've actually tried staying out of the whole Prop 8 issue, and am admittedly agnostic on SSM. But the temper tantrum that is being thrown, complete with examples of vandalism and blacklists against people who contributed money to Prop 8, has started to convince me that the LDS Church made the right decision in an effort to preserve its own rights, rights which (it is now clear to me) the gay community would love to strip away in the name of equality and tolerance.

Anonymous said...

Roxie, I know that there are Hispanic and white "children" who have come from abusive backgrounds, negligent parents, etc.

I am white, and I am married to a white person who came from an unspeakably abused and neglected background--

Generally speaking, though, outside of the obvious exceptions to all ethnic groups, Hispanic women get a lot more support for childbirth, etc.--

I can't quote the sources, because I've forgotten them, but poverty aside, Hispanic mothers generally have fewer health issues when birthing, due to the support of other women and extended family--

Yes, I, too, have known Hispanics without close families; I have lived in areas with high numbers of Hispanics--

and for the most part *I* observed closer extended families and more emotional support--

I am sorry if I offended you--

I am talking more about the cultural mores on dating and marriage that DID protect my Hispanic friends. Some might think they were overprotected, but most of my friends admitted that they liked the idea of more protective parents--

White American "dating" has probably spread to all races, but there was a time when Hispanic girls WERE more protected--

there are always exceptions.

I DO know someone in a high position of authority in the church (very personally) in California who is white and who had minority church leaders come to him with "concerns" about the influence that more "independent" white LDS youth have had on the more family-dependent minority youth IN the church--

obviously we don't all have access to the same information and the same experiences--

It's amusing, though, how we both seem to be impressed with the "race" of the other--

:)

and my best friend in high school was STRONGLY Hispanic; I am still in touch with her after decades, and I admired the closeness of her family--

Roxy said...

Anon, 11:15 AM, Nov. 15,

I was not offended by your comment so my apologies for coming off that way. I didn't want to comment on it because I was off-topic, but I did anyway.

I guess I wish my folks were a bit more protective for many reasons. But hey, I think I can be pretty tough so it's all good.

I just haven't met any Hispanic women who received a lot of support from others during pregnency and what not. But I'll take your word for it.

Anyway, drifting now more towards the topic, I know what I'll do is try to love them even if they might spit in my face or beat me up or whatever. It's not going to be easy, though. Forgiving people and loving them when you have been wronged by them. Ayayay...my head hurts just thinking about it. But it is a commandment and one that I cannot ignore.

I pray for those that are angry with the Church and the members. I just hope that no one gets seriously hurt because of Prop 8. I hope that the members don't get driven by hate.

Anonymous said...

"There are clear examples of vandalism to the Temple's entrance."
Yes, that is correct, and as was stated earlier, that is vandalism. No one said the temple was not vandalized.

"As for removal of signs being a hate crime -- absolute absurdity. If you place a sign on private property, the owner has every right to remove it. "
No one said that was a hate crime. Absurd is correct, I don't know what you are talking about.
Jeff said the signs were vandalism, they were not.
Jeff said the old lady was victum of hate crime, I and others do not see a "hate crime". A crime against her, sure, you could charge those people with something. isn't right for them to stomp on her cross. But to say hate crime is to rile people up. Inflammatory language like that won't help. Best to be accurate in describing the situation so as to not make it worse. I don't think the old lady made the situation any better by her actions.

The only hate crime that is being charged, as no one has shown evidence of any other, is the video that was posted. LDS members are being charged for beating some protestors.
I think you were right to stay out of the whole 8 prop thing, as you came to the party late and do not know what was said.

" LDS Church made the right decision in an effort to preserve its own rights, rights which (it is now clear to me) the gay community would love to strip away in the name of equality and tolerance"

Yeah, LDS church is the victim here. You guys play the martyr so well.

MainTour said...

When does become appropriate to write letters to the Gov Schwernegger and Sen Feinstein about asking the government to enforce the law and protect our churches and businesses from harassment and vandalism?

Their silence on this issue is providing encourage to the other side to continue to break the law.

Hillyn said...

Congratulations to the Mormon church for standing up for your beliefs. I have been deeply disappointed with the Christian church for basically being AWOL on most issues regarding homosexuality. The church's silence assisted the advancement of the gay rights agenda.

I was born and raised as a Baptist. Gay men worked in the music ministries, with children. I was appalled.

I am now a practicing Muslim. No such issues where I worship

Anonymous said...

Roxy, I appreciate your pointing that out. I am . . . um . . . a senior citizen--

and things HAVE changed, I am sure, in the last few decades--

I think I was speaking of "traditional" hispanic culture, which I know has its gaps as well as any other culture--

The point that cultures newly arrived to the U.S. from areas in the South Pacific and Asia tend to be more connected with their families and find "our" culture less family-friendly--

probably applied to hispanics more decades ago than now (*blush*)--

As "everyone" becomes Americanized, modernized (moving away from families for jobs, etc.)--every culture suffers loss of family connection--

no matter what ethnic origin--

People of Pacific Island ancestry, however, do tend to be more "protective" of things which are "sacred"--in an open way--

so I can see the why behind the behavior of those young men, even if I wouldn't have done it myself--

just trying, ALWAYS trying, not to be ethnocentric--

:)

suzyq

Roxy said...

Nothing wrong with positive ethnocentrism : )