Earlier last month I wrote a few words concerning an interview conducted by CNN of Tricia Erickson, a rabid ex-Mormon who exhibited an almost paranoid fear of the prospect of a Mormon being elected as president of the United States. I found her bigoted and offensive ranting far below the journalistic standards of CNN, and hoped that the entire episode would quickly be forgotten.
Unfortunately, Ms. Erickson has been given yet more air time on CNN to prattle away on the nefarious machinations of the “Mormon Church” and Mitt Romney, the prominent Mormon candidate for the presidency. Fortunately, a voice of reason, in the embodiment of CNN Belief-Blog co-editor Eric Marrapodi, was allowed to participate in the discussion between Erickson and Tim Foreman, who challenged Erickson to show a single example of a Mormon making a negative political policy choice on the basis of his commitment to Mormonism. (Not surprisingly, Erickson failed to provide any such example.)
One of the arguments Ms. Erickson used in her assault on the faith of the Saints and Governor Romney was the claim that Mormons are on a campaign to dominate the world (why else are there any Mormons who hold political offices?) and that according to Mormon doctrine the second coming of Jesus will include the establishing of a Mormon totalitarian regime based out of Jackson County, Missouri. And if that isn’t enough to disqualify Romney or any other Mormon from being president, also remember that Mormons, including Romney, believe they will become gods and have their own planet! I was especially offended at this misrepresentation of my faith. Only one planet? Egoistical/self-aggrandizeing Mormon that I am, I am not shooting low for only one planet but a universe of endless worlds to populate through endless Celestial sex with my many goddess wives. Or at least that is what Ed Decker has repeated told me through his sensationalistic video The God Makers. Considering that Ed Decker is one of Ms. Erickson’s primary sources on Mormonism, I am surprised that she conservatively restricted Mormon aspirations of godly dominion to only one planet in the hereafter. Get your facts straight, Ms. Erickson!
This is the second time that CNN, a respected news agency, has provided precious air time for a crank to spout off nonsense against the Church of Jesus Christ. Hopefully Ms. Erickson has finally exhausted her time with CNN. We need less sensationalism and more serious journalism on the relationship between religion and modern politics. And we need it now especially with this upcoming election, wherein we have not one, but two potential Mormon candidates for the presidency. If ever there was a time when we as a people should look at the interplay between religious values and political policy that time is now. Ms. Erickson has now demonstrated twice that she cannot provide that nuanced and informed investigation. As such, we are compelled to look to others to answer this pertinent question.
Don’t consider this an endorsement of any other cable news network, but I’ve long considered CNN just another source of propaganda, at least in the USA. They don’t get high ratings by striving for objectivity at all times.
My complaint is not with the main points of your arguement, for I agree with them. It is with how this and so many other FAIR posts are written. It is as if every writer was trained at the Time Magazine of the 1950’s.
Time practiced what some called “verbal Assassination.” Words or phrases describing Republicans always had a poitive connotation and those describing a Democrat, negative ones. A Republican would “speak with a voice of reason” and a Democrat would “prattle” A Republican would “respond thoughtfully” and a Democrat would make “a paranoid rant.”
In my in grad studies in history at Cal we had a term for this-the John Wayne school of history. A writer would put a “white hat” of truth, goodness and justice on his or her heroes. A “black hat” of a vast array of negative behaviors would then be tied to the author’s villains.
Too often I find that when I read Fair material, I have to mentally edit the loaded verbiage out, so I can evaluate what the writer has to say. I just wonder how many people just dismiss the basic points of the argument by negatively reacting to the sophomoric excess
Stan –
Thank you for being frank about your thoughts and feelings. I always appreciate candor and despise anything underhanded. So your words are refreshing inasmuch as I am always glad to hear people’s honest-to-goodness feelings about my writing.
Here is the sticky wicket, as it were, from my point of view. I have a tendency to bluntly speak my mind. I don’t want to mince words, especially when it comes to what I perceive as foolishness of opinion and misrepresentation of my closest held beliefs. Trust me when I say that even other FAIR members have told me to tone it down a bit at times. So I can appreciate if you feel I was attempting to verbally assassinate Ms. Erickson.
That said, I also believe that much of our perception of what is and what isn’t “sophomoric excess”, to borrow your phrase, is highly subjective. Case in point, I am very fond of the apologetic writings of Daniel C. Peterson. I find his writing remarkably intelligent, witty, erudite, lucid, clever, sophisticated, and enjoyable. But ask someone who posts on the Recovery from Mormonism board what they think of Daniel C. Peterson and you will hear that his writing is mean, nasty, sarcastic, polemical, amateurish, and stupid. So who is right? I believe that it is merely a matter of tastes, with no empirical way to settle the question one way or another. So while I appreciate your right to hold to the opinion that many other FAIR articles are written with this before mentioned “sophomoric excess”, I would say that I merely disagree. Of course I have something of a bias since I am a member of FAIR, but I believe my basic premise is still valid, viz., that it is entirely subjective. As the Latin maxim goes, De gustibus non est disputandum.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I will try to do better to be more charitable and kind when responding to those with whom I disagree vehemently, and not commit verbal murder.
Sorry if I sound a little pedantic and curmudgeonly, but as the saying goes, “old teachers never die, they just lose their class.” I really don’t care if you are or are not charitable to the lady. I care that people write effectively.
For a number of years one of my jobs with college prep Government classes was to hone the students skills at argumentation. If you would have turned this in as an essay, I would have responded with five comments:
1. Your command of the English language is masterful, but what you say is often overwhelmed by how you say it.
2. Do you want your readers to remember your argument or your vituperative language?
3. Look at your last paragraph. Get rid of the first sentence for a minute and read it. What you have left is powerful.
4. What does Ed Decker have to do with your post? You are writing about what Erickson said, not Decker. This part of the paragraph comes off as a non sequitir and weakens your case.
5. When you use a perjoritive, prove it and don’t let it lose power by burying it amongst many.
You remind me of myself in my younger days (not in terms of writing talent, you have me beat by a mile). I had a very good sense of humor believe it or not) and I could make my class funny and entertaining. Well, I married the sister of one of my students. Each monday we would all meet for family home dinner/evening/football.” At one of these evenings my father in law remarked, “you know when Karen came home she would always tell us how funny the class was and not that much about Government.” That forced me to rethink what I was doing. I had to dial back my humor in order to make it an academic class with some humor and not a comedy class with some Government