Addendum to E Pluribus Universalum

Posted on November 13, 2011 by


This…is where diversity, pluralism, inclusivity takes us. To the lowest common denominator. To no belief whatosever, except that which does not offend.

Surfing Fox News on October 29th, 2011, I spied this fitting coda to my previous post “E Pluribus Universalum“–from which the above quote is drawn:

The Jesus Church of Latter-day Saints and some of its members fought back against criticism Friday after a flier for a Halloween event said no ‘cross gender’ costumes were allowed, Utah’s Fox13 reported.

Raquel Smith, a Sandy, Utah mother, told Fox13 that she felt the event sends the wrong message to the children. “It has everything to do with not loving your fellow man because they choose to dress a specific way,” Smith, who is not a Mormon, told the station. “I think definitely a child as young as a toddler can understand when a parent says ‘no honey, you can’t be Spiderman or Harry Potter because you’re a girl and that’s a boy.’ I think that immediately tells your child their decisions are wrong,” Smith said.

[S]ome in the community are just as upset as Smith. “I don’t think anyone should be excluded. I think if you’re a Christian-loving person. I think everyone should love everybody. To exclude somebody is not fair,” one resident told Fox 13.

These non-Christians, adherents to the religion of Universalism, in which no one should be offended and being inclusive is the ticket to salvation, somehow are granted the authority to define what is and isn’t Christian. “Loving your fellow man” is defined as not hurting his feelings and being inclusive, as opposed to doing what is best for him and rebuffing improper or inappropriate behavior.

Also troubling is how this particular LDS church’s stance has invited condemnation by non-members, condemnation with the goal of forcing a shift in policy and an abandonment of principled behavior. It is not hard to imagine that Ms. Smith would have no truck with using the machinery of government to compel the inclusive behavior she seeks. Apparently the alternative, not patronizing this particular “trunk-or-treat” in favor of ones at less principled houses of worship, or at least ones that permit gender-bending costumes, did not readily occur to her.

Honestly, the intolerance of the so-called tolerant is amazing to me. As is their failure to recognize the irony inherent in their intolerance of intolerant behavior.