Friday, March 30, 2007

BYU trustees and Cheney invitation



I would find it interesting to read discussion about how those signing petitions and demonstrating think their actions reconcile with the initial approval of the Cheney invitation by BYU trustees. After all, “BYU trustees” is just another way of referring to a group of church general authorities, isn’t it?

So, will you also go demonstrate and picket around the Church office building?


This question seems of particular interest to me during this week, when church members gather to hear counsel from general church leaders. Should we feel so inclined, would we also protest the selection of speakers in the conference?

I confess, as a borderline misogynist, I am sometimes mildly offended by the regular inclusion of women speakers in the general conference agenda. But instead of protesting or signing a petition against, I personally find it more than sufficient to nap through their talks.

…zzzz…

;-)

5 comments:

Connor said...

The protest is not against the Church's decision to invite him at all. Instead, the protest is against the man hiself—his policies, actions, and ideologies. I would protest him if he were in a different location here in Utah, but coming to BYU makes the commute a whole lot easier.

Jim Cobabe said...

Connor, perhaps you could explicate your objection to "the man himself". I've heard a lot of blustery talk about what Cheney has done, but none of it really seems to pan out. He's a sitting vice president. They don't _do_ anything.

Guy Murray said...

It's really quite simple Jim. Those same trustees who approved Mr. Cheney's visit also approved the protests to mark that visit. Truly inspired I'd say.

Jim Cobabe said...

Guy, perhaps you overanalyze.

I recognize, and suppose that the brethren also do, that Cheney is a central figure in a very hot social controversy. Nobody reasonably in touch with current events could deny that.

I rather see the authorization for demonstrations as an indication that people are paying attention, and bowing to the inevitable. Not that they find demonstrations or protests to be "of good report".

Jim Cobabe said...

Guy, going back to Connor's comment, I must also say that I don't see permission for a demonstration as anything more than recognition of a political controversy.

No demonstration can replace "due process" in establishing criminal culpability, under the law. Cheney is not guilty of crimes because liberal protesters wield accusing placards and shout slogans against him.