What I can’t understand is what BYU and the church got out of it – there’s no upside that I can recognize, PR-wise, national politics-wise, culture-wise, theology-wise, or morality-wise.

So I’m left to consider such things as maybe Cheney called in a favor from the church, or maybe some powerful church figure still believes Cheney is a good and competent person, in spite of all documented evidence to the contrary. It’s difficult to think about this, because I respect Mormons a great deal.

I was being intentionally shrill and not at all careful with my words.

I apologize, I wasn’t trying to play gotcha with you, but rather trying to provoke an apparently unrepentant slime (someone who smears).

I appreciate your comparison, and I suppose I’m also guilty … of giving Nader more leeway to embellish in his ranting against corporations and institutions than I am willing to give to someone who attacks our BYU graduates.

And I wonder why you would quote someone else in an attempt to play “gotcha” with me.

My point was that in an attempt to prove our point, we often embellish. Blake is just as guilty as Ralph Nader.

If anyone were to suggest that Cheney spoke on behalf of BYU, the LDS church, or those in attendance at the BYU commencement, would it be fair to point out that he was speaking to his audience, not on their behalf? Of course.

Likewise, is it fair to accuse the organizers or participants of the alt.commencement of alienating their fellow Mormons just because you happen not to agree with everything said by visiting speakers? Of course not.

At the very least, if you’re going to make such a serious charge, please back it up with convincing examples.

I wonder, does below fit your idea of real dialogue?

The college democrats at BYU did more to alienate members of the church in two hours than anything for about 30 years. Way to go!

Has any attempt been made to persuade us to agree with the above sentiment?

Will it be forthcoming?

Or is it all my fault that I don’t believe in cognition by decree?

The Mormon church was born from revelation, rebellion, and dissent. Some of the contemporary successors are having trouble with the First Amendment.

Person A tabs Person B to speak at commencement. Person C doesn’t like Person B and decides to hold an alternative commencement.

Please Point out to me where the Amendment trampling happened. The constant exaggerated rhetoric from the left (and the right) are such stumbling blocks to real dialogue.

Critiquing Nader’s speech doesn’t mean I didn’t support the alternative commencement conceptually (even if I didn’t contribute financially). And I said that I acknowledged that I may very well not be representing other people’s opinions. What I didn’t support was this comment by Nader:

“The Mormon church was born from revelation, rebellion, and dissent. Some of the contemporary successors are having trouble with the First Amendment.”

That’s the comment that I took issue with. I don’t doubt that many here agree with it, but I personally thought it was disrespectful.

Whatever your opinion, however, there it is.

P.S. I’m a girl. Just so you know. :-)

If he is criticizing any Mormon belief, it is the religious belief held, implicitly or explicitly, by many on the campus and elsewhere that if the Brethren invited Cheney to speak, it is wrong to protest it (say, by holding an alternative commencement–which unlike the protests on campus, did not have the approval/permission of the Brethren). (Of course, nothing the Brethren have said supports a belief that it is improper to hold such an alternative commencement.)

Or, Nader, more likely in my view, may be criticizing the belief of many members on campus and elsewhere in the fundamental honesty of government. (“If the President says it, it must be so, because he/she has access to information that we rank and file do not have.”) Or, perhaps, Nader is challenging the belief of some that George W. Bush is doing God’s will, and that, like criticism of LDS leaders, criticism of US Presidents is against God’s will (unless they are democrats).

With respect to BYU democrats alienating members of the Church–which members and from what were they alienated?

Were they alienated from Nader? From the democratic party? From allowing democrats on BYU’s campus?

Were republican Mormons alienated? I suppose some were. But my wife, who is republican, was not alienated (of course, she is no Bush fan). Were LDS democrats alienated? Apart from Orson Scott Card (a nominal democrat who reminds me of Zell Miller), I would be surprised if many were. I am an LDS democrat, and I was not alienated. Independents? Tougher call. Two of my daughters are independents, and they were not alienated (but then, they are no Bush fans).

I gather Blake is an independent, and was alienated by the speech. Blake, were you alienated by what you argue (and I disagree) was a claim that religious belief is inconsistent with rational thought? Or were you alienated by his strong denunciations of the Administration’s policies?

Many non-Bush supporters, who are faithful members of the Church, felt “alienated” by BYU’s invitation to Cheney and the bestowal of an honorary degree. Many of us thought these might be construed by fellow church members as an implicit endorsement of the republican party and this Administration and its policies (a “let he who has ears to hear” endorsement).

The fact that the Church restated its formal neutrality policy, announced the invitation of a democratic Senator (who at the time was not a lightening rod, but is becoming one), allowed protests on campus, and made no effort to dissuade the organizing of the alternative commencement, all are welcome signs, and have taken some of the “sting” of the Cheney invitation and honorary degree. My hat is off to the students who organized it.

“… the Commander-in-Chief … neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games … These kinds of games, however, are no longer helpful, much less amusing. They merely reflect the absence of effective leadership in a crisis. And we are in a crisis.”

Who’s the guy to which the label “architect” best applies where Iraq is concerned?

Don Rumsfeld.

Where is he?

Gone.

Why?

Because when it becomes obvious the plans were bad, who do you fire? The architect.

Who does Dick Cheney thank in every commencement speech he gives?

Don Rumsfeld.

Go ahead, check it out. Head over to http://www.whitehouse.gov and search for “Cheney” and “commencement” … it’s not just the BYU and Auburn speeches, it looks to be nearly all of them (and he’s given quite a few).

Seems to me that our VP is flying around the country on our dime making sure our college graduates hear about his personal appreciation for Don Rumsfeld.

Assuming we’d all like to apply our terms accurately, and not just bandy them about in order to mischaracterize opponents in a silly tit-for-tat game, let’s keep it straight about who the “architects” were. The VIP who arrived on Air Force Two to address BYU recently, by his own actions and words, continues to welcome that label.

The college democrats at BYU did more to alienate members of the church in two hours than anything for about 30 years. Way to go!

I think it’s fairly obvious that this is an undeserved smear.

If not, why not?

To my way of thinking, it doesn’t seem quite decent to go around telling kids who are celebrating graduating from BYU, who were all apparently worthy to graduate from BYU, many of whom likely served missions, most of whom likely lived by standards far above those of the typical college life, that after all their study and devotion, that these same students must now avoid announcing their dissenting political views lest they alienate their fellow believers.

To those believers who would seek to burden these kids with that, especially the grown-ups among us who should know better, I can only ask:

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

And BTW, that’s a really lame argument in support of anything: We haven’t been attacked at home because we are sending our service people out to be attacked abroad. By itself, that strategy makes no sense unless your goal is to reduce the number of service people.