I’ll admit it, going on vacation put me seriously behind on my reading, especially of all the columnists out there (I will be very sorry when my NY Times archive/TimesSelect access goes away — it’s enough to make a girl enroll in grad school, just to retain the free access for a few more years.) Anyway, I’m a bit late in noticing the following quote:
Still, when the United States was seriously inconvenienced by our commitment to freedom of religion, we found means to handle Mormon polygamy.
That was William F. Buckley, Jr., in his August 25th column. His general point was that British society needs to find a way of responding to the increasingly vocal (and growing) immigrant Muslim population in the UK — that’s the only Mormon mention in the piece (the Queen gets far more attention.)
My take? Okay, yeah, figuring out how to cope with change is important for any society, and when lots of changes are happening, it’s obviously a more urgent matter. Duh.
But, umm, are we really that great of an example of how to deal with change? Excluding pre-1847 persecution for the moment: is disenfranchisement, wholesale asset seizure, and widespread imprisonment really the greatest model for adaptation to cultural challenge? Is the general historical lesson of pre-1890 Mormon polygamy really “phew, we got those Mormons to cooperate, eventually”? And, because maybe this isn’t an interesting enough question yet, how about “should Mormons look to the Utah Territory period as a positive example of how to treat newcomers in our own societies?” Or maybe we’re just on every commentator’s lips right now, even when they’re not thinking about hit-piece films or presidential candidates, and this was a really bad example to use?
Anyway, my little sister hates it when I try to start this kind of conversation with her, so: what do you all think?