Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

REPLY TO GEORGE HANDLEY AND THOMAS ALEXANDER

REPLY TO GEORGE HANDLEY AND THOMAS ALEXANDER REPLY TO GEORGE HANDLEY AND THOMAS ALEXANDER Richard Foltz The response of Brigham Young University Professors Handley and Alexander to my article, “Mormon Values and the Utah Environ- ment,” re ects a very careless reading on their part and suggests that they have extremely biased agendas of their own. While virtu- ally every statement in their critique is refuted within the article itself, several points may be addressed again here. Handley and Alexander’s claim that they Ž nd my linking of Utah politics with the dominant religion to be “surprising” is, itself, sur- prising. The LDS Church’s stated position of political non-involve- ment is patently dishonest, and, especially in light of the pressure local bishops were recently required to put on their  ocks to donate money to Ž ght “gay marriage” bills in Hawaii and California, the claim is laughable. Utah legislators regularly boast to their con- stituencies that they consult Church authorities before voting on major bills. The LDS Church is about as apolitical as the Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority, whose values it shares to a con- siderable extent. Even if the Church’s stated position were tenable or valid, it does not in any http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Worldviews Brill

REPLY TO GEORGE HANDLEY AND THOMAS ALEXANDER

Foltz, Richard
Worldviews , Volume 5 (2-3): 228 – Jan 1, 2001
Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/reply-to-george-handley-and-thomas-alexander-Za490GbaqS

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2001 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1363-5247
eISSN
1568-5357
DOI
10.1163/15685350152908282
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

REPLY TO GEORGE HANDLEY AND THOMAS ALEXANDER Richard Foltz The response of Brigham Young University Professors Handley and Alexander to my article, “Mormon Values and the Utah Environ- ment,” re ects a very careless reading on their part and suggests that they have extremely biased agendas of their own. While virtu- ally every statement in their critique is refuted within the article itself, several points may be addressed again here. Handley and Alexander’s claim that they Ž nd my linking of Utah politics with the dominant religion to be “surprising” is, itself, sur- prising. The LDS Church’s stated position of political non-involve- ment is patently dishonest, and, especially in light of the pressure local bishops were recently required to put on their  ocks to donate money to Ž ght “gay marriage” bills in Hawaii and California, the claim is laughable. Utah legislators regularly boast to their con- stituencies that they consult Church authorities before voting on major bills. The LDS Church is about as apolitical as the Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority, whose values it shares to a con- siderable extent. Even if the Church’s stated position were tenable or valid, it does not in any

Journal

Worldviews – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.