I’m not sure what you meant to imply by the second sentence of this comment, but the worse non-Mormons treat the disabled the less interesting a same-sized gap in treatment by Mormons and others is.
If most are good and Mormons are great, we can look to them for lessons. If most are awful and Mormons are bad but better, they are less relevant.
Most non-Mormon institutions range from acceptable to awful. Mormons, with their particular respect for the disabled and their ability to coordinate for the good of the community, may have actually good solutions we can learn from.
In short, I think non-Mormon and Mormon institutions may be on opposite sides of the line between “good” and “bad.”
I’m not sure what you meant to imply by the second sentence of this comment, but the worse non-Mormons treat the disabled the less interesting a same-sized gap in treatment by Mormons and others is.
If most are good and Mormons are great, we can look to them for lessons. If most are awful and Mormons are bad but better, they are less relevant.
Most non-Mormon institutions range from acceptable to awful. Mormons, with their particular respect for the disabled and their ability to coordinate for the good of the community, may have actually good solutions we can learn from.
In short, I think non-Mormon and Mormon institutions may be on opposite sides of the line between “good” and “bad.”
OK, great, I was just confused by “better”.