This is topic The tea party is so not racist that they needed to show how not racist they are in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:The Tea Party Express' Mark Williams -- fresh off his claim that the NAACP makes "more money off of race than any slave trader, ever" -- took to his personal blog today to offer an at least racist-ish screed calling out the NAACP for continuing to use the word "Colored" in its name. In the post, Williams calls NAACP President Ben Jealous "Tom's Nephew" and ties tea party calls for smaller government to "emancipation" (which, of course, is just steps away from the standard tea party line that Democratic policies amount to "tyranny.") But the central theme centers around, as Williams writes, the "absurdity of a group that calls blacks 'Colored People' hurling charges of racism." (the post is written in the form of a mock letter to President Abraham Lincoln from Jealous):
Again, for the record: this how an official at the Tea Party Express explains how not racist the Tea Party is.
quote:Dear Mr. Lincoln We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop! In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’. The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds. And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions! The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right. Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society? Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong. Sincerely Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person
.
yes good job tea party! you have really shown me how not racist you are!!! more exclamation points!!!!!!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
This chap is so far up his own proverbial, he's almost seeing daylight.
Maybe he'd be calmer and more rational if someone sat him down and gave him a nice cup of... oh, wait.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What the HELL?!?!?!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Bender: Awwww yeah.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not a huge fan of the NAACP these days, but Williams just made a huge mistake.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not a huge fan of the NAACP these days, but Williams just made a huge mistake.
I'm not sure whose mind this will change.
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not a huge fan of the NAACP these days, but Williams just made a huge mistake.
I'm not sure whose mind this will change.
--j_k
I don't think it will really change minds, it will just give talking heads a chance to dredge up more needless anger and indignation from both sides. I did agree with some of the NAACP's assessment of the Tea Party movement. That they are not inherently racist, but there are racists among them. I've heard many of my classmates* complain about some of the same things Williams is clearly complaining about, without being racist about it.
Williams criticism that the NAACP makes money off racism, didn't seem all off target, until he used the plantation owner comparison. Then he went home apparently and vented so now we get to really see what he's all about.
*University, not current class-mates.
[ July 17, 2010, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Keep in mind that this is the same bloke who has more recently devoted much of his attention to trying to stop the mosque from being built near ground zero, since he exclaims that it will be used for "terrorists to worship their monkey god"
remember: not racist. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This particular line actually surprised me, because it was so revealing: "How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn?"
I'd bet ten bucks he could read that three times and not figure out what it says about his true feelings on the subject.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Who... EVEN USES THE TERM COLOURED THESE DAYS!!! AUGH! The ignorance. IT BURNS!
It literally is not good for my poor stomach.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Who... EVEN USES THE TERM COLOURED THESE DAYS!!!
The NAACP. That's actually part of the "joke."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They're an old organization. The way this tea person uses it though... Where do I even start? is it worth starting?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Syn... he's intentionally using it in that way to illustrate how... ugh, you know what, nevermind. It's not even worth it. I should have stayed out of this thread just based on the title alone.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Synesthesia: Nope.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Who... EVEN USES THE TERM COLOURED THESE DAYS!!!
The NAACP. That's actually part of the "joke."
Who spells color the Btitish way anymore? I find that to be more surprising in all honesty.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Pretty much every English-speaking person in the world save those from the US, actually.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Pretty much every English-speaking person in the world save those from the US, actually.
I bet we outnumber the population of all other English speaking countries combined. I must look this up.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
That's possible, in terms of first-language English speakers, but the spread of UK English, especially in India, as a secondary language, probably pushes it above US English.
But either way, it doesn't really matter which one is more widespread, I was teasing AchillesHeel for saying it wasn't a relevant spelling, when it clearly is. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Jebus: How many of those Indians who speak English actually know how to write as well? It seems possible a sizable chunk would be able to speak but be unable to write. Further, I would be surprised if English classes in India still teach Queen's English these days.
Also Mainland China favors American English, so if it ever really takes hold we'll definitely be ahead.
In any case I like the spelling for colour.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Who... EVEN USES THE TERM COLOURED THESE DAYS!!!
The NAACP. That's actually part of the "joke."
Who spells color the Btitish way anymore? I find that to be more surprising in all honesty.
British people, Canadians. People in Australia, and weird people like me who think that colour looks better than color and that centre looks weird but cheque is hilarious.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...But "tyre" kind of pisses me off. That's just silly.
I don't know that the tea party is "inherently" racist as a movement, but there are certainly a non-trivial number of people harboring racist sentiments in it, and the willingness to put "populism" (i.e. hey, look, we can rally large numbers of people) over holding those people to any sort of standards of decent behavior is... telling.
Now Williams just got kicked out of the "official" TP tent for his little screed. But he's a big fat red flag; of course the powers in charge have to attend to how he makes the organization look. The question is if they're willing to do a damn thing about the frothing and seething masses at the rallies.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
My only concession to the queen's english is the pronounciation of "herb" and only because of Eddie Izzards poignant example that there is in fact "a ****ing h in it" but that aside I refer to the American dialect in all matters concerning the english language. It could be worse, imagine people defending the written and audio characteristics of the Yorkshire dialect... you wouldnt even understand of enough of what they said or wrote to make a retort.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Samprimary: Not only did he say that terrorists worship a monkey god, he had the gall to "apologize" for it by saying:
quote: I was wrong and that was offensive. I owe an apology to millions of Hindus who worship Lord Hanuman, an actual Monkey God. Hanuman is worshiped as a symbol of perseverance, strength and devotion. He is known as a destroyer of evil and to inspire and liberate. Those are hardly the traits of whatever the Hell (literally) it is that terrorists worship and worthy of my respect and admiration not ridicule."
"So, again, to my Hindu friends, I offer my sincerest apologies for my horrible lapse and my insensitivity. It was unintentional, inexplicably ignorant and I am ashamed at my offense toward you."
Which is pretty tasteless for an apology.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Mark Williams, a California radio host who is leading protests in New York against a proposed mosque near Ground Zero and has drawn Sarah Palin to his rallies, had previously called the President an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug" and said Muslims were "animals" who worship "a monkey god."
But when he posted a satirical letter this week from "the Colored People" to President Lincoln about how little they want to work, that apparently crossed the line - especially after the NAACP called on Tea Party leaders to oust racists from their ranks.
"We have expelled Tea Party Express and Mark Williams from the National Tea Party Federation because of the letter that he wrote," federation spokesman David Webb said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
In a press release, the National Tea Party Federation says it ordered the Tea Party Express to kick Williams out and say so "prominently" on their Website.
"They have no intention of taking the action we required," said federation spokeswoman Christina Botteri. "Therefore, effective immediately the National Tea Party Federation is expelling Tea Party Express from the ranks of our membership."
The federation says it represents 85 groups and more than a million activists.
Williams has had a rocky relationship with other Tea Party leaders, many of whom refuse to deal with him, but his group has more money and clout than most.
He stepped down as chairman of the Tea Party Express last month to concentrate on leading protests against the Lower Manhattan mosque, but remains a spokesman and chief public face of the group.
The Tea Party Express is one of the most influential in the conservative grassroots movement. It has reportedly raised $2.3 million this year alone and spent substantial sums to help elect Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, as well as boosting once-unknown Sharron Angle in Nevada.
The group has organized three cross-country bus tours to oppose Obama administration initiatives. In March, it held a rally of 8,000 people in Searchlight, Nev. that featured a rare Palin speech.
I love so much about this article, least of all the way it makes it a point to reference multiple times the fact that Sarah Palin has been in with this dude.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
He's a pretty tasteless guy, seemingly. Especially since Lord Hanuman is not even monkey-shaped. More proto-humanoid, which would seem to support evolution, oddly.
As for the spelling, I wish Webster or whoever had actually gone further and invented a proper phonetic relationship between letters and sounds in English.
In Spanish, most words are spelt as they are pronounced, which makes it much simpler for children (even those with dyslexia) to learn to read quickly and well. If someone had overhauled English like this, I think the whole world would be spelling the US way, including the UK. It would have been a pretty complicated process, and we might have needed a couple more letters, but it would have been awesome.
But instead, they didn't even make the double L rule consistent, and left a bunch of silent letters in place. Such a wasted opportunity.
Now back to the tea hating racist...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
honestly everything that's gone on here is sort of like an elegant confirmation about all the musings i have had about what makes the tea party ultimately beneficial for liberals and bad for the G.O.P. in the long run, chief among them the undercurrents of racism, the insane leadership, and the factional disagreements and extremism. Here we have the first breakout major divide in the tea party and it has been facilitated by an embarrassment. What happens now? More factional divides? Controversy over who 'owns' or can 'direct' the tea party label? A dissolving of the TPE? Slow decline due to the abandonment of one of the tea party's biggest grassroots draws? Time will tell!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Between this and the disagreements on defense spending between folks like Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, some manner of schism seems likely in the near future.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Between this and the disagreements on defense spending between folks like Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, some manner of schism seems likely in the near future.
And if we would just scrap "first past the post" primaries, and otherwise destroy the apparatus that supports two parties, these schisms would be the natural product of democracy, and would create third, fourth, fifth parties. It'd be harder to get things done, but it would ensure that groups focus, instead of trying to not take a real stand on anything while acting like you support everybody.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Between this and the disagreements on defense spending between folks like Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, some manner of schism seems likely in the near future.
And if we would just scrap "first past the post" primaries, and otherwise destroy the apparatus that supports two parties, these schisms would be the natural product of democracy, and would create third, fourth, fifth parties. It'd be harder to get things done, but it would ensure that groups focus, instead of trying to not take a real stand on anything while acting like you support everybody.
Sounds good to me.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Wow....Serious?
I think its sad that some of you read some quotes by someone from the Tea Party and then jump to the conclusion that the Tea Party movement as a whole is racist.
There may be some racist people in it and some nut jobs that shoot off their mouths without thinking, but that doesn't make the movement as a whole racist.
The Tea Party Express is NOT the Tea Party Federation, though they have worked together on many events. The Tea Party Express is a branch of the Republican Party. The Tea Party Federation is a different entity.
Goodness, how you can realistically condemn an entire movement based on a few people?
Should we condemn the democratic party because Hillary Clinton called someone an "F-ing Jew B@stard!" ? Or Joe Biden for saying that "You can't run a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent?"
How about people calling a black member of the Tea Party an "Uncle Tom" and a "Negro" on camera by people wearing SEIU shirts? The NAACP came out in may and actually AGREED to the statements, saying that since the man was a supporter of the Tea Party he was an Uncle Tom.
So should we condemn the NAACP or the Democratic Party for what a few of their members have said? Hell no! The actions of a few does represent the party or movement as a whole.
So you can go ahead and condemn the Tea Party movement, but you damn well better condemn every other political movement and party as well. Democrats, Republicans, The NAACP, The SEIU, The Tea Party, and pretty much every other political group is guilty of racist comments by some of their members.
I need to say that I've never been to a Tea Party event and never will. I'm not into rallys because it makes me feel like a sheep. I won't contribute to any political group. I'll vote based on research and whether or not I agree with the candidates views. I don't condemn those who do though, no matter what the group. I think the work the Tea Party, the NAACP, SEIU, and other groups do is good because it gets people involved in politics and our country. If more people vote due to these groups, I'm all for them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Tea Party is the first truly grass movements in a very long time. It is, as far as I can tell, the first major conservative grass roots movements that actively demonstrate in absolute decades. There have been many, but they've mostly been liberal.
No wonder people are responding like idiots. Citizens organized are powerful, and therefore terrifying. All sorts of slander gets slung at them in order to try and disband and discredit. It's just historically gone in the other direction. That the radical, democratic, activistic movement is conservative this time is making all sorts of people uncomfortable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I gotta say, in my case at least, hilarity and amusement by far outweigh uncomfortable and terrified.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mockery is another method of trying to discredit.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
People aren't responding like idiots. They are laughing at a moment of unsurpassed idiocy on the part of the tea party. And no, its not because we are "afraid", katharina.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The Tea Party is the first truly grass movements in a very long time. It is, as far as I can tell, the first major conservative grass roots movements that actively demonstrate in absolute decades. There have been many, but they've mostly been liberal.
No wonder people are responding like idiots. Citizens organized are powerful, and therefore terrifying. All sorts of slander gets slung at them in order to try and disband and discredit. It's just historically gone in the other direction. That the radical, democratic, activistic movement is conservative this time is making all sorts of people uncomfortable.
You did this before.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I believe that innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone. Even people who part of a movement attractive enough to topple your favorite political candidates.
I think that's the source of the slurs - fear.
The tea party is really a "movement attractive enough to split the vote of my least favorite political candidates" and a fearful, emotionally-driven movement that is continuing the gradual reduction of conservative electability by punishing moderacy in the G.O.P.
It's a comforting implication of motive for you to use, but I don't think nearly anyone here actively fears the tea party.
I'm sure it's a very comforting interpretation to default to — "it must be because they're scared of the tea party!" — but it's just as wrong now as the last time you took shelter behind the idea. The idiot response here belongs to the Tea Party Express.
And no, I'm still not scared of the tea party when practically everything they do is only to my benefit in the long term. I enjoy them, and I laugh at them, and I hope they stick around for a long, long time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think its sad that some of you read some quotes by someone from the Tea Party and then jump to the conclusion that the Tea Party movement as a whole is racist.
Close. The NAACP was actually cordial in not calling the tea-party racist, but rather asking tea partiers to acknowlege there being an obviously racist element within the party that they should perhaps disassociate themselves from.
So Mark William's little screed in response was helpfully telling. So too was the Tea Party Express' refusal to remove him.
quote:There may be some racist people in it and some nut jobs that shoot off their mouths without thinking, but that doesn't make the movement as a whole racist.
The personal standard for what makes a 'movement as a whole racist' is so fuzzy and subjective that I wouldn't even bother to address this one. People could easily say that the Know-Nothings weren't a movement that was 'as a whole' racist. I could set the goalposts wherever I wanted. The fact remains that the tea party has an embarrassing, slowly earned association with racism, and long after people tried to assure me there wasn't, the movement has experienced its most profound schism and humbling at the hands of a racist who was allowed to continue sitting at the top of one of the tea party's most ingrained and successful "grassroots" programs despite having in the past called muslims animals who worship a monkey god.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I actively fear the Tea Party. I am not afraid that that they will "topple" my favourite politicians (though after we elected President Bush a second time my faith in the reasonableness of the electorate was shaken). I am afraid that they will assassinate my favourite politicians. That the hatred they foster will inspire some element in that group to make good on their not-even-veiled threats of violence and revolution.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I am relatively fearful that while the Tea Party may in the long run be good for America, the damage they might conceivable accomplish in the near future (say, getting Palin elected in 2012) is enough to have me quaking ever so slightly in my boots.
I used to think Bush would be "good for America, in the long term." That was in 2002. I was defining long term as "2004." That certainly did not work out for me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
So not only are opponents not afraid, it may just be more of the same, trying to gain legitemacy by pretending to be grass roots.
Actually, I don't know which is worse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, y'know, before the Tea Party there was the staggeringly grass-roots-supported Obama campaign, Katharina.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Again, I will reiterate that Sarah Palin has virtually no chance of winning a presidential election. Even if Obama were bottoming out in the approval polls come 2012, she would influence the moderate voters too dramatically in his favor.
The odds of her even running are slim. The whole assembly of straw polls from summer of '09 to the present have showed that it would be an extremely improbable gamble that she would even win the Republican primary.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I really really want to believe that. If you can cite som really compelling evidence I may change my mind, but in 2003 I wouldn't have considered the possibility that Bush could win again either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not worried about national elections, but I am worried about local ones.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think its sad that some of you read some quotes by someone from the Tea Party and then jump to the conclusion that the Tea Party movement as a whole is racist.
Close. The NAACP was actually cordial in not calling the tea-party racist, but rather asking tea partiers to acknowlege there being an obviously racist element within the party that they should perhaps disassociate themselves from.
So Mark William's little screed in response was helpfully telling. So too was the Tea Party Express' refusal to remove him.
Two different groups. The Tea Party Express is a republican group. The Tea Party Federation is not. The TPF did distance themselves from the Tea Party Express, meaning they did exactly what the NAACP suggested. So what is your point?
quote:
quote:There may be some racist people in it and some nut jobs that shoot off their mouths without thinking, but that doesn't make the movement as a whole racist.
The personal standard for what makes a 'movement as a whole racist' is so fuzzy and subjective that I wouldn't even bother to address this one. People could easily say that the Know-Nothings weren't a movement that was 'as a whole' racist. I could set the goalposts wherever I wanted. The fact remains that the tea party has an embarrassing, slowly earned association with racism, and long after people tried to assure me there wasn't, the movement has experienced its most profound schism and humbling at the hands of a racist who was allowed to continue sitting at the top of one of the tea party's most ingrained and successful "grassroots" programs despite having in the past called muslims animals who worship a monkey god.
[/qb][/quote]
Yet you placed the goalposts yourself and have expressed your belief that the Tea Party is a racist organization, based on what this idiot Marc Williams said.
Since you are so quick to judge an entire political organization based on what one member wrote or said, are you ready to condemn the Democratic Party, the SEIU, the NAACP, Republican Party, and EVERY other political organization as well, based on racist comments their members have made?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Assassination? Yeah, that's totally reasonable.
And more than a bit slanderous and insulting. It certainly isn't doing much to dispel the "people responding like idiots" thesis.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Well, y'know, before the Tea Party there was the staggeringly grass-roots-supported Obama campaign, Katharina.
In support of a candidate. That's not the same as an ideological movement that then had to search around for (a) suitable candidate(s).
Also, not conservative. I have no idea what your point was supposed to be.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Geraine: [qb]I think its sad that some of you read some quotes by someone from the Tea Party and then jump to the conclusion that the Tea Party movement as a whole is racist.
Close. The NAACP was actually cordial in not calling the tea-party racist, but rather asking tea partiers to acknowlege there being an obviously racist element within the party that they should perhaps disassociate themselves from.
So Mark William's little screed in response was helpfully telling. So too was the Tea Party Express' refusal to remove him.
Two different groups. The Tea Party Express is a republican group. The Tea Party Federation is not. The TPF did distance themselves from the Tea Party Express, meaning they did exactly what the NAACP suggested. So what is your point?
quote:
quote:There may be some racist people in it and some nut jobs that shoot off their mouths without thinking, but that doesn't make the movement as a whole racist.
The personal standard for what makes a 'movement as a whole racist' is so fuzzy and subjective that I wouldn't even bother to address this one. People could easily say that the Know-Nothings weren't a movement that was 'as a whole' racist. I could set the goalposts wherever I wanted. The fact remains that the tea party has an embarrassing, slowly earned association with racism, and long after people tried to assure me there wasn't, the movement has experienced its most profound schism and humbling at the hands of a racist who was allowed to continue sitting at the top of one of the tea party's most ingrained and successful "grassroots" programs despite having in the past called muslims animals who worship a monkey god.
Yet you placed the goalposts yourself and have expressed your belief that the Tea Party is a racist organization, based on what this idiot Marc Williams said.
Since you are so quick to judge an entire political organization based on what one member wrote or said, are you ready to condemn the Democratic Party, the SEIU, the NAACP, Republican Party, and EVERY other political organization as well, based on racist comments their members have made?
And God help us if Palin were to win in 2012. I don't think she has a shot in hell, but it still scares me. The biggest thing Obama has going for him in 2012 is that I really can't think of one Republican that would put up a good fight. Newt Gingrich perhaps has a chance of getting the nomination, but he'd have trouble in the general election due to the ethics problems he had when he was speaker.
If Bobby Jindal ran against President Obama it would be one of the most energetic and interesting campaigns. The debates would be fun to watch.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Assassination? Yeah, that's totally reasonable.
And more than a bit slanderous and insulting. [quote][qb]It certainly isn't doing much to dispel the "people responding like idiots" thesis.
That's okay, because you've really done nothing to realistically substantiate it in any way anyway. It's just something you're saying. It's easy, I can do it too: 'no, it's the tea party which is stupid.'
yeah, got anything better?
As per the reasonableness v. unreasonableness it's worth noting that we can add the homeland security departments and wackos following the movement itself into the slander-and-insult department you've laid out for us.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Two different groups. The Tea Party Express is a republican group. The Tea Party Federation is not.
Geraine, the Tea Party Express was part of the national Tea Party movement, even 'officially' as part of the Tea Party Federation. They were part of it when members were waving around those 'niggar' signs. When the leader of the TPE was calling muslims animals who worship a monkey god. It has to come to this before the larger official tea party body acts against them and ends up having to expel the entire group over their unwillingness to fire the man.
quote:Since you are so quick to judge an entire political organization based on what one member wrote or said
HINT: I am not. Any summation I have on whether the Tea Party is inherently racist does not come from the actions of a single man, but when he's the main astroturfer of the republican party for this movement and has been prior to now an integral part of the national movement despite the other things he said that the movement did NOT take action over,
that certainly helps. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Joe Wierzbicki, coordinator for the Tea Party Express, issued the following statement Monday in response to the Tea Party Federation's announcement Sunday about the Federation's relationship with the Tea Party Express:
"The Tea Party Express with over 400,000 members is by far larger than the Tea Party Federation’s entire membership. Most rank-and-file tea party activists think we’re talking about Star Trek when we try to explain who the “Federation” is. Given the absurdity of the actions by the "Federation," this is quite fitting, since their conduct is alien to our membership. "Groups trying to say who can or can't be 'expelled' from the tea party movement is arrogant and preposterous. Perhaps this explains why so many tea party groups have left the "Federation" during the past few months. Whatever the reason, most tea party activists are focused on taking back their country and the upcoming 2010 elections and not silly power games being played by individuals such as those in the "Federation."
"To add to the absurdity of the "Federation" they have also informed us that our members can't participate in something called their "basecamp" communication network, which makes us think that the individuals involved in the "Federation" spend a bit too much time watching science fiction movies and cartoons. We here at the Tea Party Express prefer a focus that is more grounded in the Constitution and electing tea party conservatives to offices of import in these 2010 elections.
The "Federation" has enabled and empowered the NAACP's racist attacks on the tea party movement, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
"Circular firing squads of groups within the tea party movement attacking one another accomplish nothing, and on this issue the Tea Party Federation is wrong, and has both enabled and empowered the NAACP’s racist attacks on the tea party movement. Which is something they'll realize when they beam themselves back from basecamp."
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
SamP,
You are right. They were officially part of the Tea Party movement. That being said, The Tea Party Federation did the right thing distancing themselves from the TPE. If one or two crazies in the rally hold signs or scream racist words, there is not much they can do about it. When a leader of one of the organizations does it? Distance themselves from that organization, because they do not believe the same way.
What is wrong with that?
And once again, I'll ask you the same question I have twice already since you keep avoiding giving me an answer. Since your "summation" on whether or not the Tea Party is inherently a racist organization is based on the actions of one man and a few of the members, will you condemn all other political groups in the US for the actions their members have taken?
One thing I would like to point out that it is sad that the NAACP can say there are racist elements in the Tea Party and it is a HUGE deal, yet no one seems to notice when the President of the NAACP hangs out with Louis Farrakhan on televised forums.
But hey, what do I know. According to Louis Farrakhan since I have white skin I haven't even evolved into a human yet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: What is wrong with that?
Nothing on the whole except for, as I've mentioned twice, the fact that they were more than happy to stick with the organization and continue to work with its intake of funds while the leader was saying all the blatantly racist things he was, and while the organizations' operators kept stoking and feeding off of a campaign with such themes.
quote:And once again, I'll ask you the same question I have twice already since you keep avoiding giving me an answer. Since your "summation" on whether or not the Tea Party is inherently a racist organization is based on the actions of one man and a few of the members, will you condemn all other political groups in the US for the actions their members have taken?
read my posts, I gave you your answer already. "Any summation I have on whether the Tea Party is inherently racist does not come from the actions of a single man." It's right there in my last post. And I've made that clear from the onset of my discussing issues of race and racial issues with the tea party that it has more to do with the presence of pervasive elements that can't be pawned off on 'just a few crazies' (let's ask again: how many tea party members think the president is a muslim? from kenya?), so you can stop jumping to the conclusion that this is the case.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Samp, perhaps you can tell me what these "pervasive elements" are then, since you haven't explained what they are yet.
I will say that was an interesting article though. I think its a little ridiculous on the side of the TPE though. Not to mention childish.
The Tea Party Federation is something I'm fine with. It's not affiliated with any political party. I was worried when the TPE (funded by the Republicans) joined them and took the name, because I think it lost some of its non-partisan ideals in exchange for purely conservative ones.
Good riddance to the TPE, and I hope it dies out. Afterall, it is nothing but a republican hype machine. I hope the TPF sticks around though and continues as a non-partisan group.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Samp, perhaps you can tell me what these "pervasive elements" are then, since you haven't explained what they are yet.
The Tea Party is jam-packed with racists. It draws heavily from older, racist demographics and is made up of cultural reactionaries, the MAJORITY of whom believe that Obama is a muslim and/or born in kenya and plenty plenty plenty of people who are driven to activism in significant part by things including islamophobia and (yup!) racism. Since the tea party is a movement based largely on attempting to create high-profile rallies, the associations it earns from the acts of its most outwardly racist are noted as a concern by the party itself, and why it's so telling when you have "Obama's Witch Doctor Care" featuring a picture of Obama with a bone in his nose, distributed at more than one rally. Among an infinite quantity of further examples.
Guess what! Many of them are homophobes too! But nearly always, racists insist they are not racist. Always. They aren't racist, and they sure don't SEE any racism, so that's good enough, right?
quote:Take Ron Wight, who stood with dozens of tea party activists at the J.C. Nichols Memorial Fountain in April, complaining about the Obama administration, its socialist agenda and being called a racist.
Those like him who complain about President Barack Obama are accused of racism, lamented the semi-retired music teacher from Lee’s Summit.
Then he added: “If I was a black man, I’d get down on my knees and thank God for slavery. Otherwise, I could be dying of AIDS now in Africa.”
Wight doesn’t consider that comment to be racist.
Of course not. There's no way the comment is racist. How would we ever perceive it as racist? Clive Candy wasn't a racist. Malanthrop isn't a racist (he has jamaican neighbors!). Dan_Frank doesn't think that Michelle Malkin's In Defense of Internment was racist, the last time he got really, really unhappy the last time I pointed out that racism is a prevalent issue for the tea party. Nobody's a racist!
But what I've always asserted is that it has become obvious that the tea party has a problem with racism, whether it be images of the tea party seeming racist against blacks or brown middle-eastern terrorist-looking folk. And it has borne true (Yes, Virginia, Samprimary was right again) The fact that the movement's largest and most damaging schism is the result of a profoundly embarrasing and blatantly racist shpiel (by yet another I'm Not A Racist, who will say it's not REALLY racist, he's just misunderstood) is pure gravy for the case I've made in the past.
This is something that the Tea Party has acknowledged in the sense that they know they have to manage it and try to limit the damage that the very open kooks cause at the rallies. Note that saying "The Tea Party has problems with racism" is different than saying "the Tea Party is intrinsically racist" or whatever other mistranslations people are wont to commit when they're sad to watch the tea party implode over the subject of racism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In support of a candidate. That's not the same as an ideological movement that then had to search around for (a) suitable candidate(s).
It seems a bit of a quibble, but alright.
quote:Also, not conservative. I have no idea what your point was supposed to be.
You started by saying the Tea Party was the first truly grass roots movement in a long time.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...the MAJORITY of whom believe that Obama is a muslim and/or born in kenya...
Being the incredibly well-informed and wise political scholar that you are, I trust it would be a snap for you to provide a citation for that, yes?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: That's possible, in terms of first-language English speakers, but the spread of UK English, especially in India, as a secondary language, probably pushes it above US English.
Sorry to jump in late with a non-seq, but:
Doubtful- style guides and ESL textbooks are fairly evenly split. "Color" thanks to the internet is at least as common internationally as "Color," same going for "tire" in place of "tyre" and "humor" in place of "humour."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"Color" thanks to the internet is at least as common internationally as "Color"
That makes sense.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...the MAJORITY of whom believe that Obama is a muslim and/or born in kenya...
Being the incredibly well-informed and wise political scholar that you are, I trust it would be a snap for you to provide a citation for that, yes?
i think its fairly well documented that the tea-partiers of today are the birthers of a year ago.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: i think its fairly well documented that the tea-partiers of today are the birthers of a year ago.
Please show the documentation...
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Please show the documentation...
What is this, Arizona?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Sam just does what he always does in other threads. Throws out "facts" without backing them up. Then when you ask for citation, he:
1: Stops posting in the thread
2: Says you are not worth his time anymore because you don't want to see the facts for what they are
3" Posts a biased source or article
Again I will ask you though Sam. Where is the outrage over the NAACP hanging out with Farrakhan? Or does that not count as "racist elements?"
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...the MAJORITY of whom believe that Obama is a muslim and/or born in kenya...
Being the incredibly well-informed and wise political scholar that you are, I trust it would be a snap for you to provide a citation for that, yes?
Indeed, as I am a wise AND well-informed political scholar more that able and willing to help guide you through these painful forthcomings, I am indeed easily able to do so for your sardonically solicited benefit!
Note the charming 53% figure under tea party belief that Obama is a Muslim, and the 45% Tea Party belief figure under "He was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be President"
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Sam just does what he always does in other threads. Throws out "facts" without backing them up. Then when you ask for citation, he:
1: Stops posting in the thread
I think it's hilarious that you posted this while I was literally in the middle of pulling up my response. With a citation. With facts.
quote:Says you are not worth his time anymore because you don't want to see the facts for what they are
Geraine, I have a challenge for you. Pull up ONE instance of me actually doing this like you say it, or retract the statement. If you opt to do neither, or just pull up something which you tenuously consider to be an example of this but which isn't really, I'm going to use it as a good example of you resorting to lame accusations and dismissals in the face of frustration.
quote:Again I will ask you though Sam. Where is the outrage over the NAACP hanging out with Farrakhan? Or does that not count as "racist elements?"
Why? Where have I commented on whether or not I care about or support the NAACP's agenda? Surely you've noted that there IS 'outrage' over this. You, yourself demonstrate it.
Anyway, I'll be looking forward to either a substantiation of your crap about me, or a retraction. Good luck!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Samp. not that you will care, but this is an interesting rebuttal to the Harris poll Wall Street Journal Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Samp. not that you will care, but this is an interesting rebuttal to the Harris poll Wall Street Journal
DarkKnight, not that you will care, but here is an an interesting analysis of the poll's methodology versus its interpretations.
But since we apparently communally wouldn't care (as asserted by the other for some reason), I guess there was no point to making either of these posts!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, here's another non-racist, just as an aside:
quote:Murdough says he's nonviolent, that his vision for a new America can be achieved without resorting to genocide or imprisonment.
So please, don't call him a racist. He says that's not true.
"I would ask you about your version of racist," Murdough said. "The word does not have a specific definition. If someone says, 'You seem to hate people who aren't white,'
I say no, so I can't really be a racist, because I don't hate them. I just don't want to live around areas that are heavily, predominantly non-white."
quote:He caused a storm recently with a letter to the Monitor that stated his allegiance to the American Third Position, a political party that represents interests of white Americans. The Republican Party immediately ducked for cover and disowned him as a candidate on their ticket.
Murdough wrote that the state's residents "must seek to preserve their racial identity. . . . Legal non-white immigration, anti-white public school systems and anti-white media have done much damage to the United States of America and especially New Hampshire."
...
Ah yes, the Jews. They need not apply for residency here, either.
"I've even read some things where Jews are considered white because of their skin," Murdough said. "Technically, they're a different race than white people. They're Semitic; that's not white."
Even though whites weren't America's original settlers, Murdough says American Indians would have to leave, too, just like members of all other non-white races. We came, we saw, we conquered. Too bad.
"What happened with them was unfortunate," Murdough said. "But the way lands are taken over is the way it works. They were here, the Western settlers took over and the rest is history."
The conversation continued along these lines, from a man who says immigration of any kind must stop so America can be white as snow.
He tempered his comments along the way, separating himself from the Klan and Hitler by mentioning his job. Murdough works with special-needs kids at the Spaulding Youth Center in Tilton.
"I work directly with kids that are not white and people that are not white on a daily basis," Murdough said. "I don't have a problem working with them. That would be immature to be mean to someone based on skin color."
I should add this to my growing list of Totally Not Racist people. It's almost perfect because it contains something really close to 'don't get me wrong, I have black friends'
[ July 20, 2010, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's more than really close, it's a step up. 1.0 is, "I have many black friends." 1.3 is now apparently, "I help underprivileged non-white children."
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Sam just does what he always does in other threads. Throws out "facts" without backing them up. Then when you ask for citation, he:
1: Stops posting in the thread
I think it's hilarious that you posted this while I was literally in the middle of pulling up my response. With a citation. With facts.
quote:Says you are not worth his time anymore because you don't want to see the facts for what they are
Geraine, I have a challenge for you. Pull up ONE instance of me actually doing this like you say it, or retract the statement. If you opt to do neither, or just pull up something which you tenuously consider to be an example of this but which isn't really, I'm going to use it as a good example of you resorting to lame accusations and dismissals in the face of frustration.
quote:Again I will ask you though Sam. Where is the outrage over the NAACP hanging out with Farrakhan? Or does that not count as "racist elements?"
Why? Where have I commented on whether or not I care about or support the NAACP's agenda? Surely you've noted that there IS 'outrage' over this. You, yourself demonstrate it.
Anyway, I'll be looking forward to either a substantiation of your crap about me, or a retraction. Good luck!
Got it. Throw it all back on me Sam while you continue to avoid my question. It is a simple yes or no question. Either you condemn every political organization because they have racist elements, or you don't.
I will not retract anything I have said. You can just as easily look back through your own posts and see that you have done just that. You have done it with Clive, you have done it with Mal, and other posters here that do not agree with you. Granted most of the time their posts don't deserve to be read, but you have done it.
As for Number 1, yeah that is pretty funny
Now, I have to give kudos to the NAACP today. I am happy that they are practicing what they preach by distancing and condemning the comments by Shirley Sherrod. Her comments saying that she did not help a farmer as much as she could have because he was a white man and that she referred him to one of "his own kind" is racist. She is now trying to say it wasn't racist because his farm was saved and that she is now friends with the farmer. She may be friends with him and his farm may have been saved, but a racist comment is racist.
Are there other members of the NAACP that have made racist comments? Probably. Do I condemn the entire NAACP because of the comments of a few of their members? No I don't.
This is the point you keep missing Sam. Laugh and holler all you want about the Tea Party organization, but at least acknowledge that every other political organization has its own racist elements.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: But hey, what do I know. According to Louis Farrakhan since I have white skin I haven't even evolved into a human yet.
I agree with you about Farrakhan damaging people's credibility by association with him. However, before you go hurling rocks at glass houses, I'd like to remind you that the Mormon church had some pretty racist policies within my own living memory. You're a Mormon, Geraine, IIRC.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Got it. Throw it all back on me Sam while you continue to avoid my question. It is a simple yes or no question. Either you condemn every political organization because they have racist elements, or you don't.
Your question before was "where is the outrage over the NAACP hanging out with Farrakhan?" I answered that. Now you're changing that to a different question and saying I didn't answer it. wtf mate. You're weird when you're riled up.
quote:I will not retract anything I have said. You can just as easily look back through your own posts and see that you have done just that. You have done it with Clive, you have done it with Mal, and other posters here that do not agree with you. Granted most of the time their posts don't deserve to be read, but you have done it.
Show me. If it's just as easy for me to look back through my own posts and see it, as you say, it's just as easy for you. Go ahead. Substantiate yourself.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote: Now, I have to give kudos to the NAACP today. I am happy that they are practicing what they preach by distancing and condemning the comments by Shirley Sherrod.
quote:She is now trying to say it wasn't racist because his farm was saved and that she is now friends with the farmer.
No, she isn't:
quote:Sherrod defended herself in a number of interviews Tuesday, saying her controversial comments were taken out of context. She had, she said, used a personal experience from nearly a quarter century ago in which she confronted her own racism and learned to move beyond it.
Brietbart's version of events doesn't resemble what was actually said, or what actually happened. The entire controversy was just a convenient, poorly thought-out smear - just another piece of evidence in the two-year old Obama Is A Racist narrative.
As the farmer stated:
quote:Meanwhile, the farmer referenced in the clip told CNN he credits Sherrod with helping his family save their farm.
"I don't know what brought up the racist mess," Roger Spooner told CNN's "Rick's List." "They just want to stir up some trouble, it sounds to me in my opinion."
Couldn't agree more.
--j_k
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:"Color" thanks to the internet is at least as common internationally as "Color"
That makes sense.
Paradoxically "Hammer" is not as common as "Hammer."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: i think its fairly well documented that the tea-partiers of today are the birthers of a year ago.
Please show the documentation...
Probably the birthers of a year ago are tea-party members... perhaps you mispoke? I think the Tea Party thing is bigger than the birther thing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: It is a simple yes or no question. Either you condemn every political organization because they have racist elements, or you don't.
DO you still beat your wife? It's a simple yes or no question.
Well... yes or no questions are often less than simple- if your question is as loaded as this one. Getting the person to answer "no," while perhaps satisfying to you, does not prove or even enhance your point. It hinders your understanding of the other person. You may want to work on that.
Do you want to work on that and be better, or continue to be terrible at this? Simple yes or no question.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: i think its fairly well documented that the tea-partiers of today are the birthers of a year ago.
quote:Eighty-five percent of Democrats, but just 42% of Republicans, maintain that Obama was born in the U.S. There is also a wide divergence of opinion between liberals, 96% of whom believe Obama was born in America, and conservatives, of whom fewer than half feel this way (45%). Just 29% of the voters who say they identify a lot with the tea party movement believe that Obama is a U.S.-born citizen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Christ on a crap cracker, that is horribly sad.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: DarkKnight, not that you will care, but here is an an interesting analysis of the poll's methodology versus its interpretations.
I did read that and it is agrees that the Harris poll did not follow well known polling principles and agreed that the poll would be skewed.
Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
I would never defend the comments of this individual. Racism boiled down is stereotyping by color. Stereotyping is taking a statistical minority to prejudge the majority. I'll counteract this jackass to help understand the Tea Party.
Anyone remember who said, "Hymie Town"? Does he represent an Jew Hating organization.
I don't consider the Democratic Party a racist party because the man they call "the voice of the Senate", was senate majority leader and said:
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
"There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time."
"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."
You can't find black members of the KKK...a truly racist organization. Are there any white members of the Black Panthers?
Is anyone here willing to call the Black Panthers racist? I dare you to find a white black panther member. The Tea Party is not racist but it may have some racist members. The Catholic Church is evil for being full of pedophiles also?
Stop your stereotyping.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
malanthrop: Your argument is that many Americans and Catholics are respectively, racist and evil? Wow, thats a toughie. I don't know how I'm ever going to agree to that one Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
No, my sarcasm didn't translate. There are bad people in any group. One priest pedophile makes worldwide news. One service member with a dui makes city news, despite the fact that town had 50 in the same day. A pretty white college girl comes up missing, we have to hear about it for months on national news. What's newsworthy? What's newsworthy is the anomaly. It's not shocking for a Clansman to make a racist remark. It's not shocking for a black panther to do the same. A tea party leader's racist remark is not really different than the high school teacher who had sex with a student. Especially if it a female teacher..... The bigger the anomaly, the greater the news.
No one stereotypes the teachers union. Of course, whites, churches and conservative organizations can be judged by the action of one. Racist rants and misconduct from minorities and liberal organizations are a different story.....even when less an anomaly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
malanthrope, if you are under the impression that the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is about "one priest pedophile" - or even a few or a few dozen pedophile priests - rather than a systemic corruption in the Church hierarchy dating back for generations, you do not understand the situation.
Similarly, if you can't tell the difference between isolated racist remarks and racist remarks as an indicator of systemic cultural racism dating back for generations, you do not understand the situation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What's newsworthy is the anomaly.
I disagree, actually. Were every Catholic priest a pedophile rapist, I can guarantee you that newspapers would still print that story.
(And for what it's worth, I've seen plenty of people stereotype teacher's unions.)
Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: malanthrope, if you are under the impression that the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is about "one priest pedophile" - or even a few or a few dozen pedophile priests - rather than a systemic corruption in the Church hierarchy dating back for generations, you do not understand the situation.
Similarly, if you can't tell the difference between isolated racist remarks and racist remarks as an indicator of systemic cultural racism dating back for generations, you do not understand the situation.
Pedophile crisis? According to who? In FL I think we're having a female teacher molesting 14 year old boys crisis. Do you think that of all pedophiles in prison today, priest's comprise the highest percentage of offenders by employment? Running into a priest sex offender in jail or prison would be like running into Brad Pitt at the gas station. Extreme anomaly, sure. I won't deny, the one who do it had multitudes of victims. But as far as offenders are concerned, this isn't unusual.
Explain to me how the comments of this particular Tea Party member are, as you said, "racist remarks as an indicator of systemic cultural racism dating back for generations"
The tea party isn't that old.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Why are you posting under "malanthrope," a new account?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. That they aren't in jail is the problem. The Church leadership has protected them from civil prosecution.
You really don't know enough about this to discuss it intelligently.
Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Why are you posting under "malanthrope," a new account?
I'm in the Middle East. My login was remembered by my home computer. I attempted to have my PW sent but it never arrived. I created a new account and had the same issue. I emailed the administrator. Later I rx'd an email from the moderator that my accounts had been merged, with a new pw. I prefer my old login but couldn't recover my pw from it.
If I'm becoming that guy who is no longer welcome, I won't create accounts under other names.
[ July 21, 2010, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: malanthrope ]
Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Right. That they aren't in jail is the problem. The Church leadership has protected them from civil prosecution.
You really don't know enough about this to discuss it intelligently.
That's like saying there aren't enough blacks in jail due to the no snitch rule in the hood.
Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
I reconsidered my prior statement. It was an inaccurate analogy. It's more like saying "there aren't enough gang bangers in jail"
Like the Catholic Church, the Hood has a code of silence - probably stronger. The church secretary doesn't have to worry about her life, for snitching. The church members are part of a community just like the good people in a gang neighborhood. Priests are a fraction of the church and no parishoner (the majority) would tolerate pedophilia. In the "hood", live good people and good families who aren't gang bangers but they have that code of silence....out of fear for their lives.
Who's stopping the prosecution of a pedophile? Who's stopping the prosecution of a drug dealer? Most pedophiles never get caught and when they do, they leave behind a slew of victims. Priest pedophiles are no different. At least in the church, the people in the community wont adhere to a no snitch rule, even if the organization does.
[ July 21, 2010, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: malanthrope ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, you really need to find out what you are talking about before discussing this. "Snitches" may not have had their lives threatened, but they have been threatened with excommunication which, to many Catholics was a threat to eternal life. People that they believed were absolute moral authorities told them to keep their mouths shut. Whole parishes did tolerate pedophilia on orders from their bishops.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Sam, the question was in my first post. Regarding your posting habits, I would be happy to dicuss them in pm's, as they do not relate to the subject. I should not have brought them up here in this topic and I apologize for that. I will do what you suggest however and PM you any examples I find.
Orincoro, did you copy the wife beating example from fallacyfiles.org? I'm just wondering because they give the exact same example on their website under "loaded question."
I'll give you a better example of a loaded question, as wife beating is not a subject I'd really like to discuss.
How does insulting someone on an internet forum instead of making the suggestion they rephrase a question make you feel?
Strip out all of the nastiness of your post though and you do have a point. I will pose the question(s) another way. I don't want the logical fallacy police knocking on my door.
1) Personally, what are deciding factors on whether or not a political organization has racist elements?
2) Based on the deciding factors you have listed, do you feel that organizations other than the Tea Party contain racist elements?
3) Do you feel that you treat each organization with equal scrutiny?
To Steven, it is true that the Mormon church had what some consider to be racist policies. While a person of any race could be baptized, not all could receive the priesthood. Interestingly no one seems to know when these policies surfaced. There are many examples of African American members of the church that held the priesthood in the 1800's as well as an African American man that served as a Seventy in the church. Somewhere along the line that changed and I have been unable to find when or why.
I was born in the church and I am white, and I had a lot of trouble accepting that part of the church. I researched it and couldn't find why black members of the church could not hold the priesthood for over a hundred years. I was finally able to accept it through a man I met at church.
Kamau Bacari is an African American member of the church. He was baptized about six years ago, and is one of the happiest people I have ever met. If you saw the guy on the street and met his eyes, this guy would stop and talk to you like a long lost friend. I was talking to him one day and had told him that I was having trouble accepting the stance the church had taken previous to 1978.
Kamau said that he had the same reservations prior to being baptized. He showed me a few quotes by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that he had found that showed they were not racist, but still couldn't understand why blacks were not allowed the Priesthood.
"...they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation." -Joseph Smith (History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 217)
"For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent." -Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110)
He said that he actually got his answer while reading the Old Testament. In the Old Testament the God chose certain groups of people to hold the priesthood. In ancient Israel, only Levites could have the Priesthood. It didn't mean the Levites were more righteous or superior to the other tribes, (though at times they were cursed for acting like they were) it just meant that the priesthood duties had been assigned to them.
With his help I've been able to accept it, though it was hard.
quote:To Steven, it is true that the Mormon church had what some consider to be racist policies.
Who, honestly, would not have considered them racist policies? The Mormon church was blatantly, hideously racist for generations.
quote:He showed me a few quotes by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that he had found that showed they were not racist
really? Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again, you really need to find out what you are talking about before discussing this. "Snitches" may not have had their lives threatened, but they have been threatened with excommunication which, to many Catholics was a threat to eternal life. People that they believed were absolute moral authorities told them to keep their mouths shut. Whole parishes did tolerate pedophilia on orders from their bishops.
Doubt you have the understanding about the Catholic church that I do. My father completed the semenary and didn't take his final vows because Vatican II was too liberal. Go ahead and google Vatican II....I was raised an extreme Catholic. As a child, I was forced to complete the rosary prayers on a regular basis. While you might have been watching the A-Team, I was saying the Hail Mary.
FYI...I no longer attend the Catholic Church but I doubt you understand it as much as I do. My little league coach was a pedophile and he didn't get any protection.
You attacking the "Catholic Church" for the misconduct of a priest is like attacking an entire neighborhood for the conduct of one gang banger. Right or wrong, church members are offended by an attack on the church.....despite the fact they aren't church workers or priests.
No parishoner has been excomunicated for ratting out a pedophile priest...can you say the same for a neighborhood snitch.
Institutional silence can be expected....I still think a church worker will report a crime sooner than a gang member and a parishoner will report one sooner than a person living in a gang community.
I seriously doubt you know know more about the Catholic church than I, unless you were raised by a Catholic who tainted you worse than I.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Strip out all of the nastiness of your post though and you do have a point. I will pose the question(s) another way. I don't want the logical fallacy police knocking on my door.
1) Personally, what are deciding factors on whether or not a political organization has racist elements?
2) Based on the deciding factors you have listed, do you feel that organizations other than the Tea Party contain racist elements?
3) Do you feel that you treat each organization with equal scrutiny?
I think you probably want to revisit these questions, or .. really, explain to me how they're relevant angles of inquiry for what I think of the Tea Party. Of course I think the tea party has racist elements. Practically all organizations have "racist elements." All you need is a single racist or racially inequitable policy or practice in an organization, and that counts.
But looking at these questions, I think that everything you've been ... well, grousing about is based on you mistranslating my position greatly. Do you think I think the tea party is "a racist movement?" Do you think I think that the tea party is 'racist' and the NAACP is not? Or that the tea party has 'racist elements' and the NAACP does not?
As for treating each organization with equal scrutiny, I do not, even if I strive to. You don't, either, and it seems to a much greater degree than me. Nobody does. Not a single human being on earth. The best you can hope to do is to strive to find and factor in blind spots and make an honest attempt to acknowledge and inhibit the myriad of cognitive biases that infest the human mind. But considering I don't support either the NAACP or the Tea Party nor feel any choice-supportive bias towards either, it shouldn't be too hard.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrope: Doubt you have the understanding about the Catholic church that I do.
...
I doubt you understand it as much as I do.
...
I seriously doubt you know know more about the Catholic church than I
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Malanthrope, I am a practicing, mass-going, choir-singing Catholic. Never really watched the A-Team. Nor was I raised by a Catholic. You struck out pretty thoroughly on those guesses.
Also, google Fr. Thomas Doyle. He is probably the world's foremost expert in what the Church did to cover-up abuse. He is also my cousin.
Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Practically all organizations have "racist elements." All you need is a single racist or racially inequitable policy or practice in an organization, and that counts.
It is unfortunate to have that opinion. Inequity is a fact of life. Women still make less.....we can argue about experience, etc. The woman raised babies instead of gaining experience. We can talk about high school dropout rates...etc.
"Inequitable" as defined by what? Defined by current outcome or current equality of opportunity? The tea parry certainly doesn't stand for equal outcomes, they do stand for equal opportunity and limited government.
Of course, if big govt and redistribution of wealth, in a society where minorities (stereotypically speaking) are poorer, is your main concern...opportunity doesn't matter. Overall averages (statistics) matter.....you've flipped stereotyping on it's head......ignore graduation rates and pay attention to income.
Yes, the Tea Party will hurt minorities in the short run. Smaller government equals less aid to the poor. The question is...Why are so many minorities dropping out of high school and having babies before they are legally adults?
What "racially inequitable position" does the Tea Party take? The Tea party wants equality of opportunity....not necessarily of outcome. Opportunity has nothing to do with skin color.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A racially inequitable policy is defined by a policy that, de facto or otherwise, preferences persons of one race over others and gives them more opportunities at the expense of other races.
quote:Opportunity has nothing to do with skin color.
A statement so idealistically ignorant of current realities that it could have only really come from you! You might as well have said 'opportunity has nothing to do with gender,' another common whopper by people taking a hypnotically idealistic and ignorant perception of sociopolitical inequity.
quote:Yes, the Tea Party will hurt minorities in the short run. Smaller government equals less aid to the poor. The question is...Why are so many minorities dropping out of high school and having babies before they are legally adults?
What an EXCELLENT question! Let's hear your answer!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
As a crazy socialist, I actually have viewed my politics as a way to maximize equality of opportunity, not results. Take a kid from the inner city who has no health care and schools were the cops are scared to go and compare with say a kid on the rich side of town who gets regular checkups and glasses when they need it and all their immunizations and goes to a fancy private school with low student teacher ratios and then has a private tutor, who do you think has more oppportunities? Or the kid whose parents get cancer and they lose everything because of our health care system? Sorry, your system does NOT give everyone equal opportunities. It gives the fortunate few the ability to succeed and then arrogantly proclaim their success as the result of their own actions, denying all the perks and bonuses they had.
Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
I do not believe in equality of opportunity, other than legal. I'm the second son. By the time I was 7 I was bigger and stronger than my older brother. He failed a grade and ended up in my class in high school...I still got better grades than him. Today I make twice what he does. Where was the inequality?
What about my cousin and his PHD, who makes twice what I do? He was a black kid adopted by white people. Was he advantaged by his white parents or disadvantaged for his skin color?. Why is my older brother collecting food stamps and I am not? You're definitely at a disadvantage if you're born in a culture with an 80% illegitimate birth rate.
Law offers equal opportunity, genetics and quality parentS are a roll of the dice.
[ July 21, 2010, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: malanthrope ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
On that vein, white guys who say they have never benefited from racism are hilariously ignorant.
Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: On that vein, white guys who say they have never benefited from racism are hilariously ignorant.
Doesn't the recent minority immigrant benefit from the same thing? If I could, I would trade minority immigrants, one for one, for American minorities.
White's appreciate the price their ancestors paid. Too many minorities blame whites for the price theirs paid. In reality, the minorities paid an even greater price for them to live here. When you focus on the price, you never appreciate what you've bought. There are thousands in the motherland who would love to trade places with them. They'd come here and succeed.....as proud Americans.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Mal: a second ago, you didn't want people categorizing all Catholics based on the actions of some, but now you seem to be perfectly happy to throw all American minorities and foreign born immigrans in the same boatt?
Posted by malanthrope (Member # 12363) on :
Thank you for correcting my clumping. (I sometimes forget this is a writer's forum)
I'll trade one for one:
American Minorities complaining about the past for the thousands of minorities around the world who want to take their place.
American minorities should be especially grateful for the price their ancestors paid to live here. Whites paid less a price, but whites celebrate the price their ancestors paid..........Is Thanksgiving a White Holiday? Maybe I should ask a Black Panther.
When I look at my ancestors who died in hostile conditions, I appreciate the price they paid for me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Is anyone here willing to call the Black Panthers racist? I dare you to find a white black panther member. The Tea Party is not racist but it may have some racist members. The Catholic Church is evil for being full of pedophiles also?
Or, y'know, in reference to the point people are actually making: they may have a disproportionately large percentage of racists, and be willing to work closely and publicly for longer with racist individuals and groups, for longer periods.
------
Geraine,
quote: To Steven, it is true that the Mormon church had what some consider to be racist policies. While a person of any race could be baptized, not all could receive the priesthood. Interestingly no one seems to know when these policies surfaced. There are many examples of African American members of the church that held the priesthood in the 1800's as well as an African American man that served as a Seventy in the church. Somewhere along the line that changed and I have been unable to find when or why.
I am a Mormon and I consider them to be racist policies. C'mon, Geraine, 'some consider to be' racist policies? The official LDS stance towards African-Americans prior to two generations ago was unquestionably, unmistakably racist. Seriously, you promptly lose all credibility on the subject if you can't at least cop to that.
quote: Kamau Bacari is an African American member of the church. He was baptized about six years ago, and is one of the happiest people I have ever met. If you saw the guy on the street and met his eyes, this guy would stop and talk to you like a long lost friend. I was talking to him one day and had told him that I was having trouble accepting the stance the church had taken previous to 1978.
Seriously? You met one black man who, according to you, was pretty great of spirit and navigated a way through justifications to conclude that it wasn't actually a racist policy? Well, geeze. I didn't know it was that easy, Geraine.
Even if the argument that it wasn't initially a racist policy could pass the laugh test - and it would take some pretty epic rhetoric to make that case - it is certainly not what the policy in practice was at the time of its conclusion. Blacks were inferior, God says so, therefore no priesthood. It's pretty straightforward. It is the definition of racism.
-------
quote:Doubt you have the understanding about the Catholic church that I do.
This reminds me of the time you started talking at Black Fox about the present military in the USA. It was laughable then, and it's laughable now. Well done!
Now that you've been thoroughly proven to be completely, absurdly wrong again, how soon will it be before you pretend this never happened, I wonder? I propose <1 day.
And I'm right! 4 posts in about 2 hours in this thread alone, with no reference to, "Hey, sorry I just made an ass out of myself, that was stupid of me."
Pretty spineless behavior, and given that this is the Internet, that's saying something. You lack the guts necessary even to cop to making a mistake on a discussion board. That's pretty impressive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, I got to mention:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Now, I have to give kudos to the NAACP today. I am happy that they are practicing what they preach by distancing and condemning the comments by Shirley Sherrod. Her comments saying that she did not help a farmer as much as she could have because he was a white man and that she referred him to one of "his own kind" is racist. She is now trying to say it wasn't racist because his farm was saved and that she is now friends with the farmer. She may be friends with him and his farm may have been saved, but a racist comment is racist.
Everyone who bought into this (including the obama administration itself) has successfully been trolled by professional cretin Andrew Breitbart.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: Geraine,
[QUOTE] To Steven, it is true that the Mormon church had what some consider to be racist policies. While a person of any race could be baptized, not all could receive the priesthood. Interestingly no one seems to know when these policies surfaced. There are many examples of African American members of the church that held the priesthood in the 1800's as well as an African American man that served as a Seventy in the church. Somewhere along the line that changed and I have been unable to find when or why.
I am a Mormon and I consider them to be racist policies. C'mon, Geraine, 'some consider to be' racist policies? The official LDS stance towards African-Americans prior to two generations ago was unquestionably, unmistakably racist. Seriously, you promptly lose all credibility on the subject if you can't at least cop to that.
I originally did not include "some consider to be" and just had that they were racist policies. It then ocurred to me that there are probably some people that did not consider them racist, so I put the extra four words in there. I was not ready to place a blanket statement when I do not know for absolute certain that every single person thought they were racist.
quote:
quote: Kamau Bacari is an African American member of the church. He was baptized about six years ago, and is one of the happiest people I have ever met. If you saw the guy on the street and met his eyes, this guy would stop and talk to you like a long lost friend. I was talking to him one day and had told him that I was having trouble accepting the stance the church had taken previous to 1978.
Seriously? You met one black man who, according to you, was pretty great of spirit and navigated a way through justifications to conclude that it wasn't actually a racist policy? Well, geeze. I didn't know it was that easy, Geraine.
Even if the argument that it wasn't initially a racist policy could pass the laugh test - and it would take some pretty epic rhetoric to make that case - it is certainly not what the policy in practice was at the time of its conclusion. Blacks were inferior, God says so, therefore no priesthood. It's pretty straightforward. It is the definition of racism.
Where did I say it was not a racist policy? Where did I say he didn't think it was? Please Rakeesh, put some more words into my mouth. I said he accepted the stance and helped me to accept it. Perhaps "move past" would have been better terminology to use.
And where did you come up with "God says they are inferior?" Can you quote me one verse in the scriptures, or a quote by a general authority that states God thinks African Americans are inferior? I am not able to find any quotes stating they are inferior. To the contrary, they were quite the opposite, as shown by the quotes I referred to in my previous post.
If your father gives you power of attorney over his entire estate instead of your brother, does that mean he thinks your brother is inferior? Maybe he wants to teach you a lesson in responsibility. Maybe he wants to teach you a lesson in management. Maybe he feels your brother doesn't need these lessons, or that he is not ready for the lessons. I don't pretend to know the mind of God, but I do know one thing: He doesn't think any of his children are inferior to another.
Now. I need to say here I was wrong about Shirley Sherrod. I do not believe this woman should be been forced to resign from her position. I, like the administration, jumped to conclusions and condemned the speech before I learned that it was taken out of context. I found the transcript to the speech she gave in March, and when I read the entire thing I came to the conclusion that the video shown was edited to purposely paint this woman in a negative light. After reading the transcript I found that Ms. Sherrod is an amazing woman, and I wish we had more like her in the world.
I still do not agree with some of the terms she used in her speech (referring the white farmer to someone of "his own kind") but she grew up in the south in the days before the civil rights movement, and that may have been the way people spoke in that area during that time. I'm willing to accept that. She is a woman that has been through a lot in her life, and she has spent her life helping others, for which she should be commended.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: I was not ready to place a blanket statement when I do not know for absolute certain that every single person thought they were racist.
I never realized bigotry was so subjective.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Where did I say it was not a racist policy? Where did I say he didn't think it was? Please Rakeesh, put some more words into my mouth.
uhh
quote:Kamau said that he had the same reservations prior to being baptized. He showed me a few quotes by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that he had found that showed they were not racist
is it just racist policy but he still thinks they are not racist? or what? if he thought there was racist policy what absolves smith and young from being racists? i'm a little lost here now
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Public policies like good free education and public health care also help equalize the playing field. It doesn't mean everyone will make the same amount, but it gives a whole lot more people a fair chance. Yes, genetics and parents matter, but so does the society.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:Where did I say it was not a racist policy? Where did I say he didn't think it was? Please Rakeesh, put some more words into my mouth. I said he accepted the stance and helped me to accept it. Perhaps "move past" would have been better terminology to use.
Dude, you clearly stated - you even reiterate it - that you used the phrase 'some consider to be'. So, since you're being kind of strange about this: do you, personally, believe the former LDS policy was racist? I'm not asking what some other people consider, or what the anecdotal African-American considers, I'm asking what you consider. If your answer is 'no', I'd like to know why, because 'blacks cannot be priests'...to me, that is the definition of racism. You can't even liken it to a difference between men and women's roles in various religions, because hey, black men aren't about to start bearing children unless I'm radically mistaken.
quote: And where did you come up with "God says they are inferior?" Can you quote me one verse in the scriptures, or a quote by a general authority that states God thinks African Americans are inferior? I am not able to find any quotes stating they are inferior. To the contrary, they were quite the opposite, as shown by the quotes I referred to in my previous post.
It follows quite naturally from 'blacks cannot be priests'. You don't have to outright state something in plain language to be indicating it quite clearly just the same.
quote: If your father gives you power of attorney over his entire estate instead of your brother, does that mean he thinks your brother is inferior? Maybe he wants to teach you a lesson in responsibility. Maybe he wants to teach you a lesson in management. Maybe he feels your brother doesn't need these lessons, or that he is not ready for the lessons. I don't pretend to know the mind of God, but I do know one thing: He doesn't think any of his children are inferior to another.
Just about every single example you gave just now is an example of inferiority in certain areas. A policy doesn't have to be founded in 'blacks are completely and totally inferior' to be a racist policy. All it takes is 'blacks are inferior in the necessary traits to hold the priesthood righteously'.
quote:
Now. I need to say here I was wrong about Shirley Sherrod. I do not believe this woman should be been forced to resign from her position. I, like the administration, jumped to conclusions and condemned the speech before I learned that it was taken out of context. I found the transcript to the speech she gave in March, and when I read the entire thing I came to the conclusion that the video shown was edited to purposely paint this woman in a negative light. After reading the transcript I found that Ms. Sherrod is an amazing woman, and I wish we had more like her in the world.
I note without much surprise that you criticize the administration (justly) without mentioning the schmuck who operated this smear campaign.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
Orincoro, did you copy the wife beating example from fallacyfiles.org? I'm just wondering because they give the exact same example on their website under "loaded question."
I'll give you a better example of a loaded question, as wife beating is not a subject I'd really like to discuss.
How does insulting someone on an internet forum instead of making the suggestion they rephrase a question make you feel?
Strip out all of the nastiness of your post though and you do have a point. I will pose the question(s) another way. I don't want the logical fallacy police knocking on my door.
To the first question, no. I am capable of thinking for myself, and even if I were not, it's a common response to your brand of weak argument.
To the second, you haven't learned much from your fallacy files. To answer the loaded question, it makes me feel rather good to point out how weak your argument is. Considering that you were insulting my intelligence, along with that of everyone else who reads what you post here, and that you do this consistently and without remorse, I feel rather justified in feeling good.
:nod:
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrope: I do not believe in equality of opportunity, other than legal. I'm the second son. By the time I was 7 I was bigger and stronger than my older brother. He failed a grade and ended up in my class in high school...I still got better grades than him. Today I make twice what he does. Where was the inequality?
... What? You're not describing an inequality of opportunity. You're describing inequality. You and your brother are clearly not equals, at least by the metric of success that you are using. There's nothing inherently wrong in that situation- it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Once again, your soul-rotting jealousy* for what you have and who you are is on full display, but what does this with your brother signify? That you detest him for being less than you? That you believe nothing could have made him a better person?
*lest you misinterpret the meaning of this word as you have so many times before, this appears as one definition for "jealous" in the OED: •
quote: fiercely protective or vigilant of one's rights or possessions : Howard is still a little jealous of his authority | they kept a jealous eye over their interests.
quote: What about my cousin and his PHD, who makes twice what I do? He was a black kid adopted by white people. Was he advantaged by his white parents or disadvantaged for his skin color?.
It's rather likely that he was advantaged by being adopted by parents who wanted a child and had the means and energy to raise and care for him, and create an environment in which he could excel in his natural abilities. If you believe that he would *not* have become a PHD without having been adopted, then you believe that his adoption was an advantage to him.
As to his skin color, it really all depends. Being black can be an advantage in the right circumstances, so it would be difficult to say definitely whether it was that, or a disadvantage. Adoption is meant to be and usually is advantageous, because adoption occurs when a child does not have a family willing or able to care for him- children are not usually adopted out of loving and functional homes into unloving and dysfunctional ones.
Everyone knows at least one black person who has turned his or her race to their personal advantage in life. In the right circumstances, say in an upper-middle class mostly white neighborhood, a black person's distinctive background can make them appealing, interesting, and make them stand out in a positive way. I have black family members who fit that bill. Racism is often not about having black skin, because we as a society are often more sophisticated than all that. It can be about *being black;* being a part of black America or seeming to be a part of something that is other, and hated, and feared. People who hate Barack Obama, for instance, people who have racist sentiments against him, do not necessarily feel that because he is black, he himself is lesser or subhuman. Rather, they fear what they believe he represents in our society: things that are foreign and seem dangerous to them. Race hatred is a rather sophisticated phenomenon, it is not, as you may have convinced yourself, a matter of dividing drinking fountains or becoming ill or angry at the sight of black people. I wish often that people such as yourself could have been challenged much earlier on in their intellectual development to imagine that they could, that they inevitably will, act as parts of social phenomena which reach beyond their immediate wishes and beliefs.
Rakeesh:
quote:If your answer is 'no', I'd like to know why, because 'blacks cannot be priests'...to me, that is the definition of racism
:nitpick:
Why not the definition of racial segregation? I know the meaning of the term "racism" has been pushed by common usage into the realm of active prejudice and antagonism, but it's not a development I find productive. Racism is best treated as a belief in the fallacy of race, especially where used to distinguish in value between races. But the dictionary says you're right, I just don't like that you're right. Can you please be wrong?
[ July 22, 2010, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, I got to mention:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Now, I have to give kudos to the NAACP today. I am happy that they are practicing what they preach by distancing and condemning the comments by Shirley Sherrod. Her comments saying that she did not help a farmer as much as she could have because he was a white man and that she referred him to one of "his own kind" is racist. She is now trying to say it wasn't racist because his farm was saved and that she is now friends with the farmer. She may be friends with him and his farm may have been saved, but a racist comment is racist.
Everyone who bought into this (including the obama administration itself) has successfully been trolled by professional cretin Andrew Breitbart.
Right, because the video was taken out of context.
The same way Mel Gibson says those audio recordings were taken out of context, yeah?
Hard to imagine a context where what the woman said is somehow magically not racist, but there you go.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:It follows quite naturally from 'blacks cannot be priests'. You don't have to outright state something in plain language to be indicating it quite clearly just the same.
No, absolutely incorrect. It does not follow that possession of the priesthood indicates a superior status. It's a blessing to be sure, but the idea that the priesthood is some sort of ticket into heaven is not in Mormon doctrine, anymore than you can say somebody who has a driver's license and can therefore drive cars is a better human being than one who cannot.
Blacks holding the priesthood was not motivated by race hatred, but by men who misunderstood the scriptures and honestly believed they were interpreting them aright. There was never any resentment, dislike, or aggression for black members of the church. Concerns about it being unjust to deny people the priesthood based on race were brought up, it was prayed about, and immediately changed. There was no gradual change where blacks were ordained in secret by priesthood holders, or social pressure became so strong the leadership was forced into changing their minds.
The belief that black's ought not to hold the priesthood again was never born out of some sort of hatred it might have been tied in part to the belief that blacks were culturally, and therefore intellectually inferior, and that this was a natural result of the curse of Ham/Cain. But the largest reason was the mistaken belief that God having cursed their ancestors had not revoked that decree. Personally I'm kind of tired of the subject, it was changed over 30 years ago, the Mormon church could not be aptly described as racist today.
I also tire somewhat of steven dropping Mormonism every time he makes a comment about how great science is or how stupid religion is. It's a known catalyst.
[ July 22, 2010, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Dan, Sherrod was recalling an event that occurred 24 years ago in order to explain how she personally learned that looking at situations in terms of race was the wrong way to go about things. She did so to emphasize that the focus should be on helping all disadvantaged people, regardless of their skin.
It's pretty much a textbook case of taking a quote out of context.
[ July 22, 2010, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, I've seen the full video. And, to an extent, you are correct.
So let's imagine we've got a conservative, rich, white fellow—we'll call him Peter—who talks about how, twenty years ago, he was prejudiced against a black guy—he can be Paul—who was... I don't know, a partner at his firm. But then Peter realized that Paul was actually a great lawyer and a savvy businessman. He even voted for Ronald Reagan! So they became friends, and Peter realized it wasn't really about black and white after all. Well, no, it is about black and white, says Peter, but its also about how rich and conservative you are!
Why, that story certainly shows how much Peter isn't a racist, doesn't it? He's practically a member of the NAACP already.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Geraine,
quote: To Steven, it is true that the Mormon church had what some consider to be racist policies. While a person of any race could be baptized, not all could receive the priesthood.
I am a Mormon and I consider them to be racist policies. C'mon, Geraine, 'some consider to be' racist policies? The official LDS stance towards African-Americans prior to two generations ago was unquestionably, unmistakably racist. Seriously, you promptly lose all credibility on the subject if you can't at least cop to that.
...
Even if the argument that it wasn't initially a racist policy could pass the laugh test - and it would take some pretty epic rhetoric to make that case - it is certainly not what the policy in practice was at the time of its conclusion. Blacks were inferior, God says so, therefore no priesthood. It's pretty straightforward. It is the definition of racism.
The LDS policy regarding race was much worse than a simple role restriction about who could hold priesthood positions. In LDS belief, the only path to exaltation and ultimate happiness in eternity is to attain the Celestial Kingdom (the "highest level of heaven"), which REQUIRES possession of the priesthood. Only couples who seal their marriages in temples can attain that kingdom, and for men possession of the priesthood is requisite before entering the temple for endowment and marriage. Simple baptism does not cut it. Baptism only establishes the first "tier" covenant into church membership which yields only the potential of achieving the lower levels of heaven.
So the church's racial priesthood policy in effect said, "Your race cannot ever achieve the fullest happiness offered in heaven." I can think of few sentiments that could be more egregiously racist.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It does not follow that possession of the priesthood indicates a superior status.
Possession of something != superior status. Eg: Possession of a star on one's belly does not indicate superior status.
Possession of something exclusive = superior status. Eg: Possession of a Mercedes indicates a superior status.
It may not *guarantee* a superior status, but it sure as hell indicates one. Come now Blackblade, do not be so obtuse as to deny that excluding blacks from the priesthood, actively, imbued whites in the Mormon church with a superior status. Women cannot be priests in the Catholic church, and whom, may I ask, are those who fill the ranks of the Church's most high status groups? Women?
Perhaps, and I mean *perhaps,* on a personal level, this measure did not affect the relationships between individual members, be they black or white. But I seriously doubt it. And we're talking about an indication. The possession of priesthood perhaps did not create a higher status on its own (though I think it would anyway), but the fact that the whites had it and the blacks didn't *unequivocally* indicates that the whites were seen as having a higher status than the blacks in the church. Do try and explain why that isn't so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There was never any resentment, dislike, or aggression for black members of the church. Concerns about it being unjust to deny people the priesthood based on race were brought up, it was prayed about, and immediately changed.
It was *immediately* changed? It was changed 150+ years after the church was founded. Shockingly and by a wild coincidence, the revelation that supposedly occurred happened around about the time the American civil rights movement had accomplished most of its major goals. Now, I'm a plum cynic, but that just strikes me as one heck of a convenient time to make a change.
And also, please, there is no possible way that there was no resentment against blacks in the Mormon church. There was. There is and has been resentment against most people in most churches, blacks most particularly and especially.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The same way Mel Gibson says those audio recordings were taken out of context, yeah?
Hard to imagine a context where what the woman said is somehow magically not racist, but there you go.
I've always thought it would be a laugh to record a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, megalomaniacal, violent, drunken rant preceded by the words: "You know, I would never ever say anything like..." and followed by the words: "... Is something I would never say in all seriousness."
Then if it ever ended up on the news I would be covered, because it would be taken out of context.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Anothonie: Again, you are looking at it backwards,
quote:which REQUIRES possession of the priesthood.
Your point is pretty salient, but remember the belief was not, blacks can't go to heaven, but they can't have the priesthood so these ordinances should be off limits. Brigham Young who instituted the policy was asked if blacks were fence sitters before this life, or somehow not equal to whites in terms of worth and he emphatically disagreed. I don't think you can say, "Mormons didn't want to to go to the same heaven as black people, therefore they kept the priesthood away." That sentiment just does not exist in my experience. Even Spencer W. Kimball several years before his revelation granting the priesthood to blacks said,
"Intolerance by Church members is despicable. A special problem exists with respect to blacks because they may not now [1972] receive the priesthood. Some members of the Church would justify their own un-Christian discrimination against blacks because of that rule with respect to the priesthood, but while this restriction has been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to add burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ in faith through authoritative baptism are heirs to the celestial kingdom along with men of all other races. And those who remain faithful to the end may expect that God may finally grant them all blessings they have merited through their righteousness. Such matters are in the Lord's hands. It is for us to extend our love to all."
Again, the overwhelming sentiment was that black's cannot hold the priesthood not, blacks cannot go to heaven, or black's cannot go to the same heaven all of us do.
----- Orincoro:
quote:It may not *guarantee* a superior status, but it sure as hell indicates one. Come now Blackblade, do not be so obtuse as to deny that excluding blacks from the priesthood, actively, imbued whites in the Mormon church with a superior status
I'm not being obtuse Orincoro. People keep trying to give priesthood a property that does not exist, namely, "If you've got it, you're a member of some super club that has all these benefits both physical and spiritual." I've never once thought or was taught that because I was ordained to the priesthood that I was better or enjoyed a higher status than those who have yet to believe. I've always viewed the priesthood as a responsibility and an authority. When you are in Utah, nobody asks if you are a member of the priesthood.
quote:It was *immediately* changed? It was changed 150+ years after the church was founded
That's not what I mean, what I mean was there wasn't a gradual shift in attitude amongst members of the church, and one day the pressure reached a boiling point and the leadership had no choice but to capitulate. Instead the prophet invited the heads of the church to discuss with him the issue, and after everyone concluded discussions, they prayed about it and all simultaneously came to the same conclusion. Even Bruce R. McConkie who had become the face of the idea that blacks cannot hold the priesthood wrote,
"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things. . . . All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles."
McConkie I do not think can be called a racist. He bore no ill-will towards blacks. He didn't backslide or talk badly about blacks or start a conservative clique in the church that felt we should go back to the days of them not having the priesthood. Sentiments like that have never existed in the Mormon church.
quote:And also, please, there is no possible way that there was no resentment against blacks in the Mormon church. There was. There is and has been resentment against most people in most churches, blacks most particularly and especially.
Yes there is a way. Despite your beliefs to the contrary, religion can sharpen people's virtues and eradicate their vices. Are there Mormons who have been racists? Of course! But racism has never been encouraged or sustained in the Mormon church, nor has it ever been given quarter. There was no reason to resent blacks.
Now either Mormons are extraordinary in that they have this ability to as a culture completely abandoned feelings and precepts at the prophets say so. Or racism was not a motivating factor in their beliefs regarding blacks and the priesthood and so doctrinally when the issue was clarified, there was no emotional baggage in the way.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" I've always viewed the priesthood as a responsibility and an authority."
Right. Whites had access to higher status than blacks.
"That's not what I mean, what I mean was there wasn't a gradual shift in attitude amongst members of the church, and one day the pressure reached a boiling point and the leadership had no choice but to capitulate. "
Wow. That speaks badly of mormons, not just the mormon leadership.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... never born out of some sort of hatred it might have been tied in part to the belief that blacks were culturally, and therefore intellectually inferior, and that this was a natural result of the curse of Ham/Cain. But the largest reason was the mistaken belief that God having cursed their ancestors had not revoked that decree.
I'm not sure thats actually a distinction that evens casts the institution in a better light. The latter still seems firmly in the camp of racial discrimination:
quote:the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
A curse born by who's one ancestors were seems close enough to race (or descent seems closer). The former, that blacks are culturally inferior, is at least defensible in that we don't normally consider all cultures to foster the same standards of rationality and intelligence. Especially in the US, one can be proud of being a "real American", but thats a cultural distinction, not a racial one (well, mostly).
But if someone believes that your ancestors were cursed by God, thats something you have no hope of changing, unlike culture. That actually seems more horrific, a variant of something like original sin.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Right, because the video was taken out of context.
The same way Mel Gibson says those audio recordings were taken out of context, yeah?
Hard to imagine a context where what the woman said is somehow magically not racist, but there you go.
Perhaps it is 'hard to imagine' such a context if one were relying on the obtuse juxtaposition of that speech's misleading presentation versus the Mel Gibson recordings, or if one couldn't figure out how the full context of each speech may, in fact, be different in providing a full interpretation.
Like, for instance, let me just point out real difference, in fact. when mel gibson uses the context excuse, it's dumb, but when the girl's speech is listened to in context, it's monumentally evident that it has been purposefully hacked up to mislead people.
So, its practically purposefully obtuse to equivocate it as being 'the same way' as what Gibson's issue is. Wholly ridiculous.
But there you go.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Paul Goldner: A policeman has authority you do not, does that make him a better human being?
Mucus:
quote:I'm not sure thats actually a distinction that evens casts the institution in a better light. The latter still seems firmly in the camp of racial discrimination:
How is believing God wills something to be so racism? At the worst I could see it being a sort of tacit support of God's racist policies, but really what else can you do? It's not as if Mormons can ordain people to the priesthood against God's will, that would be like trying to say by the authority vested in me by President Obama I hereby arrest President Obama against his wishes.
quote:But if someone believes that your ancestors were cursed by God, thats something you have no hope of changing, unlike culture. That actually seems more horrific, a variant of something like original sin.
*shrugs* I didn't say I agreed with it. Not having the priesthood is not nearly as horrific as original sin in my mind. Original sin has lead to people sincerely believing their children cannot be in heaven with them when they die. Blacks not having the priesthood was never construed to mean that blacks have to stay out of heaven. If if they were not permitted to participate in certain temple ordinances it was not taught that having failed to go through those ordinances that the gates of heaven were locked to them.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"A policeman has authority you do not, does that make him a better human being?"
The question is not whether or not someone has the authority and responsibility. Its whether or not the authority and responsibility is open to someone. Since the authority was not accessible to black people, blacks had less status than whites.
Whether or not this made black's lesser human beings, I didn't address.
"How is believing God wills something to be so racism? At the worst I could see it being a sort of tacit support of God's racist policies,"
Choosing to support a policy that is racist is choosing to support racism.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Paul Goldner: A policeman has authority you do not, does that make him a better human being?
Does it actually make him a better human being? No. Nor does being rich, being a CEO, an army general or the President. You don't get off the hook by saying "oh, they're totally equal as human beings" when you're denying them access to power and prestige.
quote:How is believing God wills something to be so racism?
If you believe one ethnic group gets higher status than another ethnic group, that's racism, period, whether or not you honestly believe it's God's Will or not. If God is racist and you consider Him a role model, that's pretty racist sounding to me.
People often try to couch racism and sexism in terms that appeal to the authority of the time, whether that authority is religious or secular. "I've got nothing against black people, they're just genetically inferior in certain ways, that's all. It's just a natural part of evolution." "God just wants them to be slaves." "God just doesn't want them to be priests."
For all practical purposes, none of those are better than "I just don't think black people deserve the same rights an opportunities as white people."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There was never any resentment, dislike, or aggression for black members of the church
... that's not true, not least for the use of the absolute 'never.' There was obvious dislike, even by Young. The blacks were loathesome, ignorant, and depraved.
quote:There was no gradual change where blacks were ordained in secret by priesthood holders, or social pressure became so strong the leadership was forced into changing their minds.
quote:In spite of the ban on ordination for African-Americans, ordination and higher levels in the priesthood were permitted for Australian aboriginal males, Polynesian men, and other non-whites. In Brazil, it was often quite difficult or impossible to determine the racial origin(s) of many church members. The LDS suspected that many men of who were probably of African descent had been already ordained into the priesthoods.
There was a groundswell of opinion against racism by many Americans who recognized the centuries of injustice against African-Americans. It was an era of desegregation and agitation for civil rights. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service threatened LDS's tax exempt status because of the church's discrimination against African-Americans. Additional opposition came from sports groups which threatened to cancel events with the LDS' Brigham Young University. Anti-Mormon religious groups promoted boycotts of church businesses and of Utah tourism.
Much like the church's decision to revoke polygamy, it came at a point where the consequences of not revoking the doctrine would jeopardize the church greatly and really screw the church's viability over the short to medium term due to social and legal backlash. I guess the narrative is to believe that the convenience of the timing of both revelations are, essentially, coincidental.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Paul Goldner: A policeman has authority you do not, does that make him a better human being?
Weird comparison. Certainly, nobody is prohibited from becoming a policeman due to race.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Choosing to support a policy that is racist is choosing to support racism.
This. Religion is not an excuse for bad behavior. If someone acts or thinks like a jerk because he chooses (and, yes, it is a choice) to believe that God wants them to act or like a jerk, he is still a jerk.
If he doesn't want to be a jerk, he should choose a better understanding of God. To their credit, that seems like what (with some fancy revelatory footwork) the LDS Church did.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, frankly, if you can continuously re-imagine God to fit whatever society considers non-jerky at the time, that's not a terribly compelling image of God.
If we assume that God couldn't just hand down a list of commandments compatible with modern ethics (or, better, the ethics of about 100 years from now), because ancient society wouldn't have accepted it, then I think the best for of Divine Revelation would be to spontaneously erect a series of concentric vaults (sort of like those Russian dolls) that can't be opened by material means, that each contain a new set of rules. Every time the culture of the religion in question has fully adopted the last set of rules, there's a big beacon of light and a new, slightly improved version comes out that forces humanity to better itself at the maximum rate they are capable of.
The concentric, impenetrable nature of the vaults makes it clear that this is, indeed, Divine Revelation (or at least Revelation by aliens powerful enough that we probably should do what they say).
People who manage to predict (and better yet, adopt) the next set of rules in advance of the revelation get bonus points in Heaven.
I'd worship that God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I prefer a God that gives some general guidelines that stand the test of time and encourages us to keep on working at how best to act out those guidelines.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Of course, a god that says "Its ok to treat people differently based on their skin color," is not going to improve his worshipers as fast as a god that says "WTF are you doing?" At least, assuming people care what god thinks, which I don't think is a good assumption.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Well, frankly, if you can continuously re-imagine God to fit whatever society considers non-jerky at the time, that's not a terribly compelling image of God.
Speaking of which, the notion of women being subservient and having to 'submit' to men in marriage, and that the man is appointed the head of the household by God, is being scrubbed out of christianity within a single generation :)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... How is believing God wills something to be so racism? At the worst I could see it being a sort of tacit support of God's racist policies, but really what else can you do?
I think others actually covered the nonreligious angle. At risk of dog-piling, I would only say that even if you believe in a Christian god (or any god) that created racist policies and you follow them, that is basically a "I was only following orders" defence which is pretty weak.
We don't normally exempt the ground-level Klansman or apartheid-era South Africans who practised their policies simply because the head of their respective hierarchies decreed a racist policy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Why not the definition of racial segregation? I know the meaning of the term "racism" has been pushed by common usage into the realm of active prejudice and antagonism, but it's not a development I find productive. Racism is best treated as a belief in the fallacy of race, especially where used to distinguish in value between races. But the dictionary says you're right, I just don't like that you're right. Can you please be wrong?
Well, it can be both racism and racial segregation at once, can't it? Theoretically it is possible to believe in racial segregation without also being a racist, but in practice I don't think one can believe in one without the other, at least to some extent.
quote:Hard to imagine a context where what the woman said is somehow magically not racist, but there you go.
The context is 'she was racist quite awhile ago, and grew up out of it', Dan_Frank. That's a pretty relevant context. What, she ought to be pilloried for formerly being a racist and changing her ways?
quote:No, absolutely incorrect. It does not follow that possession of the priesthood indicates a superior status. It's a blessing to be sure, but the idea that the priesthood is some sort of ticket into heaven is not in Mormon doctrine, anymore than you can say somebody who has a driver's license and can therefore drive cars is a better human being than one who cannot.
I'm afraid I have to disagree, BlackBlade. Not because I think the priesthood is a golden ticket to heaven or anything, but because the priesthood is a good, sacred thing which was permitted to whites but not to blacks. That is fundamentally racist. I know we had a lot of pretty frames for that belief, and we didn't say in plain language, 'They're not worthy of the priesthood', but I think that is the message in practice.
quote: Blacks holding the priesthood was not motivated by race hatred, but by men who misunderstood the scriptures and honestly believed they were interpreting them aright. There was never any resentment, dislike, or aggression for black members of the church. Concerns about it being unjust to deny people the priesthood based on race were brought up, it was prayed about, and immediately changed. There was no gradual change where blacks were ordained in secret by priesthood holders, or social pressure became so strong the leadership was forced into changing their minds.
I'm afraid I just can't believe that, BlackBlade. It flies in the face of everything I know about American history for the past two hundred years concerning race relations. There was never any resentment, dislike, or aggression for black members of the church? In a church run almost exclusively by and in great part for white Americans? That just seems fantastically unlikely to me. In fact, your quote from Kimball seems to contradict your point here. If there was never any resentment or dislike, it seems strange he would go out of his way to admonish members for feelings like that.
quote: The belief that black's ought not to hold the priesthood again was never born out of some sort of hatred it might have been tied in part to the belief that blacks were culturally, and therefore intellectually inferior, and that this was a natural result of the curse of Ham/Cain. But the largest reason was the mistaken belief that God having cursed their ancestors had not revoked that decree. Personally I'm kind of tired of the subject, it was changed over 30 years ago, the Mormon church could not be aptly described as racist today.
The belief that blacks are descended from a cursed-by-God ancestor from biblical times is not only a fundamental belief in the racism of some Christians towards blacks, it's also a belief that is still alive in some places today. I simply don't believe, without some serious personal evidence of my own direct experience, that someone can think, "He is cursed by God," without also thinking, at least a little, that they are inferior in some respects. Heck, even the cursed by god part is a sign of some inferiority. Not across-the-board inferiority, but nonetheless it's plainly there.
quote:I also tire somewhat of steven dropping Mormonism every time he makes a comment about how great science is or how stupid religion is. It's a known catalyst.
I do too. I wasn't talking to him about it though, but Geraine and what 'some consider to be' a former racist policy. I consider that sort of outlook, however well-meaning and honest I'm sure it is in many people's hearts, to be whitewashing (no pun intended), and thus harmful to the community as a whole.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I posted something confrontational, then deleted it. I'm gonna take a moment to go meta-thread:
I've been following this thread loosely for the past few days, and every time I check it, I see a lot of barbed jokes and confrontational tone, and not a lot of communication that is actually likely to convince anyone of anything ever. However, ineffective as they are, barbed jokes and confrontational tones are fun to participate in and now that the conversation has turned to something suitably generic enough that I can participate with minimal effort and without much specialized knowledge other than previous-thought-about-logical-principles, I feel tempted to join in.
@kmmboots in particular: I think your worldview is extremely flawed. I also think its a huge step up from a lot of other worldviews out there and even if you did go around proselytizing your particular take on religion (it's unclear whether you do, or how successful you are if so), the world would probably end up a better place. So in terms of utilitarian advantage, there's no real reason for me to argue with you right now unless we're both getting enjoyment out of it.
My question, if you care to answer, is this: what differences would you expect to see between a universe in which your interpretation of God exists, and a universe with no God?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would be happy to have that conversation. And probably have here before. Is this thread the best place to do it?
Also, you have my "permission" to say whatever you want to me. Within normal person reason.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I realized after posting that no, this thread really isn't the best place. Then again, I think this thread has already diverged dramatically from its original purpose that I don't feel terribly guilty about hijacking it. (Especially given that this sub conversation followed organically out of the previous one).
Also I'm too lazy to make a new thread, and it's not like either of us would be saying anything new or profound that nobody on Hatrack has heard before a million times. So I guess go ahead and answer my question here if you feel like it, or not if you don't. (Or maybe make a new thread if you think it's worth it).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, from my point of view, the obvious answer is that the universe wouldn't exist at all without God. So there's a big difference right off. Probably not what you are asking, though, right?
Are you asking about a hypothetical universe without God (a pretty big hypothetical for me) or this universe where hypothetically there is no awareness or notion of God?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I am asking about a universe generated, let's suppose, hypothetically, via a large cataclysmic explosion that left large amounts of energy which gradually accumulated into matter of subsequently increasing densities until life eventually was created via natural processes.
The two major "gaps" in knowledge that I suspect shall be relevant here, which neither of us would be able to look up on the internet in the course of this discussion, are how that explosion was generated and how life originated.
Let us assume that in this hypothetical universe, that explosion was created by natural processes in a larger multiverse, which isn't relevant to the discussion, and that life originated spontaneously via natural processes that are complex and unlikely but at least likely enough that they are guaranteed to happen at least once in 16 billion years.
I mean, honestly I am perfectly willing to imagine a universe (multiple universes in fact) that WERE created by a God. It's just that if one of those universes was ostensibly identical to ours, I would assume God was rather apathetic at best and would consequently not put much effort into worshipping him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, God is designer and instogator and present in those cataclysms and natural processes - in not just this universe but all universes. Not a "god of the gaps" as a why to fill in what we don't understand, but just as present in the process we do understand. Not apathetic but constantly creating. So that question is still not one that really makes sense.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Why do you believe God was present in those things, as oppose to not? (I genuinely don't know what you're beliefs are in this case)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It fits with what I have felt and observed (not in any tangible way that would be "evidence). It makes sense to me (though I could make logical arguments for the opposite view). Ultimately, I want to. My life is better because I do. I am better because I do.
Edit to add: To be frank, I think that is the real reason for anyone uncoerced and really capable of examining their reason.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
On one hand, I think "it makes me happy" is a perfectly good justification for something that isn't hurting anyone else. What bothers me is when you attempt to imply this particular line of reasoning that you can't provide actual evidence for to other people. Again, granted, I happen to think those people are terribly horrible wrong and I'd be fine with them replacing a dangerous form of bad reasoning with a form of bad reasoning that doesn't hurt anybody (at least in an empirically detectable way). But what makes you think that this set of beliefs that simply "makes sense to you" can or should apply to anyone else, if they already have things that simply "makes sense to them," which they strongly believe have made their life, and themselves, better?
I have undergone several experiences that are almost identical to experiences described to me by the theistically-inclined as "reasons they 'know' God exists," except that the subject matter of those experiences was not God. (those experiences include "revelatory" realizations of truths, voices in my head that responded to me, subdivisions of my personality reminiscent of the Trinity, and alternate worldviews that suddenly "felt" right). If I had those experiences in a different order, and they were culturally reinforced, I am very confident I might have ended up believing in any one of an infinite number of gods. And only one of those god-configurations could possibly be correct.
Can you give me (or more importantly, the types of theists I usually see you arguing with or about), a reason to assume that that your particular set of feelings and observations are more correct than theirs?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Put another way: if you can't even imagine a universe without God for a hypothetical discussion, I think your imagine could use some exercise.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Usually, if they are able and want to hear it.
The base assumption - that God exists - is something that can neither be proved nor disproved. With other people making that assumption - and a lot of the assumptions that go with that - there is usually sufficient common ground to argue about the nature of God. It is not usually terribly productive but, when it ventures into the area where their beliefs are hurting people, it is still worth doing.
edit to add: I would also take exception to the notion that only one configuration of God can be correct. Some things are contradictory; some things are overlapping; some things seem contradictory except that we are talking about God.
Imagine a universe without natural processes, events, beings, interactions, energy? That is how I would have to imagine a universe without God. Or are you asking me to imagine God differently?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Was the an example of that that WAS productive? (I'm genuinely curious, especially if there was anything specific about that example I might benefit from knowing someday)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am having a hard time parsing that post?
I am not a pantheist (as I do not deny a personal God), but if you read a little about that, it might help to understand me.
ETA: Panenthesism would be even closer.
[ July 22, 2010, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I am having a hard time parsing that post?
Sorry, I realize it wasn't clear what I was referring to. You said your interactions with other theists who you disagreed with were "usually" unproductive. Was there an example that was insofar as you got them to change their mind about something in a useful way.
quote:Imagine a universe without natural processes, events, beings, interactions, energy? That is how I would have to imagine a universe without God. Or are you asking me to imagine God differently?
First of all, depending on your definition of "natural process" and "events" I can do that. (Actually, that particular set of criteria is pretty easy: just imagine a giant universe of lifeless architecture that popped into existence fully formed, and you're there).
I believe it IS possible that this universe is either a computer program or the product of a highly intelligent being's imagination. In the latter example, I am merely acting out the desires, either conscious or unconscious, of the imaginator, and whatever semblance of consciousness I have is borrowed from them). In both examples, the creator of said universe would be rather indistinguishable from God.
One I've accepted the definition of universe to include the possibility of "imagination" or "computer program," it's pretty easy to imagine alternate universes in which rules are vastly different. (I'd also note that I genuinely consider self contained computer simulations as well as imaginations to be "universes" of a sort. I'm also not sure that it is necessary or correct to draw lines that concretely divide one universe from another).
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... How is believing God wills something to be so racism? At the worst I could see it being a sort of tacit support of God's racist policies, but really what else can you do?
I think others actually covered the nonreligious angle. At risk of dog-piling, I would only say that even if you believe in a Christian god (or any god) that created racist policies and you follow them, that is basically a "I was only following orders" defence which is pretty weak.
We don't normally exempt the ground-level Klansman or apartheid-era South Africans who practised their policies simply because the head of their respective hierarchies decreed a racist policy.
I like how Douglas Kysar says it in Regulating from Nowhere:
quote: "Thus, rather than sublimate human agency to a standard of casual optimality, individuals must continue to navigate the world in pursuit of their own visions of human flourishing, attempting to do good, while plagued at every instant by limited information, limited control, and limited assurance of success for their chosen projects. They must recognize that no standard of normative ethics, however persuasively theorized, can eliminate the fundamental obligation to independently evaluate the variety of reasons that exist for choosing and acting at any given moment and, indeed, to be ready at any moment to generate reasons for choosing and acting that are uniquely their own.
No decision-making rubric can permit the individual to ventriloquize morality."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Nice find. I like that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is no one example of a particular interaction that comes to mind as being production. I have a sense that there have been some cases where I have changed a mind regarding SSM for example, but mostly it is a more gradual process.
God is present in stone, air, water - the bonds that hold matter together. Asking me to imagine a universe with God not present in those things is asking me to imagine a different God. I could do that, but then we wouldn't be talking about what I believe.
Being indistinguishable (by us) from God is not the same as being God.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My question is, is there a practical difference between believing in God as you believe it and believing that the stone, air, and water are simply stone, air and water with nothing particularly special about them. (Or at least, nothing special about them that suggests sentience). I'm not sure why asking you to imagine that requires you to imagine a different God before subsequently imagining that he doesn't exist, and I really don't see how imagining that rocks are just rocks is particularly hard, since you get to start with the knowledge of what a rock is.
I have no problem imagining a universe where God is present in all matter. (If we live in such a universe right now, I call that God evil, but that's a rather subjective word and not necessarily relevant to the debate at hand).
I confess I'm not having a lot of success imagining what it would be like to see the world in such a way that imagining a rock as just a rock IS hard. That IS an interesting exercise, but I really need a little more to go on than "it just is."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Just want to clarify something on the whole LDS church and blacks in the priesthood- which actually doesn't make the church look any better, but I think is an important distinction. Denying the blacks was not doctrinally based- it was policy. Two apostolic committees were unable to find any actual official revelation saying that denying the blacks the priesthood was what God wanted. Brigham Young changed Joseph's Smith's policy on that (based on all historical evidence) because he felt like it. Everyone else went along with it. Why it took 2 research committees and then prayer and revelation and 150 years for people to realize this was screwy is something that church members should examine and come to terms with. We believe prophets are fallible. In an ideal world, the first time the priesthood was denied to a black man, everyone should have stood up and demanded the prophet get firm, thus sayeth the lord revelation. But they didn't and God often lets us make our own massive hurtful mistakes (free will and all that). So, while LDS don't like to talk about it, doctrinally and officially, we have never actually believed God does not want black men to have priesthood, just that 150 years of Church leadership didn't. God not racist, man is and God let it go (which gets back to the whole philosophical meta question on God why does God let bad things happen).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The White Whale, I think that, even for theists, this part
quote:They must recognize that no standard of normative ethics, however persuasively theorized, can eliminate the fundamental obligation to independently evaluate the variety of reasons that exist for choosing and acting at any given moment and, indeed, to be ready at any moment to generate reasons for choosing and acting that are uniquely their own.
is still true. "God says so" is not an excuse.
Raymond, it is the idea of "just" that is the problem. Rocks are not "just" rocks, people are not "just" people, oceans are not "just" oceans; they are sacred. Imbued with the Divine.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I really do not understand in the slightest see how that has to do with the question.
The most relevant comparison I can think of is that I actually cannot in good conscious truly imagine a world where free will isn't an illusion. Free will as a concept is inherently nonsensical to me. But I still have hypothetical conversations about worlds with free will because most people assume it does, and the fact is, even for me, it IS a convincing enough illusion that I can reasonably "pretend" to imagine it well enough for purposes of discussion. And even if I couldn't, I can file it away in black box that says "makes sense somehow" and then proceed from there.
Free will has the benefit of being a pretty convincing illusion, but honestly rocks being "just rocks" shouldn't be that different.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmm...how to explain it better. For me to imagine a universe where God isn't present, I have to imagine a God that is different. Which I can do but then we are no longer talking about what I believe about God so I am not sure why it would be helpful. Do you want me to pretend to have a different kind of belief about God? I am willing to do that but, I think that it may end up being more confusing than anything else.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I *think* I understand what you mean but I also think it's silly. Can you imagine ANY universe without God, or just this one?
I mean, I can imagine plenty of universes that include plenty of different types of Gods of various natures that are ostensibly identical to this universe. I really don't get this is fundamentally impossible for you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can imagine all sorts of universes. To imagine them without God is to imagine, not a different universe, but a different God. God is not just the God of this particular universe.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The most relevant comparison I can think of is that I actually cannot in good conscious truly imagine a world where free will isn't an illusion. Free will as a concept is inherently nonsensical to me. But I still have hypothetical conversations about worlds with free will because most people assume it does, and the fact is, even for me, it IS a convincing enough illusion that I can reasonably "pretend" to imagine it well enough for purposes of discussion. And even if I couldn't, I can file it away in black box that says "makes sense somehow" and then proceed from there.
Raymond, why do you think free will is just an illusion? I would have expected you to think the opposite.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Were you always unable to do so, or is this a phenomenon that came about after you arrived at your current set of beliefs? Or did you always have your current set of beliefs?
When you read about the mythology of different civilizations (real or fantasy)... how does that even work? Can you not think about Greek Mythology without superimposing your definition of God on top of it? I'm not asking you imagine on a fundamental level that would have ramifications on your own beliefs, just on the basic level necessary to have a conversation. This seriously should not be difficult in the slightest.
Can I ask you to imagine a change in your belief in God to "a belief in God who is otherwise identical to the one kmmboots believes in, except there's one particular universe that he ISN'T the god of?" (that frankly should have been implicit anyway, but I'll spell it out if necessary).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Unable to do what? I have told you that I can imagine different gods and different universes. We could certainly have that conversation but we would not be talking about what I believe. That is okay if you think it would be helpful as long as it is clear that it isn't about what I believe.
When reading Greek mythology (or other mythology) I see it as a record of an evolving human understanding of God and our relationship to God that has some truth and some falsehood. As I suppose someday people with a greater understanding will view our stories about our relationship with God.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Raymond, why do you think free will is just an illusion? I would have expected you to think the opposite.
Why? I'm curious what I might have said that indicated otherwise.
Basically, I believe either everything is completely deterministic (i.e. with perfect knowledge of everything and intelligence to analyze that knowledge, you can predict the future perfectly, including choices). OR, choices are random. If two people are physically and mentally identical and are raised EXACTLY the same way and exposed to EXACTLY the same stimuli, and they make different choices... what exactly does that prove? That people can mentally flip coins?
Either you're making your decisions based on reasoning and prior experience, or you're making decisions based on differences in your inherent nature (whether that nature is on the physical or spiritual level), or you're making decisions based on random chance. I honestly cannot conceive of what the word "choice" even really means, in a way that is actually meaningful.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@kmmboots: I ask again, can you imagine a God who is otherwise identical to your God except not the God of one particular universe which follows the same apparent laws that ours follows?
I seriously cannot fathom how discussing the differences between a universe that follows your understanding and a universe that follows a different understanding requires us to not be comparing the latter to your actual beliefs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure. Why? I can imagine a God made of green jello. I don't know how it is helpful. I would just keep having to reiterate that it isn't what I believe.
But sure. What kind of God would it be helpful for you to have me imagine?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think I've specified it pretty explicitly by now what I'm asking. I'm trying to figure out whether you're just messing with me or not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No I am trying to be helpful. I just can't figure out what you are trying to get at or why. Generally, these kind of conversations end with the atheist participant asserting, "See how that doesn't make sense!" And I will say, "No kidding, but that isn't what I believe."*
Okay. So I am imagining a God who is not like the one that I believe in and is limited to one universe. Since immanence as well as transcendence is pretty central to my belief in God, what part of that should I limit? Is God still present in energy but not matter? Neither?
*And then the atheist will claim that I am not Scottish.
[ July 22, 2010, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Just want to clarify something on the whole LDS church and blacks in the priesthood- which actually doesn't make the church look any better, but I think is an important distinction. Denying the blacks was not doctrinally based- it was policy. Two apostolic committees were unable to find any actual official revelation saying that denying the blacks the priesthood was what God wanted. Brigham Young changed Joseph's Smith's policy on that (based on all historical evidence) because he felt like it. Everyone else went along with it. Why it took 2 research committees and then prayer and revelation and 150 years for people to realize this was screwy is something that church members should examine and come to terms with. We believe prophets are fallible. In an ideal world, the first time the priesthood was denied to a black man, everyone should have stood up and demanded the prophet get firm, thus sayeth the lord revelation. But they didn't and God often lets us make our own massive hurtful mistakes (free will and all that). So, while LDS don't like to talk about it, doctrinally and officially, we have never actually believed God does not want black men to have priesthood, just that 150 years of Church leadership didn't. God not racist, man is and God let it go (which gets back to the whole philosophical meta question on God why does God let bad things happen).
I think Scholarette really explained this better than I ever could have.
I'll share a really good talk by a member of the church named Renee Olsen. She points out some of the same things Scholarette did. She is pretty humerous in some parts. She does not try to rationalize and explain away the stance the church took nor the members.
I don't understand why you think I'm asking you to believe in a different kind of God at all. If I believe all matter is made out of atoms, by definition, but then I go and imagine matter made out of something else, I'm not changing anything about my definition of matter, I'm just imagining something else that is otherwise identical to matter so I call it matter.
I do get that your definition of "the universe" and "God" are fundamentally intertwined, but I don't get why imagining something that is otherwise identical to a universe but without God is an issue.
The answer to this question:
quote:Since immanence as well as transcendence is pretty central to my belief in God, what part of that should I limit?
is of course, "all of it," but I think that should have been obvious by now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. An imaginary universe without God would - again - have nothing "in" it. NO matter, no energy. Or I could imagine that God is different - the sort of superman in the sky kind of god that I argue against - and imagine the universe the way you are imagining it.
Either one of those a helpful starting place?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Or you could just imagine that there are two types of matter, one of which is defined as "including God as you see it" and one that isn't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So I am imagining no God then? Okay.
When you imagine matter made of not-atoms, what is it made of?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yes, remarkably like what I said in my initial post. At this point I don't feel like going back and reposting the actual question, since it looks like your version of God, matter, and "imagine" are all defined more for the purpose of frustrating atheists than for the purpose of actually building a coherent and useful belief system out of, and I don't feel obligated to do the work required to have a conversation about them. But if you feel like answering the question I originally asked, I would still appreciate it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
re: atoms - depends. I can also imagine them made of jello. (For more practical purposes, let's say "small chunks of indivisible but jiggly material"). I can also imagine the ramifications of this: the whole world would be jiggly. Or I can imagine a jello world where the jello is so tiny and mysterious and bound by strange forces such that it's effectively identical to the real world. And maybe that's the world I live in. But if so, I don't care.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DO you not yet see the problem with your original question? Which I did answer.
quote:what differences would you expect to see between a universe in which your interpretation of God exists, and a universe with no God?
quote:the obvious answer is that the universe wouldn't exist at all without God.
Since then I have been trying to get you to ask questions that actually recognize my understanding of God. It is like you are asking me to imagine water without hydrogen atoms but with something just like hydrogen atoms. BUt God is even more fundamental to the universe than hydrogen is to water.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I started by trying not to put words in your mouth, because the answer that seemed most obvious is: "there is no difference." Which is all I wanted to know. You do not think God has interacted with the world in any way that we cannot explain via scientific phenomena that does not in any way hinge on God existing? Is that correct? If it's not correct, I seriously do not understand what you're talking about and you're going have to explain it without using the Socratic Method.
If my understanding IS correct, well, okay. I don't understand how it improves your life beyond what your life would be like if you just assumed these things all had natural causes and you had your own obligation to be ethical because being ethical makes the world a better place, period. As long as you're happy and not harming one, I don't care that much. If it actually DOES help you persuade people doing harmful things not to, well, okay. But since it hasn't seemed to work all that well anyway, it seems to me that "I want to believe things that I already believe are good. So I do. You should want to want to believe things that are not harmful according to my own definition of harm, and then go believe those things" is the sort of argument that a) probably will not persuade anybody, and b) reinforces habits of bad logic.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
A variant of the original question (which seems to be should have been fairly obvious, even if I didn't spell it out), is "what is the difference between what you believe and what I believe." I don't know if that makes your answer any different.
Edit: with (again, I think obvious) subtext of "I believe the world is a rational place, created and maintained by natural, nonsentient processes that have no vested interest in the human race."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
----- Orincoro:
quote:It may not *guarantee* a superior status, but it sure as hell indicates one. Come now Blackblade, do not be so obtuse as to deny that excluding blacks from the priesthood, actively, imbued whites in the Mormon church with a superior status
I'm not being obtuse Orincoro. People keep trying to give priesthood a property that does not exist, namely, "If you've got it, you're a member of some super club that has all these benefits both physical and spiritual." I've never once thought or was taught that because I was ordained to the priesthood that I was better or enjoyed a higher status than those who have yet to believe. I've always viewed the priesthood as a responsibility and an authority. When you are in Utah, nobody asks if you are a member of the priesthood.
BB, I don't even know where to begin with you on this. You are determined to be right no matter the implausibility of your claims. It's frustrating actually.
This idea you have that the responsibility and authority of priesthood doesn't confer a higher status on those who can attain it? I don't know what to say, I call complete and utter BS on you and anyone who claims it not to be so. That's a claim in contradiction of every fiber of my reasoning. It simply does not hold. First, because if it were so, blacks would never have agitated for a change, but secondly because if it were so, you and every other white mormon would still advocate the exclusion of Blacks from your clergy.
Do answer me this: the church leaders must be priests, correct? And the church leaders, I'm sorry to take this as an absolute given, enjoy a higher status in the church than those who are not leadership. You might as well claim black is white as deny that- there is no institution on Earth in which that would not be true.
quote:
quote:It was *immediately* changed? It was changed 150+ years after the church was founded
That's not what I mean, what I mean was there wasn't a gradual shift in attitude amongst members of the church, and one day the pressure reached a boiling point and the leadership had no choice but to capitulate. Instead the prophet invited the heads of the church to discuss with him the issue, and after everyone concluded discussions, they prayed about it and all simultaneously came to the same conclusion. Even Bruce R. McConkie who had become the face of the idea that blacks cannot hold the priesthood wrote,
"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things. . . . All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles."
McConkie I do not think can be called a racist. He bore no ill-will towards blacks. He didn't backslide or talk badly about blacks or start a conservative clique in the church that felt we should go back to the days of them not having the priesthood. Sentiments like that have never existed in the Mormon church.
quote:And also, please, there is no possible way that there was no resentment against blacks in the Mormon church. There was. There is and has been resentment against most people in most churches, blacks most particularly and especially.
Yes there is a way. Despite your beliefs to the contrary, religion can sharpen people's virtues and eradicate their vices. Are there Mormons who have been racists? Of course! But racism has never been encouraged or sustained in the Mormon church, nor has it ever been given quarter. There was no reason to resent blacks.
BB: "It was prayed about and immediately changed"
me: "it was *immediately* changed?"
BB: "Well, it was changed after a long process and a building up of pressure until there was no possible solution other than to change it."
I suppose by your metric, the Berlin wall came down "immediately," never mind the 45 years of pressure leading up to that event. The problem here BB is that you are being terribly dishonest, either with us, or with yourself, about the intentions of your beloved church and the people in it.
But then, when I call BS on your claim that there was no resentment in the church against blacks, you admit, of course there are "individual" racists, but that the church is not racist. Hmm. IF the members are racist, and the members make up the leadership, and together they all make up the church... dot dot dot.
quote: Now either Mormons are extraordinary in that they have this ability to as a culture completely abandoned feelings and precepts at the prophets say so. Or racism was not a motivating factor in their beliefs regarding blacks and the priesthood and so doctrinally when the issue was clarified, there was no emotional baggage in the way.
False dichotomy. Option C: you are wondrously, enchantingly, breathtakingly naive about your church and your fellow church members.
When confronted with a century and a half of racist exclusionary policies in your church, you would rather believe that the church did it all somehow as if a racist thought or idea never flitted through any of its members' minds. As if they did it out a purely kind hearted misunderstanding, as if they invited blacks into their homes, poured them a cup of warm milk, and said, "Ah jeeez Mable, I wish we could give you the priesthood, but see the book says not to, and we need to pray about it cause aw shucks, we're awful confused!" And they *just* so happened to change that policy when it became politically inconvenient to maintain it. Riiiight. I was born on a Wednesday, but it wasn't last Wednesday.
I call total utter BS on that line of bologna.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Paul Goldner: A policeman has authority you do not, does that make him a better human being?
False analogy, there are more opportunities for attaining a higher social status in public life than in a church. Weak dude, weak.
If you were a cop and the other guy was a police lieutenant, then yes, he would be conferred with a higher status than you in the realm of policing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, clearly the solution is to be thoroughly snide and insulting. That'll show'm!
And before you take offense at that remark, Orincoro, keep in mind this is coming from someone who, on this topic, thoroughly agrees with you.
ETA: It's one thing if it's malanthrop or somethin'. He almost never listens and replies honestly.
[ July 22, 2010, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Raymond,
quote: As long as you're happy and not harming one, I don't care that much. If it actually DOES help you persuade people doing harmful things not to, well, okay
Right back at you. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I don't understand how it improves your life beyond what your life would be like if you just assumed these things all had natural causes and you had your own obligation to be ethical because being ethical makes the world a better place, period.
The reason is usually 'death is way scarier otherwise'
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Death is pretty scary anyway. But, yes, that is a common reason.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's so funny to watch people having this conversation with Kate for the first time. It's like you can almost classify the Five Stages of Befuddlement.
Raymond: Kate doesn't believe in God as you understand the term. She believes in the Universe, and calls it God. This annoys pretty much anyone else who finds a need to use the word God. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Either you're making your decisions based on reasoning and prior experience, or you're making decisions based on differences in your inherent nature (whether that nature is on the physical or spiritual level), or you're making decisions based on random chance. I honestly cannot conceive of what the word "choice" even really means, in a way that is actually meaningful.
Why are those the only three options? Why not a mix of all three, or more? Perhaps I make choices based on my physical nature which are guided by my lifelong experience and reasoning, but I may make different choices at different times based on the context in which I must make that decision or on the combination of choices I've already made to reach that point. Or maybe I'm tired and I make a choice different from what I might have made were I rested.
Personally I find the deterministic view defeatist and largely useless. It may indeed be possible to perfectly predict the future provided you could accurately and adequately analyze the entire universe, but as I find it unlikely in the extreme that that sort of analysis will ever be possible I don't see where that helps any.
And even if we did live in a deterministic universe, we must live as if we didn't, as if we were responsible for our choices and the results of those choices.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, I was really expecting one of you to have warned him. (I almost sent you a PM to come over and warn him.) See, Raymond, you could have skipped right to the "Kate isn't Scottish" part.
Also, not quite true. Lots of people use "God" the same way I do and Tom is leaving out the personal relationship/transcendent part.
[ July 22, 2010, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's so funny to watch people having this conversation with Kate for the first time. It's like you can almost classify the Five Stages of Befuddlement.
Raymond: Kate doesn't believe in God as you understand the term. She believes in the Universe, and calls it God. This annoys pretty much anyone else who finds a need to use the word God.
But he could have been "the one."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Personally I find the deterministic view defeatist and largely useless.
Why is that "defeatist?" Is it necessary to war against inevitability?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: You're welcome to your opinions, but don't expect me to want to spend a lot of my time conversing on this subject if I don't feel like those I'm discussing it with are so utterly convinced I'm a charlatan.
quote:BB, I don't even know where to begin with you on this. You are determined to be right no matter the implausibility of your claims. It's frustrating actually.
I don't think I've ever been accused of this once in all my time on hatrack, and I doubt it's because everybody was just too polite to speak up.
quote:This idea you have that the responsibility and authority of priesthood doesn't confer a higher status on those who can attain it? I don't know what to say, I call complete and utter BS on you and anyone who claims it not to be so. That's a claim in contradiction of every fiber of my reasoning. It simply does not hold. First, because if it were so, blacks would never have agitated for a change, but secondly because if it were so, you and every other white mormon would still advocate the exclusion of Blacks from your clergy.
I'm not parsing this very well. For one, I can't know how I would respond were blacks still not allowed the priesthood because it was changed just a few years before I was born. I do know that when my church was supporting proposition 8 I didn't agree with the decision or support the legislation, it was a hard decision for me not because I thought I was wrong, but because I was unsure how my church was right.
quote:BB: "It was prayed about and immediately changed"
me: "it was *immediately* changed?"
BB: "Well, it was changed after a long process and a building up of pressure until there was no possible solution other than to change it."
I don't know how you are translating our conversation as such, it's almost the polar opposite of what was said. I never meant immediate as in when Brigham Young died it was immediately reversed. I meant immediate in that from my understanding there were not tons of discussions going on, or defections in the church, but rather it was a problem, the prophet prayed about it and *bam* immediately the policy changed. Health care in the United States would be the opposite of what I'm talking about. It was brought up several times, discussed for months, and years, killed, brought back, rinse repeat.
quote:But then, when I call BS on your claim that there was no resentment in the church against blacks, you admit, of course there are "individual" racists, but that the church is not racist. Hmm. IF the members are racist, and the members make up the leadership, and together they all make up the church... dot dot dot.
Alright, fine. By that definition Mormons are all racists, all sexist too.
quote:I call total utter BS on that line of bologna.
Your fun little farce of an option does nothing to further the conversation. If you think I'm a liar or hopelessly ignorant than we have no cause to continue discussing. I think it's regretful that to you what happened in the Mormon church is indistinguishable in terms of feelings to say what happened in the Southern states in regards to segregation just twenty years earlier.
I also don't believe you want my church to make decision you deem as correct. It doesn't make you happy, all it does it make you resent us more. Instead of appreciating an apparatus that does allow the church to improve and become better, you cynically call it power politics. As if Mormons are no longer willing to bleed and die for their beliefs, but instead are gutless cowards who practice their vices until they find it politically expedient to do something about them.
There's no, "I'm glad Mormons don't practice racist policies anymore." You just move on to the next perceived malicious belief while simultaneously railing on past mistakes. You don't want to like my religion, and you are unable to dislike my religion and yet retain respect for me as a person.
I know you're going through a really hard time Orincoro. Every time I'm on hatrack I think about your father, and wish I could do something to make your situation better. But instead I have to admit I have nothing you want. I want to be friends with you, because we do have things in common, such as music.
I know I'm trying to do a dance that is making me look silly. I don't agree with my church in regards to denying black's the priesthood. What I don't believe is that everybody in the church up until 1978 every time they thought about blacks at best poo poo'd them and at worst utterly hated them. Brigham Young evoked the name of God when he told the Utah legislature that blacks could not have the priesthood. Our leadership takes that sort of language extremely seriously. If you are going to change a policy like that either Young or Kimball has to be wrong, and that to me was the largest reason black's were not granted the priesthood. The church leadership decided Young was wrong, and hasn't looked back.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
BlackBlade, I think you are oversimplifying the history of blacks and the priesthood. There were numerous other meetings and apostles like Hugh B. Brown were annoyed at the waiting and procrastinating on the decision. My black lds friend, who did leave the church, did lots of research. Also, check out blacklds.com I think for some nice resources on the history from people who support the church, but still discuss the policy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: BlackBlade, I think you are oversimplifying the history of blacks and the priesthood. There were numerous other meetings and apostles like Hugh B. Brown were annoyed at the waiting and procrastinating on the decision. My black lds friend, who did leave the church, did lots of research. Also, check out blacklds.com I think for some nice resources on the history from people who support the church, but still discuss the policy.
Will do.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@kmmboots: I knew that Tom periodically says "kmmboots is only not an atheist insofar as she calls the word 'atheist, 'Christian.'" So yes, I was reasonably sure I knew what I was getting into, but you had never actually explained it to/in-front-of me and I didn't want to be putting words in your mouth without having you explained yourself. I was hoping you'd clarify that in the first post rather than posting coy evasions for a page. Obviously you can define God and the Universe however you want, but if you're going to use words that are pretty much unrelated to how most people (atheist or theist) use them, I think the responsibility is on your end to, A) clarify what the words mean, B) acknowledge that you're using completely different words that happen to sound the same to avoid equivocating.
My bafflement wasn't (isn't? Still unsure) what your beliefs are, but why/whether you're deliberately being unclear about what you're talking about. The answer to my original question seems to either "nothing" or "there's a heaven in mine" depending on whether we're including afterlife as part of the sense experience, and you could have just said that.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Blacklds is a really good website with some great research on the subject.
The article that I posted in my previous post from Renee Olsen mentioned Gospel music and she had made a joke about it. It kind of made me laugh a bit. I've met Gladys Knight few times and she has a choir group here in Las Vegas, and they sing LDS hymns in an upbeat gospel tempo. They began to travel a few years ago, so if you ever get a chance to hear them, you should.
Orincoro, could you clarify what you meant by this statement?
quote:
And the church leaders, I'm sorry to take this as an absolute given, enjoy a higher status in the church than those who are not leadership.
My father is the bishop of his ward, and before he was asked to serve as bishop he hoped he wouldn't. LDS church leaders are not paid, but are expected to care for the well being of all the members residing in the ward / stake/ area/ church they are responsible for.
Church leaders don't get any status, special privledges, pay, or anything for that matter. What my father HAS received for being a bishop includes: Headaches, colds, loss of sleep, loss of time with his family, etc. He does it because he was asked to, and because he genuinely loves the people in the ward and their well being.
I suppose people will call him bishop even after he is released (He's been bishop for about 6 years now) but that isn't something that he or any Bishop really cares about.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Church leaders don't get any status, special privledges
... what
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, Raymond, I answered your questions as best I could given that the questions assumed things that aren't true. And I tried to explain that. My definition of God is hardly unique even among Christians. Buddhists, Hindu, Native American spirituality, the Sufi form of Islam all have elements of a similar idea of God. Look up "panentheism". It will give you at least a starting place.
"Heaven" is almost as problematic a term as, for me, it is a condition of being in relationship with God rather than a place in the sky with pearly gates and dead relatives. So, no, I could not have answered your question that way. Nor do I believe the answer is "nothing".
I am not being deliberately obtuse, but these are big complicated things and I won't warp them (and thereby give wrong information) by simplifying them.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
On any other day I would have found the exchange amusing. Today I really shouldn't have been on Hatrack at all (homework to finish) so it ended up feeling like wasted time, but that was my fault.
I do realize saying "totally random definition" was wrong. I have looked into pantheism in the past. I understood where you were coming from. I still disagree that there was any reason to say that you can't compare your worldview and mine without jumping through a bunch of linguistic hoops. Assuming your version of pantheism means anything significant at all, it should be a distinct worldview from mine, even if the only differences are things that can't be directly detected (or at least validated) by us in this life. I think "it's more complicated and subtle than I can convey over an afternoon forum chat" is an okay answer, but I take issue with your saying that you can't compare one worldview's ramifications to another without somehow changing the first one.
quote:"Heaven" is almost as problematic a term as, for me, it is a condition of being in relationship with God
That's how my Lutheran friend uses the term. Yes, it's approximately how I was assuming you'd use the term.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Personally I find the deterministic view defeatist and largely useless.
Why is that "defeatist?" Is it necessary to war against inevitability?
I'm not warring against inevitability. I'm rejecting it as being, well, inevitable.
The various flavors of determinism, boiled down, say that what I do is beyond my willful control. I do what I do because of how I was raised, or my genetics, or my community, or by unstoppable cause and effect starting from the very first action. I see that as a way of avoiding responsibility for one's actions. It's not my fault, I had to do it the way I did because there was no other way. I am not responsible for my actions because I had no free will. It was inevitable, therefore I cannot be fairly judged for it.
Since my personal definition of maturity requires that a person take complete responsibility for his or her actions -- one of the big reasons I am not a Christian, by the way, as both the concepts of Original Sin and the scapegoat are abhorrent to me -- determinism seems to me to be a very dangerous philosophical path to take.
The closest I might come would be compatabilism. I do believe in a mechanical universe, a cause and effect universe, and I do think it's true that a person's actions are largely determined by the options provided to them by genetics, upbringing, experience and culture. But I also believe humans have it in them to overcome those things in the face of new events and surprise you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hahaha, wow. there are so many problems with the idea of being a catholic panentheist, i bet. It can't be in accord with the teachings of the church.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, clearly the solution is to be thoroughly snide and insulting. That'll show'm!
And before you take offense at that remark, Orincoro, keep in mind this is coming from someone who, on this topic, thoroughly agrees with you.
Since when was I interested in being nice to people who are deluding themselves? I'm glad you agree, you go ahead and treat people in serious denial as if they are thinking rationally. I'm trying not to do that these days, for personal reasons as much as general moral ones.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The various flavors of determinism, boiled down, say that what I do is beyond my willful control.
I wouldn't put it that way. Rather, I would say that your willful control is a product of circumstances, but it is indeed the cause of what you do. That your willful control must be somehow independent of your circumstances and preconditions seems like an unnecessary complication.
quote:It was inevitable, therefore I cannot be fairly judged for it.
This, for example, does not logically follow.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
General authorities, or the church presidency and general leadership, do have quite a bit of prominence in the church. Once they are called to those positions they have for the most part served many years already as leaders in their local congregations and regions. Yes, there is the opportunity for self-aggrandizement in being a church leader. There will be a whole spectrum of opinions on that even inside the church. Personally, the general authorities I have met have all been quite humble and down to earth. I have considered many times how different they are from politicians, many world leaders, and even leaders of other churches that I have seen on the news or heard speak. They are there to serve the church members and did not apply for or angle for the positions, but accepted them when asked. As a person in a minor leadership position in my own congregation, let me tell you that I did not push to have this position and will be glad to be rid of the responsibility when released.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
Orincoro, could you clarify what you meant by this statement?
quote:
And the church leaders, I'm sorry to take this as an absolute given, enjoy a higher status in the church than those who are not leadership.
Ok, we have a little bit of willful dull-headedness going on.
Let's take the literal approach first:
OAD:
quote: status |ˈstātəs; ˈstatəs| noun 1 the relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something : an improvement in the status of women. • high rank or social standing : those who enjoy wealth and status. • the official classification given to a person, country, or organization, determining their rights or responsibilities : the duchy had been elevated to the status of a principality.
Pay attention to the second and third definitions, along with the first. All are concerned with standing and position, the second two with official position or recognized ranking.
So, to be in *leadership*
quote: leadership |ˈlēdərˌ sh ip| noun
• the state or position of being a leader : the leadership of the party.
One must have a certain higher than average *position.* This is referred to very commonly as that person's *status*.
Leadership position = higher status QED.
This is not a qualitative argument, you are wrong.
Now, to the more subjective point, your argument that being a leader in the LDS church doesn't confer special status on people, I say Hooey. That statement, as Rakeesh points out, flies in the face of American and world history, and of the facts of the matter, which clearly show an underprivileged social class being denied something which is considered sacred and which confers on its members a higher status, as I have clearly proven.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB]I know I'm trying to do a dance that is making me look silly. I don't agree with my church in regards to denying black's the priesthood. What I don't believe is that everybody in the church up until 1978 every time they thought about blacks at best poo poo'd them and at worst utterly hated them. [QB]
Look, it's not that it makes you look silly, because a lot of people have silly beliefs. What you are making yourself look like is a liar. I don't see why, either, because you seem perfectly willing to admit that you disagree with your church on things, and yet you bend to the breaking point to preserve the fiction that your church has never been wrong.
For instance, your church was *wrong* on prop 8, and you're sitting there wondering how to figure out how they are right! They're not right! I think the difficulty here is in you knowing this, but having the devil's own time admitting that to yourself.
You act as if either every single individual in the church had to be a foaming at the mouth racist, or the church did everything it did with perfect and soundly moral reasoning. No! The church existed in a backward time in which its leadership was influenced by racist ideas that they were not *forced* to change until the civil rights movement was over, and they were about to begin facing serious political challenges if they *didn't* change. You denying that these things happened, and denying at least the internal logic of that inference is insulting, because you're too smart not to know which way the wind blows. You know the truth in what I've said. It's not absolute, because just like society at large, the Mormons had been evolving through the civil rights era as well, but don't be naive, please. I have never believed that people do things against their own will. That means the church *did* want to change, but *why* did it want to change? It couldn't have been one reason- certainly many of its members wanted fairness and to abolish racist policies because it was the right thing, but others surely feared the consequences of not changing, and so went along with an empty heart. That is the way it was in America in general in those days, and your church was not different. It was not any one thing, but the one thing it most certainly was not, was innocent.
This is a problem, and not my problem, that you think me calling the church racist, or saying that there was resentment and racism in the church means that I think every member of the church was a dyed in the wool racist until 1978. That's not possible. But you're viewing your church from the inside, where everybody is supposed to believe the same things, and everything they believe is supposed to have always been right. I'm not so burdened. What I do believe is that by remaining members of the church until 1978, all its members, black and white, who tithed to and volunteered for the church with knowledge of this racist, segregationist policy, tacitly supported racism. Just as you today tacitly support homophobia and oppose civil rights. What do your beliefs mean, exactly, if your actions contradict them? If you disagree with your church, why do you support it still? It is doing wrong. I would argue that this in itself is enough to taint someone, even through inaction. I was, for instance, completely understanding of one of my uncles, who is gay, refusing to speak to one of my cousins, who converted to Mormonism. That cousin agrees to financially and morally support segregation. If more Mormons spoke up for what they truly believed, like Christians claim they are supposed to do, then perhaps we would live in a better country.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary, I am curious at to what you think those problems are.
Orincoro, I think that what you say is true in practice. However, you are failing to take into account the Christian ideal that turns power and leadership relationships on its head. Those who would be great must be servants of all, the last shall be first. Those are, sadly, not often carried out in practice, but to understand what BlackBlade is saying, you need to bear in mind that that ideal exists.
[ July 22, 2010, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The various flavors of determinism, boiled down, say that what I do is beyond my willful control.
I wouldn't put it that way. Rather, I would say that your willful control is a product of circumstances, but it is indeed the cause of what you do. That your willful control must be somehow independent of your circumstances and preconditions seems like an unnecessary complication.
Why? Why couldn't my will also be part of the equation? (Which is, if I understand it correctly, more or less what compatabilism is)
quote:
quote:It was inevitable, therefore I cannot be fairly judged for it.
This, for example, does not logically follow.
If my actions were inevitable, I had no choice in the matter. My genetics and my history controlled my actions, I had no more choice or free will than a programmed robot. How then could I be blamed or held responsible for my actions?
Granted, I may be wrong. I may be looking at it the same inaccurate way that many religionists look at atheists and agnostics and wonder how in the world they can live, be cheerful, be ethical without a religious framework. Maybe there's a breakthrough in perception I haven't hit yet.
But determinism bugs me. Partly it's what I see as the abrogation of personal responsibility and the denial of will as a factor. Partly it's the arrogance of it, the suggestion that we can figure you out, bucko, as soon as we map out all your influences.
But mostly it's the uselessness of it.
As I said, I think we must act as if we have free will, even if we don't, to function as a society. But it's a moot point. Even if it's true that our actions are completely determined by outside factors, we can't ever know all of those factors. Some may be beyond our perception. My word choice here might have been oh-so-subtly altered by a tachyon hitting my brain at just the right angle.
If determinism is true but humans cannot perceive all the elements that come together to form a decision, from our point of view it would still be free will. There would always be a wild card, an unpredictability arising from factors we couldn't detect, couldn't predict. And at that point, there's little use in determinism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Samprimary, I am curious at to what you think those problems are.
It's not really a problem for you, since you more or less adapt Catholicism to fit what you think it should be. But the Church itself is almost (if not entirely) guaranteed to disagree with the notion of a panentheistic universe. I would bet money that it is kmbootist, not catholic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:For instance, your church was *wrong* on prop 8, and you're sitting there wondering how to figure out how they are right! They're not right! I think the difficulty here is in you knowing this, but having the devil's own time admitting that to yourself.
No, that's not it. Like I said I did not think I was wrong to oppose Prop 8, but I wanted to understand why members of my church, especially the leadership were just as sure they were right.
quote:You act as if either every single individual in the church had to be a foaming at the mouth racist, or the church did everything it did with perfect and soundly moral reasoning.
No I'm not. I said "Poo Poo'ed at best, utterly hated at worst" I think that was it.
I haven't had a chance to look this up but I can't imagine the church would face serious legal challenges for not permitting black's to hold the priesthood. Private organizations can exclude and include however they choose.
quote:...where everybody is supposed to believe the same things, and everything they believe is supposed to have always been right.
That's not it either. I have no problem excepting that members of my church and leadership get it wrong. But when the prophet of the church stands up and says in the name of God they know a principle to be true, that's a very very different ball game than the prophet getting on Larry King and saying he doesn't think members should drink caffeinated cola. To you it might seem more similar than different but to *me* they are world's apart theologically speaking.
quote:If you disagree with your church, why do you support it still? It is doing wrong. I would argue that this in itself is enough to taint someone, even through inaction. I was, for instance, completely understanding of one of my uncles, who is gay, refusing to speak to one of my cousins, who converted to Mormonism. That cousin agrees to financially and morally support segregation. If more Mormons spoke up for what they truly believed, like Christians claim they are supposed to do, then perhaps we would live in a better country.
I'm sorry to say but your uncle is being immature and churlish based on what you've said. I can support my church because I still believe it is God's established church here on earth, and that it is his will I belong to it and serve within it. There has never been a church here on earth where God takes away the handling of its affairs out of the hands of the membership. We as people have to learn how to create and run organizations under God's supervision. It means we make mistakes as well as triumph. The entire point of mortality is to comprehend what it means to be human, and how we as humans can accomplish our potential. Learning to work with other human beings, as well as comprehending God are part and parsel to the whole reason of existance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why? Why couldn't my will also be part of the equation?
Well, where does your "will" come from? What produces it? When your "will" decides you'd prefer chocolate to vanilla today, is it doing so because circumstances have produced a preference for chocolate or because there is some isolated, essential "you"-ness that, all else being held equal, felt like chocolate?
quote:If my actions were inevitable, I had no choice in the matter.
Why do you think so? After all, the very concept of "you" as an individual entity, a single coherent will, is a social and personal construct -- and as you've noted, both society and our internal context pretend free will exists for a variety of reasons. If we're essentially imagining that we're entities, any possibility of "choice" exists within that same imagined context; the idea that we "chose" to do something may have no real, universal meaning, but it's recognized by our internal context in the same way that our perception of self is recognized.
quote:How then could I be blamed or held responsible for my actions?
As you point out, we need to pretend that individuals -- and thus individual "wills" -- exist, even if they don't, so we can function as a society.
quote:And at that point, there's little use in determinism.
What do you believe is the "use" of a belief in "free will?" How would you behave differently if you didn't believe you had it?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You just mentioned the "use" of a belief in free will, above: "both society and our internal context pretend free will exists for a variety of reasons."
If the acceptance of determinism also requires the acceptance of a shared social lie regarding free will, why bother accepting determinism at all? Of what use is determinism?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Those are, sadly, not often carried out in practice, but to understand what BlackBlade is saying, you need to bear in mind that that ideal exists.
I'm not speaking to the ideal, because as you say, it doesn't really happen in practice. I don't treat religious groups as if their religion and everything they believe about themselves carries a shred of truth *just* because they believe it to be so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:For instance, your church was *wrong* on prop 8, and you're sitting there wondering how to figure out how they are right! They're not right! I think the difficulty here is in you knowing this, but having the devil's own time admitting that to yourself.
No, that's not it. Like I said I did not think I was wrong to oppose Prop 8, but I wanted to understand why members of my church, especially the leadership were just as sure they were right.
I can't converse with you if you aren't clear on what you yourself have said. This is not what you said, you said you wanted to know "how they were right."
Now, I'm sorry, you need to be a little more clear on what you mean there- because you're riding a thin line between saying "they are wrong," and asking "how can they be right, afterall."
You can go on and tell me I'm wrong about everything if you are going to disown what and how you speak as soon as you say something I disagree with.
quote: I haven't had a chance to look this up but I can't imagine the church would face serious legal challenges for not permitting black's to hold the priesthood.
I said "political" challenges. As in, challenging situations of hte political nature.
quote:I'm sorry to say but your uncle is being immature and churlish based on what you've said.
My uncle is a shrewd politician and a sophisticated human being. How much are members of the church expected to tithe? 10%? And how much money did the Mormon church spend passing prop 8 in California? A billion dollars, give or take?
It's a very real and very immediate moral problem for Mormons. For your own sanity, you can divorce yourself from it, but you are not in the right. My uncle expected much more conscientiousness from my cousin, who is a supporter of civil rights. It is an insult to him and to all homosexuals to tithe to a church that actively opposes their civil rights. That's my way of seeing, just so you know. I think my "understanding" in this particular situation would be got naught. Mormons *should* be shamed for and should be ashamed of what their church is doing, and if they give money to that church, doubly so.
quote: e as people have to learn how to create and run organizations under God's supervision. It means we make mistakes as well as triumph. The entire point of mortality is to comprehend what it means to be human, and how we as humans can accomplish our potential.
I would encourage you to realize that potential by announcing to your church that you will not tithe until they stop opposing equal civil rights, and encourage your friends and family to do the same. That's how you triumph. What are you doing? Agonizing personally? People's lives are ruined every year because they are denied civil marriage rights in this country. It's a travesty. Do something about it.
[ July 22, 2010, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Orincoro, are you trying to understand BlackBlade or just trying to beat him up and score points?
Samprimary, I am still curious at to where you see the theological points of conflict.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I understand him. I'm trying to convince him he's wrong. Why are there only your two options? They suck.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can't hit everything you've written Orincoro just now,
quote:My uncle is a shrewd politician and a sophisticated human being. How much are members of the church expected to tithe? 10%? And how much money did the Mormon church spend passing prop 8 in California? A billion dollars, give or take?
I haven't seen the total figures, but I did see the church's budgetary report where they indicated not a single dollar of tithing money was spent on prop 8. It all came from the church's other commercial enterprises.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So? The church had money to spend on prop 8 because people tithe to the church.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: So? The church had money to spend on prop 8 because people tithe to the church.
That makes no sense to me. You might as well argue that because I bought a VW some guy used his salary to swindle an old woman.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm glad you agree, you go ahead and treat people in serious denial as if they are thinking rationally.
It's pretty strange for someone espousing rationality to present such a false dichotomy, Orincoro.
quote:I understand him. I'm trying to convince him he's wrong. Why are there only your two options? They suck.
Particularly when you reject false dichotomies later, though from my angle, kmbboots's false dichotomy looks quite a bit more true than yours does.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He's saying that the church has developed commercial enterprise because people tithe to the church. The whole "no no, we didn't spend the tithing money on proposition 8, just the other money" is meaningless insofar as it's all part of the church's available funds anyway, and the root of most all of the church's financial returns is the product of tithed cash.
It's no different than if the church took its first year of tithed cash, invested it in the stock market, got a decent return back, and then spent the return on prop 8. Suddenly it's not tithed cash, it's something separate from that as 'commercial cash?'
It comes off as more than a little absurd to divorce that from the fact that it all comes from tithe to begin with, realistically.
it's a handy smokescreen, though. The church has X dollars in total revenue from one year, both from tithe and from tithe-purchased commercial projects. They can spend Y dollars from out of X and as long as Y does not exceed the total dollar amount from commercial return they can just claim that it was arbitrarily from the commercial pile.
Convenient!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't actually know what percentage of church holdings can be attributed to a root in tithing, and how much can be attributed to the donations and business of some of its wealthier members over the years. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the amount due ultimately to tithing is quite a great bit lot above zero, but it made me consider it.
Anyway, my church's stance on support for Prop 8 has seemed pretty...well, craven to me. "It's not from tithing," seems to me to be something of a cop-out, a way to dodge potential trouble, in the sense that church leadership and member opinion certainly appears to support Prop 8 overall, but a careful line needs to be toed not to make that support too 'official'.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Religious money laundering. Clever!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: He's saying that the church has developed commercial enterprise because people tithe to the church. The whole "no no, we didn't spend the tithing money on proposition 8, just the other money" is meaningless insofar as it's all part of the church's available funds anyway, and the root of most all of the church's financial returns is the product of tithed cash.
It's no different than if the church took its first year of tithed cash, invested it in the stock market, got a decent return back, and then spent the return on prop 8. Suddenly it's not tithed cash, it's something separate from that as 'commercial cash?'
It comes off as more than a little absurd to divorce that from the fact that it all comes from tithe to begin with, realistically.
it's a handy smokescreen, though. The church has X dollars in total revenue from one year, both from tithe and from tithe-purchased commercial projects. They can spend Y dollars from out of X and as long as Y does not exceed the total dollar amount from commercial return they can just claim that it was arbitrarily from the commercial pile.
Convenient!
Could at least attempt to not give my church the most base motives possible when you discuss what it has done historically? I don't believe either of us are aware of how the church got setup commercially. You can't assume they used tithing funds as a base investment. For all you know individual members used their own capital to start these businesses and then donated them to the church.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Could at least attempt to not give my church the most base motives possible when you discuss what it has done historically?
I dunno BlackBlade, that would be a lot less self-righteous and fun.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For all you know individual members used their own capital to start these businesses and then donated them to the church.
How is that significantly different from tithed money? It's just a different way to launder the same cash so it looks clean if you don't look very hard.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For all you know individual members used their own capital to start these businesses and then donated them to the church.
The church started them. It says as much in its own story. It then continued (and continues) to expand business operations using tithe money. Even though the church now conceals its financial records even from its own members, it would be impossible for it to have funded many of its commercial developments over the years solely from commercial return.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I haven't seen the total figures, but I did see the church's budgetary report where they indicated not a single dollar of tithing money was spent on prop 8. It all came from the church's other commercial enterprises.
That isn't a distinction I find particularly valuable. Tithing money went into those investments, did it not?
quote: That makes no sense to me. You might as well argue that because I bought a VW some guy used his salary to swindle an old woman.
No. That would be if anybody were arguing you are responsible for how church officials spend their salaries. We're talking about the organization. You give me 1 million dollars today and I buy a house. Tomorrow I sell the house for one million dollars and buy cocaine. Your money bought the cocaine, but I can say I payed for it through the sale of the house. Tithing money built and maintains the fortune of the Mormon church, and any commercial profits the church makes are done with that seed money. The church could even *lose* more money than it makes, but because the money they spend comes from a different fund than the one the tithes go into, they could still say they were paying for it through commercial investments. The distinction is meaningless. It is especially meaningless to you, because you are paying money into an organization which is using its money to fund things. *Which* money, inasmuch as the money is actually different (likely not much), is not part of the equation you ought to be concerned with.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can't assume they used tithing funds as a base investment. For all you know individual members used their own capital to start these businesses and then donated them to the church.
I'm sorry, I think you see a distinction where one is not particularly useful. Donations and tithing amount to the same things. If the church only uses the money or capital (in the form of businesses and their revenues) donated to them by certain people to fund certain things, that doesn't change anything in regard to your relationship with the church, and what your money is doing.
You fund the church through tithes. The church runs on your money. The church does things with other piles of money that did not come from you. You caused this to happen by funding it. The fact that the church may keep these piles of cash in different accounts is not important.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If I'm collecting money to start an orphanage and a dog fighting ring, would you be more inclined to donate to the cause if I promised that your particular money would go to the orphanage?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No. I wouldn't trust you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If I'm collecting money to start an orphanage and a dog fighting ring, would you be more inclined to donate to the cause if I promised that your particular money would go to the orphanage?
unless all of the money you are collecting is collected specifically for one cause OR the other, then your money is effectively part of what funds the dog fighting ring, since if you are building both, then money allocated solely to 'orphanage' frees up general funds for either/or that can go to the dog fighting ring.
so, morally, you would have to understand that you're contributing to a dogfighting ring even if your money is taken 'for the orphanage.'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If I'm collecting money to start an orphanage and a dog fighting ring, would you be more inclined to donate to the cause if I promised that your particular money would go to the orphanage?
Yes, this is exactly why Catholic Relief Services is such an effective place to donate your money if you are interested in helping those in need but not interested in supporting say priest marital bans. If I had reasonable assurance that the peace wing of the PLO was not using any funds to fund it's militant wing, I'd send them money.
Samp: I'm not interested in continuing. The church's auditory office works independently of the general authorities of the church. But who cares, it's just another curtain right?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, yeah, it is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pray tell Orincoro what are they doing with all that money if not to glut themselves?
edit: I want to delete this post but it was up long enough that I don't think it's fair. I don't think I wish to continue conversing I'm not feeling anything positive when I see this thread has new responses. In fact, all I feel is hope that most of the comments are directed at other people. I might continue to follow the thread, I'll try to refrain from ever jumping back in, as I feel that isn't fair either. But I respectfully decline to continue discussing this topic at this time.
It really does bug me that a poster can say in effect, "yeah Mormons, LOL!" out of nowhere and a whole slew of, "yeah, lol rofl!" follows with the inevitable (started by me this time), "Why are you all lolling? That's not how it is." culminating in the, "The hell it isn't, if you think that imma lol at you and lol at everything your dumb church is."
[ July 23, 2010, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The church started them. It says as much in its own story. It then continued (and continues) to expand business operations using tithe money. Even though the church now conceals its financial records even from its own members, it would be impossible for it to have funded many of its commercial developments over the years solely from commercial return.
What are you talking about?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the acceptance of determinism also requires the acceptance of a shared social lie regarding free will, why bother accepting determinism at all? Of what use is determinism?
If determinism more correctly describes the universe, I submit that it is inherently of use. Philosophical arguments aside, though, we've already seen neurologists start to work out exactly how thoughts and memories and decisions are formed in the brain; while I don't think we'll ever be able to be aware of and perfectly recreate every condition that might produce a given "choice," I have no difficulty imagining that, perhaps even within our lifetimes, we'll learn the correct buttons to push to make someone "happy," or even "satisfied" with a given decision.
More broadly, though, it's worth noting that you have had an emotional reaction to the idea that you might not have free will. Clearly that concept has value to you. The question becomes, then, whether that value is independent of the truth of the assertion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Could at least attempt to not give my church the most base motives possible when you discuss what it has done historically?"
Well, it would be easier not to assign base motives to the church if it were not CURRENTLY involved in a great evil.
That said, my point was pretty simple. If the church did not have tithing money coming in, it would not have been able to spend the amount it did on hurting people.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Since then I have been trying to get you to ask questions that actually recognize my understanding of God. It is like you are asking me to imagine water without hydrogen atoms but with something just like hydrogen atoms. BUt God is even more fundamental to the universe than hydrogen is to water.
I agree with you in part - I think there is a religious (or spiritual) element to the universe that is inherent to existence. I think you can't truly have a universe like what we concieve of as a universe without that religious component to it.
However, I'd frame the question this way: Is it impossible to imagine that religious element not being a diety? What if it were something like an Oversoul that did not have an intelligence or will behind it, and acted more akin to a force of nature? Does it have to be God in the Christian sense in order to concieve of a universe?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@Chris:
First, as Tom said, if something is true, there's some value to recognize it as truth regardless of how happy it makes you. That said, in general, I think most people are better off believing in free will, and the level of abstract reasoning required for people to accept determinism AND responsibility for their own actions is more trouble than its worth for the average person.
What's important, though is for people in authority (in particular with respect to making/enforcing laws, although all forms of authority apply), to recognize that it is merely a socially accepted illusion (or if not an illusion, at least a great exaggeration). Laws should not punish nor reward people for the sake of punishing and rewarding their free-will-actions. Laws should exist for the purpose of producing the maximum impact on people's deterministic decision making process.
From a free-will "fairness" perspective, one might conclude that "an eye for an eye" is a viable form of justice. But if, in practice, such a philosophy merely produces more anger and violence rather than actual discouraging people from stabbing each other's eyes out, then its not a good philosophy. Thinking in terms of determinism helps us to step back and look at problems in terms of what will actually help, rather than what seems fair.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Given the documented ability that large religious organizations in general have for raising money to fund campaigns, initiatives, etc, SEPARATE from the offerings they receive during services...
Paul, I don't think your argument is very well-considered.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yes? And where does the money necessary to create that network for collecting money to fund campaigns, initiatives, etc. come from? From a foundation created by tithing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Remember that we're talking about large organizations with a hierarchical structure already-- not grass-roots campaigns that are just starting up.
The network is already there. Volunteers exist right now. It's easy to overlook, but lots of these people do what they do without pay-- in fact, many of them will give money on the spot, in addition to manning the phone banks, hanging out signs, writing letters, canvassing neighborhoods, etc.
You keep saying tithing is what allows these efforts to exist. Do you have any proof? We've at least got an official statement from the LDS church stating that no tithing money was used in the efforts to pass prop 8; what can you show that demonstrates that's not true? Can you show that without tithing, the LDS church wouldn't have the fiscal power to pull this off?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Remember that we're talking about large organizations with a hierarchical structure already"
That was initially built upon tithing. And its commercial interests were built upon tithing. WHat makes you think that, without historical tithing, your church would have any money at all?
"We've at least got an official statement from the LDS church stating that no tithing money was used in the efforts to pass prop 8; what can you show that demonstrates that's not true?"
That its a statement made by the mormon church on the issue of gay marriage? Seriously.
Also, church takes in ~1/2 billion year from non-tithing. Tithing is about 9 times that.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... It really does bug me that a poster can say in effect, "yeah Mormons, LOL!" out of nowhere and a whole slew of, "yeah, lol rofl!" follows with the inevitable (started by me this time), "Why are you all lolling? That's not how it is." culminating in the, "The hell it isn't, if you think that imma lol at you and lol at everything your dumb church is."
*shrug* Meh, you could substitute Obama, China, global warming, bailouts, taxes, the Christian god, or any number of contentious subjects for Mormons.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:more than the church's estimated yearly income from non-tithing sources was spent on prop 8.
quote:Jeff Flint, a principal political consultant for the Yes on 8 campaign, says virtually all its volunteers and donors had religious ties, and were involved "either because they were encouraged by religious leaders or because of their own beliefs."
He estimates that members of the Mormon church – from California and elsewhere – contributed "at least 40 percent" of the $40 million raised by the campaign.
According to your link, the LDS church's non-tithing funds are about $600 million per year. According to the source above (assuming I'm reading it right) LDS funding for Prop 8 activities were between $10 million and $15 million.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong? I couldn't find anywhere that put the effort at supporting Prop 8 above $600 million.
quote:"We've at least got an official statement from the LDS church stating that no tithing money was used in the efforts to pass prop 8; what can you show that demonstrates that's not true?"
That its a statement made by the mormon church on the issue of gay marriage? Seriously.
Aha. If that's how you feel, then consider my above comments directed toward everyone else. You, Paul, needn't consider them at all. Your mind is made up, apparently. You are certain.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp: I'm not interested in continuing. The church's auditory office works independently of the general authorities of the church. But who cares, it's just another curtain right?
Well, considering that the church keeps its finances secret even from its own members, then ironically the answer to your question is: yes. It is.
You are upset about the ideas being thrown around but they all stem from a pretty simple proposition that's been explained in multiple ways now: claiming that no tithing money was used in the proposition 8 campaign isn't an excuse nor does it make the mormon church's political financing of the prop 8 campaign any 'better,' because realistically it doesn't mean anything.
The mormon church isn't throwing out that statement just as a piece of financial trivia. It's a statement they assert as a legitimization of the use of their financial power in an effort to revoke gay marriage. It doesn't work because it could just as easily be moral laundering, and the church's financial empire was borne on the backs of tithing anyway. That's all. That's the long and short of it.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The church started them. It says as much in its own story. It then continued (and continues) to expand business operations using tithe money. Even though the church now conceals its financial records even from its own members, it would be impossible for it to have funded many of its commercial developments over the years solely from commercial return.
What are you talking about?
The history of the mormon church as a business operation, of course.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I understand correctly, Samp, you're talking about the individual congregations as businesses.
That's NOT what BB is talking about. He seems to be talking about secular businesses that the Church owns, or has stock in.
quote:The mormon church isn't throwing out that statement just as a piece of financial trivia. It's a statement they assert as a legitimization of the use of their financial power in an effort to revoke gay marriage. It doesn't work because it could just as easily be moral laundering, and the church's financial empire was borne on the backs of tithing anyway. That's all. That's the long and short of it.
Assuming that the statement you're talking here is "No tithing was used to support prop 8," I think your point has been disproved by the articles I linked to above.
I wonder if your definition of tithing is different from the Mormon concept. Can you explain what you mean when you use the word "tithing?"
EDIT: I'll actually go first to show goodwill:
When I pay tithing, I take a little form that's outside the bishop's office. There are a bunch of spaces to fill in.
There is a line for 'Tithing.' In that line, assuming I'm paying honestly, I fill out a number that equals to 10% of my bi-weekly paycheck. (Let's not get into net vs. gross...)
There are other lines on the tithing slip: under the word Offerings, I can fill in amounts for the Mission Fund, Building Fund, Supplies and Materials, Fast Offering, Welfare, or Other.
NOW-- of all those things, only one of them counts as Tithing. That'd be the amount on the line labeled "Tithing." If I gave $5000, and only $50 of it was marked on the Tithing line, then within the definition embraced by Mormonism I only paid $50 to tithing. I gave $4950 in Offerings, which are kept separate from tithing (I know this is tracked, because members receive a statement each year of how much they paid in tithing, and how much they gave in offerings.)
[ July 23, 2010, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Saying "no tithing was used to support" proposition 8 is such a completely meaningless statement on the part of the lds. I could be a church that runs a business on the side, take the budget appropriation for employee salary and donate it to the proposition 8 campaign, then pay the employe salaries with an infusion of tithe money. Then exclaim 'gosh, its not like we medddled in politics with tithe money'!
It is no different. It is all church money. This should not be that hard to figure out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I understand correctly, Samp, you're talking about the individual congregations as businesses.
What! No. I am talking about the businesses that the church controls. Commercial enterprises and the like.
quote:Assuming that the statement you're talking here is "No tithing was used to support prop 8," I think your point has been disproved by the articles I linked to above.
Sigh. I don't think you understand my point. I guess I have to start over.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Saying "no tithing was used to support" proposition 8 is such a completely meaningless statement on the part of the lds. I could be a church that runs a business on the side, take the budget appropriation for employee salary and donate it to the proposition 8 campaign, then pay the employe salaries with an infusion of tithe money. Then exclaim 'gosh, its not like we medddled in politics with tithe money'!
It is no different. It is all church money. This should not be that hard to figure out.
There. Here. You get it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"NOW-- of all those things, only one of them counts as Tithing. That'd be the amount on the line labeled "Tithing." If I gave $5000, and only $50 of it was marked on the Tithing line, then within the definition embraced by Mormonism I only paid $50 to tithing. I gave $4950 in Offerings, which are kept separate from tithing (I know this is tracked, because members receive a statement each year of how much they paid in tithing, and how much they gave in offerings.)"
But how do you know where the money went? The church doesn't release its financial records.
"Aha. If that's how you feel, then consider my above comments directed toward everyone else. You, Paul, needn't consider them at all. Your mind is made up, apparently. You are certain. "
My mind is made up that the mormon church will lie about gay marriage. It has done so REPEATEDLY, and so statements from the church about gay marriage cannot be trusted, and should probably actively be disbelieved without substantial external corroborating evidence. My mind is also made up that finances cross contaminate, even when businesses claim that they don't (and especially when those businesses do not release detailed financial statements). This belief is independent of the question of tithing vs offerings vs commercial investments within the Mormon Church. My mind is further made up that opposition to gay marriage is evil.
There are many things I am not certain of. For example, I could be convinced that all members of the mormon church are not, at best, passively supporting evil. You'd have to release the financial records of the mormon church and demonstrate that all its commercial ventures were set up without any money from tithing, that the tithing money does not cross contaminate with other funds, that no funds from anything other than commercial ventures were used to promote proposition 8, AND, that no tithing money was used to produce the infrastructure that allowed the church to mobilize its members. And you'd have to do so using non-church affiliated accountants... because the church is not trustworthy when it comes to statements related to gay marriage.
But I didn't come into this thread in order to become convinved of anything. I came into this thread because blackblade, and now you, are making statements that I consider to be totally illogical and at odds with financial reality.
N.B. I withdrew my statement about "more than prop 8," before your post, because I had an incorrect number about what was spent on prop 8 in my head that I found to be wrong. So, one of the things I can be convinced of is how much was spent on prop 8.
"Assuming that the statement you're talking here is "No tithing was used to support prop 8," I think your point has been disproved by the articles I linked to above."
If by "disproved," you mean "presents no substantial opposition to the original claim," than I agree with you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:My mind is made up that the mormon church will lie about gay marriage. It has done so REPEATEDLY, and so statements from the church about gay marriage cannot be trusted, and should probably actively be disbelieved without substantial external corroborating evidence.
Is this in part based on the church's use of a front group in hawaii to conceal their role in working against gay marriage? do you have other examples in mind?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Most of the statements they've made concerning the effects of gay marriage. Commercials they've funded. Those things are primarily what I had in mind.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.
Anyone know of a place I can look these papers they filed up? Members of the church may have contributed money, but it seems the church did not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What! No. I am talking about the businesses that the church controls. Commercial enterprises and the like.
Your statement was:
quote:The church started them. It says as much in its own story. It then continued (and continues) to expand business operations using tithe money. Even though the church now conceals its financial records even from its own members, it would be impossible for it to have funded many of its commercial developments over the years solely from commercial return.
Can you show how you came to this conclusion?
quote:Saying "no tithing was used to support" proposition 8 is such a completely meaningless statement on the part of the lds. I could be a church that runs a business on the side, take the budget appropriation for employee salary and donate it to the proposition 8 campaign, then pay the employe salaries with an infusion of tithe money. Then exclaim 'gosh, its not like we medddled in politics with tithe money'!
It is no different. It is all church money. This should not be that hard to figure out.
It IS different to LDS members. That was my point. Saying "no it isn't" a hundred times isn't going to make your point better understood to an audience of LDS.
quote:Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.
From what I understand, they acted as a receiver for the donations, which they then turned over to be used in the Yes On 8. At least one source maintains that Tithes and Offerings slips were used for some of the funds.
quote:Most of the statements they've made concerning the effects of gay marriage. Commercials they've funded. Those things are primarily what I had in mind.
That's interesting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:What! No. I am talking about the businesses that the church controls. Commercial enterprises and the like.
Your statement was:
quote:The church started them. [the businesses I'm talking about] It says as much in its own story. [for more consult official LDS website which talks about how today's commercial enterprises which are explicitly used to further the church's 'mission' were an outgrowth of businesses the church started when it was isolated in the west and started opening its own newspapers and crap] [for additional resources consult websites critical of the church analyzing collected data on outgrowth of the chrch's financial holdings and real estate purchases over the years both before and after the 1959 hiding of the church's financial records which are disallowed from being posted here]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's not much of an argument, Samprimary.
:shrug:
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Scott R: From an outside perspective, your argument looks like willful ignorance and blanket denial. Not much of an argument either.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, it's not. Its a clarification for a person who ended up thinking I was talking about 'individual congregations as businesses'
FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH: 'that's not much of an argument *shrug*' is a great way to make even less of an argument in return.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QUOTE]It IS different to LDS members. That was my point. Saying "no it isn't" a hundred times isn't going to make your point better understood to an audience of LDS.
If you think my position is equivalent to saying no it isn't a hundred times, you are handwaving. If my point isn't accepted by an lds member, it is not because it does not make sense. Its because they want to deny it.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
What's puzzling to the outsider, knowing very little about either the Mormon church or the civil rights of homosexuals in USA, is the rhetorical style adopted by both sides. The barely masked virulence of the Sam/Orin/PG nexus vs. the provocative passive-aggressive legalisms of the ScottR nexus (each sustaining the other in the only harmony worth humming). It seems to take precedence over what otherwise would obviously be a nuanced debate, one requiring a lot of good will on both sides to be worth the effort.
From a naive perspective (mine), obviously the Mormon church has made mistakes, will continue to make mistakes as all human organizations do. This would have to be weighed against the good things the church has done, does and may well do. It's normal that the members of the church defend their beliefs and also normal that they perhpas read the 'record' differently than their critics. What is abnormal is holding a religious culture to the scientific standards of rationality...especially when the societies that have emerged from the implementation of those very high standards have also committed or been party to a 'systemic' that allowed many of this world's worst atrocities. (The same might be said of the world's largest religious organizations too--except, these organizations, at least, were not hypocritical about their beliefs or, unfortunately, their hatreds.)
On the other hand, I'm surpised that the Mormon faithful are concerned with scoring any debating points on the issues raised here (prop 8, early episodes of racism in the church, uses/misuses of funds) at all. One would think that the underlying notion of having and sharing a faith, something practiced and lived--precisely things not developed through a sterile dialectic--would take precedence. If you want, the living, material strength of what the opponents would call the irrationality.
Everything is not the same.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm not going to weigh, like, the LDS's material support of prop 8 against, say, the whole 'systemic.' I'm just going to analyze what they did and call it what it is.
I'm also super proud to be part of a Barely Masked Virulence Nexus for making statements such as these. Even if, were I to actually hate the mormon church, I would just say so. Right now, I don't hate it at all, I just can't excuse the brazen actions of its leadership in being politically active to fight homosexual rights. Not that I'm even really talking about that right now. Everything I've brought up can be summarized to a pretty simple point: 'the church saying it didn't use tithe money to finance the proposition 8 campaign doesn't actually mean anything. It used its monetary resources and efforts to involve itself politically with prop 8, and the tithe money isn't specially, artificially disconnected from that'
Oh man, look at my BARELY CONTAINED VIRULENCE. =)
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.
From what I understand, they acted as a receiver for the donations, which they then turned over to be used in the Yes On 8. At least one source maintains that Tithes and Offerings slips were used for some of the funds.
If this is the case then I disagree with it. I am interested to know if the church leadership actually approved this or if it was a decision made by bishops or stake presidents in California. The Prop 8 campaign was political, and the slips should not have been used. The church should not have handled the money in any way. This would open the way for other political contributions to be made through tithe and offering slips.
If the members had given a check to a designated person (preferably not at church) and that person would then go down and turn it over, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. As far as I am concerned, as soon as you involve tithing and offering slips, the money is being donated to the church and the church contributed the funds.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
I don't mean to be provocative, but what any Church says to its members means a lot more than you are giving it credit for. I'm not sure why you can't see this?
edited to add: in fact, this is the crux of your whole position -- you're calling them liars (the leadership), but using the perspective of a non-believer to make the evaluation.
People get their truths from different places. In fact, the whole notion of a 'people' may well be circumscribed by this very notion. (or, circumcised!!sp??)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Crap. I missed being part of the Axis of Virulence? What gives?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: edited to add: in fact, this is the crux of your whole position -- you're calling them liars (the leadership), but using the perspective of a non-believer to make the evaluation.
I'm saying they are lying? No. Neither am I unaware that the church's narrative is more easily believed by a faithful member of the church, especially what with that entailing they think the leaders of the church are divinely appointed prophets spoken to by God to run the one true church. I have never indicated otherwise.
quote:People get their truths from different places.
You mean people get their beliefs from different places. People get their truths only from things which impart beliefs upon them which are true.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
Well, then what's the big deal? The Church of Mormon, a well funded, politically sophisticated, often brazen, sometimes charming, occasionally confused, full of well-intentioned believers, mildly indifferent members, networking socialites......etc.....says "X"....
..AND....
The politically sophisticated, well funded, historically signifigant, socially powerful, etc. Gay Rights Movement (or "church" if you use the term loosely) suffers a very mild and probably temporary set back on the relatively trivial issue of the recognition of marriage (that is, certainly not worthy of being called a "human rights" violation, unless you've got nothing more important to argue about...i.e. immigration, slavery, institutionalized poverty etc.)
Isn't a bit of a straw horse?
edited to correct the spelling of straw...
[ July 23, 2010, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: deerpark27 ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It really does bug me that a poster can say in effect, "yeah Mormons, LOL!" out of nowhere and a whole slew of, "yeah, lol rofl!" follows with the inevitable (started by me this time), "Why are you all lolling? That's not how it is." culminating in the, "The hell it isn't, if you think that imma lol at you and lol at everything your dumb church is."
Right, this isn't because you've been confronted with the lie you've been telling yourself over this issue for two years. Now you're gonna take your ball and go home. Lame dude, really really lame.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: NOW-- of all those things, only one of them counts as Tithing. That'd be the amount on the line labeled "Tithing." If I gave $5000, and only $50 of it was marked on the Tithing line, then within the definition embraced by Mormonism I only paid $50 to tithing. I gave $4950 in Offerings, which are kept separate from tithing (I know this is tracked, because members receive a statement each year of how much they paid in tithing, and how much they gave in offerings.)
K. You support the church financially. The church uses its resources and or the ones you give it to pay for political adds. Whether your actual dollar went into the account of the add agency or not, you are paying for those adds to be made. You are paying the salary of the secretary who takes the call from the ad man, or you are paying for the car of the elder who drives to the meeting, or you're buying them lunch, or helping fix their air conditioning. You are paying them. They are doing things. You are supporting it. Nothing can possibly change that, no accounting practice can make it not so- other than all the tithing money being lit on fire as soon as it is received.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: Well, then what's the big deal? The Church of Mormon, a well funded, politically sophisticated, often brazen, sometimes charming, occasionally confused, full of well-intentioned believers, mildly indifferent members, networking socialites......etc.....says "X"....
..AND....
The politically sophisticated, well funded, historically signifigant, socially powerful, etc. Gay Rights Movement (or "church" if you use the term loosely) suffers a very mild and probably temporary set back on the relatively trivial issue of the recognition of marriage (that is, certainly not worthy of being called a "human rights" violation, unless you've got nothing more important to argue about...i.e. immigration, slavery, institutionalized poverty etc.)
Isn't a bit of a staw horse?
I have no idea what you're trying to ask beyond 'what's the big deal?' this is very confusingly written.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"ads"
Not "adds"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It really does bug me that a poster can say in effect, "yeah Mormons, LOL!" out of nowhere and a whole slew of, "yeah, lol rofl!" follows with the inevitable (started by me this time), "Why are you all lolling? That's not how it is." culminating in the, "The hell it isn't, if you think that imma lol at you and lol at everything your dumb church is."
Right, this isn't because you've been confronted with the lie you've been telling yourself over this issue for two years. Now you're gonna take your ball and go home. Lame dude, really really lame.
You're right Orincoro I am taking my ball home. Why would I play ball when I'm not enjoying it? Don't tell me I'm too cowardly or afraid to face the truth. You have not been discussing in good faith, that's what I'm not dealing with right now. Even KOM didn't feel the need to constantly rail and insult me when we discussed religion. To me topics are unimportant, you can talk about just about anything and I'll discuss it. Like I said earlier, I don't think you want me to change my mind because then immediately it's a shift to, "See see...no consistent beliefs, you just shift to where the winds blowing!" It's already been done in regards to polygamy and black's holding the priesthood. I don't really want to play in that game, you can have my ball if you want it.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I get what deerpark is saying, it is the general rationalization that due to the fact that X is happening at the same time as Y and X is far worse then Y then there should be no action to fix Y. Generally bad thinking as it does not take into account that something like gay marriage is actually very easy to institute, whereas things such as poverty, immigration reform, etc are actually very tricky issues that do not have a simple easy one tap fix.
If gay marriage where somehow a really tricky issue to fix that would require billions of dollars to somehow implement with no sure chance of it happening... sure I could see the argument. However, that is far, far, extremely far from the case.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
Samprimary (with the highest regard and, in most respects, full agreementwith your argumentation)
What I'm saying is that your vague and somewhat predictable indignation is far more telling than the probably temporary confusion of a massive and unweildy organization like the Mormon church.
Do you the hold "wherever it is you're coming from" to the same standards? Or, are you, in fact, coming from nowhere?
The Mormons have a stick in the very muddy mud. Lives depend on it. Where's yours? Wherever it's easy to make an elegant argument from?
I think you're way more on the hook to confront the "So What?" argument. For the Mormons, it makes a difference to get this right. To you, it's merely an argument or, at best, a lesson.
I admire your tenacity and your effective analysis of the confusing facade the Mormon church feels obliged to present to the media. Their engagement is indeed problematic and may well shape the contours of the institution for the worse. On the other hand, the simple fact of the human possibility of faith and the cultivation of human communities that can be shaped by this engagment seems to far outweigh, as least so far, the hiccups. After all, what, precisely, is the alternative?
The alternative is an empty city and, as you probably already suspect, the empty city is a crypt.
Where are you coming from? The echo of the enlightenment? The ideology of the self-actualized individual?
Myself, I am in darkness and perhaps severely disordered. I wish I could make more sense, but all I hear are echoes.
I'm just saying: once you win, then what?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The alternative is an empty city...
Why do you think so? This is no more a given than, say, determinism is "defeatist."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What I'm saying is that your vague and somewhat predictable indignation is far more telling than the probably temporary confusion of a massive and unweildy organization like the Mormon church.
How is an intentional and strategic statement a 'temporary confusion?' Unless you are saying that the LDS's anti-homosexual political involvements in general are a 'confusion?' A backwards, mistaken policy they'll clear their heads of someday?
quote:I admire your tenacity and your effective analysis of the confusing facade the Mormon church feels obliged to present to the media. Their engagement is indeed problematic and may well shape the contours of the institution for the worse. On the other hand, the simple fact of the human possibility of faith and the cultivation of human communities that can be shaped by this engagment seems to far outweigh, as least so far, the hiccups. After all, what, precisely, is the alternative?
The alternative is an empty city and, as you probably already suspect, the empty city is a crypt.
I am still lost. Where does the alternative come into play? What does it mean? Disband the church and turn salt lake city into a ghost town? Is this being unknowingly proposed by people who criticize the LDS's political meddling? Am i taking this too literally and this is an artistic way of presenting a deterministic quandary?
quote:I'm just saying: once you win, then what?
If I 'win' this argument? I suppose if that's how you want to frame my participation's goal: even if it emotionally incenses people to see their church challenged with the same well-earned scrutiny that can be regularly applied to other fallible human institutions, all it means is that an effectively meaningless gimmick is seen as a gimmick rather than an indemnification.
If you liken this to Predictable Indignation, you should see me talk about organizations I actually hold contempt for, like the church of scientology. You'll see what my indignation actually looks like. I don't hate the mormon church. I even find it a fascinating study in autocratic religious systems of social control and intergenerational methods of indoctrination.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Deerpark: I'd say that all the gay couples who want to get married have a much bigger stake in this than all the Mormons who want to control their lives even though (or perhaps precisely because) they will never meet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Right, this isn't because you've been confronted with the lie you've been telling yourself over this issue for two years. Now you're gonna take your ball and go home. Lame dude, really really lame.
Feel better? You're a smart dude, and this is obviously not an attempt at an actual conversation, which trims down the list of motives to 'makes me feel good about myself' and...well, that's it really.
At least you've somewhat backed off the false dichotomy nonsense, though. Very rational of you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Scott R: From an outside perspective, your argument looks like willful ignorance and blanket denial. Not much of an argument either.
Well, for one thing, I wasn't arguing anything. I asked for proof; Samprimary provided snark, and then stated how proud he was to have provided that snark.
Snark != a good argument. It might be clever; but it seems to me that he is not so interested in having a discussion as in scoring points.
Paul Goldner provided links to support his position on the finances of supporting Prop 8; I provided links to support my position. Samprimary has not provided any proof to support the position I questioned.
:shrug:
I'm not required to make his argument for him. That's like a basic tenet of Hatrack.
quote:If you think my position is equivalent to saying no it isn't a hundred times, you are handwaving. If my point isn't accepted by an lds member, it is not because it does not make sense. Its because they want to deny it.
I'm absolutely positive that you are not qualified to comment on my intentions.
quote:You support the church financially. The church uses its resources and or the ones you give it to pay for political adds. Whether your actual dollar went into the account of the add agency or not, you are paying for those adds to be made. You are paying the salary of the secretary who takes the call from the ad man, or you are paying for the car of the elder who drives to the meeting, or you're buying them lunch, or helping fix their air conditioning. You are paying them. They are doing things. You are supporting it. Nothing can possibly change that, no accounting practice can make it not so- other than all the tithing money being lit on fire as soon as it is received.
Yep. I support the Church financially. I imagine an argument could be made that tithing money was used to make the broadcast to members in CA; and that tithing money was used to buy the paper that the official letter was sent out on.
So you're not wrong...is that the granularity you were shooting for, though? To be honest, I was focusing on direct support to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So you're not wrong...is that the granularity you were shooting for, though?"
Tithing money is part of the overall wealth of the church (as far as I can tell, its about 85-90% of the church's income). Any money spent by the church on an advertising campaign is available to be spent because of the tithing money that the church takes in. If the church lost 90% of its income, it would not have the resources available to spend money on an advertising campaign without shutting down church infrastructure. And, of course, the infrastructure that the church has was built upon the backs of tithing monies, so if the church uses its infrastructure to promote an advertising campaign, it is using tithing money to support that ad campaign.
The statement "No tithing money was used to fund prop 8," might be true to the extent that the dollar bills the church collected from its members were not the same dollar bills that were used to buy TV ad time. But, the argument being put forth is that this is a meaningless statement. The dollar bills might not be the same ones, but those dollar bills are only available because of tithing, and moreso, tithing dollar bills being used to fund the means to purchase those TV minutes.
" To be honest, I was focusing on direct support to the Yes on 8 campaign. "
No one on my side of this argument ever said anything that should have been construed as focusing solely on this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Any money spent by the church on an advertising campaign is available to be spent because of the tithing money that the church takes in.
Are you calling the broadcast to members in CA "advertising?" How about the letter?
quote:The dollar bills might not be the same ones, but those dollar bills are only available because of tithing, and moreso, tithing dollar bills being used to fund the means to purchase those TV minutes.
I don't think so. The offerings collected (assuming that were collected using the tithing slip, and sent from the LDS wards to the Yes on 8 campaign) were in addition to tithing.
At least, that's my understanding. That was part of my point in explaining what tithing is, separate from what offerings are. Like I said above, there is one source that maintains that money was collected this way. There are plenty of other sources (see the link I provided earlier) that point to Mormons who made contributions to the Yes On 8 campaign without going through the Church. (A $1 million dollar donation from the co-founder of WordPerfect, for example.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you calling the broadcast to members in CA "advertising?"
I don't think that's the advertising Samp is thinking about -- but, that said, wouldn't you?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "ads"
Not "adds"
Don't address me. I have my rape whistle ready you monster.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You have not been discussing in good faith, that's what I'm not dealing with right now. Even KOM didn't feel the need to constantly rail and insult me when we discussed religion.
Right, blame me. Buddy, you're the one who isn't discussing in good faith. You come up against a certain set of lies you can't float over our heads to distract is from the truth, and when those get pointed out, it's *our* fault. I reserve the right to be disgusted by that attitude.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yep. I support the Church financially. I imagine an argument could be made that tithing money was used to make the broadcast to members in CA; and that tithing money was used to buy the paper that the official letter was sent out on.
So you're not wrong...is that the granularity you were shooting for, though? To be honest, I was focusing on direct support to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Scott, that isn't particularly granular. Even if you are completely sanguine about the idea that the church separates these two cash flows to a ridiculous extreme, which is highly doubtful, you still financially support the church. Perhaps there is more granularity in the idea of supporting the church by doing business with it, but you are *giving it money*. Gratis. There is not much granularity in that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Scott R: From an outside perspective, your argument looks like willful ignorance and blanket denial. Not much of an argument either.
Well, for one thing, I wasn't arguing anything. I asked for proof; Samprimary provided snark, and then stated how proud he was to have provided that snark.
Snark != a good argument. It might be clever; but it seems to me that he is not so interested in having a discussion as in scoring points.
quote:for more consult official LDS website which talks about how today's commercial enterprises which are explicitly used to further the church's 'mission' were an outgrowth of businesses the church started when it was isolated in the west and started opening its own newspapers and crap] [for additional resources consult websites critical of the church analyzing collected data on outgrowth of the chrch's financial holdings and real estate purchases over the years both before and after the 1959 hiding of the church's financial records which are disallowed from being posted here]
It was an answer to your question. If you thought it was insufficient or you had different standards for what you weren't going to *shrug* away because you didn't consider it proof enough for you, you should have said so instead of handwaving it away as snark.
Right now I appear more interested in providing an argument, and you appear more interested in concluding dismissively that nobody else is interested in providing an argument. Don't you realize that makes you seem, between the two of us, the one more interested in scoring points?
Anyway, PG seems to have you on the rest of it, so.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are you calling the broadcast to members in CA "advertising?"
I don't think that's the advertising Samp is thinking about -- but, that said, wouldn't you?
I was thinking about what now?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Right, blame me. Buddy, you're the one who isn't discussing in good faith. You come up against a certain set of lies you can't float over our heads to distract is from the truth, and when those get pointed out, it's *our* fault. I reserve the right to be disgusted by that attitude.
Lookit how virtuous and truth-loving you are!
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
This whole argument reminds me of the Va State Lottery debate many years ago. The pitch was that the state needed more money for the school system. Being a fairly conservative state, no one wanted to pay more taxes to get that money. So they started the lottery and ALL the money goes to education. Problem solved right?
Well no, actually not. Yes, all the lottery money goes to the schools but all the funding that had previously gone to the schools gets diverted elsewhere. The end result, the government has more money but the schools are still broke. Their budget hardly changed at all. How is that any different from a lottery where all the proceeds go to the general fund with no change in school funding? Would anyone have voted for that? I doubt it.
One of the only things I liked about our last Governor is that he at least openly admitted these facts in a radio interview a year or so ago.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "ads"
Not "adds"
Don't address me. I have my rape whistle ready you monster.
Shouldn't that be "adress?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i really don't think wearing that will make you any safer from rape
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You have not been discussing in good faith, that's what I'm not dealing with right now. Even KOM didn't feel the need to constantly rail and insult me when we discussed religion.
Right, blame me. Buddy, you're the one who isn't discussing in good faith. You come up against a certain set of lies you can't float over our heads to distract is from the truth, and when those get pointed out, it's *our* fault. I reserve the right to be disgusted by that attitude.
Why don't you listen to yourself Orincoro? You could try the approach, "I'm sorry you're getting that vibe from me, it's not what I'm selling. I'd like to keep discussing this with you. I really think you're making some big mistakes."
But no, instead I'm not only lying, I'm actively attempting to deceive, and I just can't handle having my sins laid bare. For an atheist, you argue remarkably similar to evangelicals I've talked to, i.e I'm blinded by sin, and you aren't going to apologize for simply stating the truth.
edited for grammar and some punctuation.
[ July 25, 2010, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There's a reason he sounds like evangelicals you've talked to: he is one. Around here when religion comes up, anyway.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are you calling the broadcast to members in CA "advertising?"
I don't think that's the advertising Samp is thinking about -- but, that said, wouldn't you?
No, I really wouldn't. Why would you?
It was Paul Goldner who stated that, BTW.
quote:it was an answer to your question. If you thought it was insufficient or you had different standards for what you weren't going to *shrug* away because you didn't consider it proof enough for you, you should have said so instead of handwaving it away as snark.
I did:
quote:Paul Goldner provided links to support his position on the finances of supporting Prop 8; I provided links to support my position. Samprimary has not provided any proof to support the position I questioned.
:shrug:
I'm not required to make his argument for him. That's like a basic tenet of Hatrack.
So there are the standards. I'm sorry, I thought that was pretty well established here on Hatrack.
quote:Even if you are completely sanguine about the idea that the church separates these two cash flows to a ridiculous extreme, which is highly doubtful, you still financially support the church. Perhaps there is more granularity in the idea of supporting the church by doing business with it, but you are *giving it money*. Gratis. There is not much granularity in that.
I'm not sure what your point has to do what we're talking about, Orincoro.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That is, I don't see what my supporting the church has to do with the level of granularity at which we're considering the use of tithing in the support of Prop 8.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Your tithing dollars make the church's support of proposition 8 possible. Whether the dollar bills you give to the church are the dollar bills that are given to the TV station to purchase air time, or not, your dollar bills either free up dollar bills to purchase air time, or to pay for the phone line that is used to purchase the air time, or used to maintain the church from which the call is made to parishoners to work to pass prop 8. Without your dollar bills, the infrastructure and cash flow would not be there for the church to fund prop 8.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not helping any of this is even when you ignore how you can launder the financial support through the church's various holdings to make the church's statement true, the church hides its financial records even from its own members. They would be unwilling to demonstrate that tithing cash was somehow completely unrelated to the prop 8 financing.
So, yeah.
But it would be interesting just to see the guts of the LDS's financial scheme. they're big on multibillion dollar shopping malls and real estate right now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Without your dollar bills, the infrastructure and cash flow would not be there for the church to fund prop 8.
Now you're getting onto much shakier ground, though, because this kind of reasoning applies to a great deal of spending that all sorts of Americans engage in every day in great amounts without being condemned. For instance, some of the stuff I buy from Wal-Mart is made in the USA. (Much more isn't, of course). But when I buy something made in the USA from Wal-Mart, exactly how morally liable am I for supporting unfair labor practices abroad?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Scott is trying to say that none of his tithing dollars went to funding proposition 8. This is a false statement. Degrees of moral liability, as far as I can tell, haven't been a part of the discussion. As well, inconsistencies between what other people might argue in a different discussion, and what I am arguing in this thread, are not relevant to what I'm saying here.
However, if you shop at wal-mart, you are morally liable for practices that wal-mart engages in.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Without your dollar bills, the infrastructure and cash flow would not be there for the church to fund prop 8.
Now you're getting onto much shakier ground, though, because this kind of reasoning applies to a great deal of spending that all sorts of Americans engage in every day in great amounts without being condemned. For instance, some of the stuff I buy from Wal-Mart is made in the USA. (Much more isn't, of course). But when I buy something made in the USA from Wal-Mart, exactly how morally liable am I for supporting unfair labor practices abroad?
Me, I would leave the labor practices abroad out of it and simply say that you are supporting Wal-Mart's business practices. If you are ok with that, great. If you are not, look into a new store.
Same thing with the church. If you believe in and support the same things they do (for the most part anyway) then keep giving to them. If you don't, time to find a new church.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Scott is trying to say that none of his tithing dollars went to funding proposition 8. This is a false statement. Degrees of moral liability, as far as I can tell, haven't been a part of the discussion. As well, inconsistencies between what other people might argue in a different discussion, and what I am arguing in this thread, are not relevant to what I'm saying here.
I don't see where you've conclusively demonstrated that none of his tithing dollars went to Prop 8, Paul. In fact the arguments you're making - that tithing dollars 'make possible' financial support for Prop 8 - seems pretty similar to a question of moral liability to me. Supporting someone who supports something objectionable is not necessarily the same thing as supporting it directly yourself. How much it is or isn't seems a pretty moral question.
And the inconsistency seems pretty darned relevant to me, since the discussion is all about how objectionable it is to support something wrong with money. Looking at supporting other things that are wrong with money...how is that not relevant?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't see where you've conclusively demonstrated that none of his tithing dollars went to Prop 8, Paul"
That's because you are using a fail version of financial understanding. If I draw 90% of my income from X, and 10% from Y, and the dollars from Y are only possible because of X, even if I take dollars out of Y's checking account to pay for D, X is still is still paying for D, especially when funding from X is also used to motivate people to fund D.
The premise I am starting from there (which derives from a broader look at the financial) is that it is not possible for an organization to have two bank accounts that don't overlap. In order for me to accept that a particular oganization doesn't follow that rule, I'd want an independent financial investigator to go through detailed documents of that organization. Without that evidence, the organization's finances overlap. I think NOT holding that view is naive. And the mormon church doesn't release its financial documents, so anything it says about its finances shouldn't be trusted. Again, this is coming from a broader view of the financial world being applied to a particular case. The mormon church has the particular compounding factor that it has lied about same sex marriage many times, so anything it says about same sex marriage should not be trusted.
"And the inconsistency seems pretty darned relevant to me, since the discussion is all about how objectionable it is to support something wrong with money. Looking at supporting other things that are wrong with money...how is that not relevant? "
Because, as noted, we're talking about what OTHER people say, vs what I say.
I also think its true that most people would say "Yeah, shopping at wal-mart isn't a great idea, but I do it anyways." I've had that conversation a few times, and the basic response is always the same. However, mormons don't want to take responsibility for funding prop 8. So there's a big difference right there that I think moves your question into irrelevancy.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There's also the fact that the LDS church positions itself as a moral authority, heck *the* moral authority. So their questionably moral behavior demands more scrutiny than a corporation like WalMart for which "don't be evil" is in the "nice to have" column and not a core focus of the business.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... But when I buy something made in the USA from Wal-Mart, exactly how morally liable am I for supporting unfair labor practices abroad?
A lot? The argument usually goes that unfair labour practices abroad are better than no labour practices abroad. Also, that Walmart (or rather the manufacturers that it buys from) has been a powerful force for the alleviation of poverty in China and other places in the developing world.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The alternative is an empty city...
Why do you think so? This is no more a given than, say, determinism is "defeatist."
The 'city' is, of course, a metaphor. You know, a "City of God".
The endgame of these sorts of accusations, although it takes awhile to get there, and the getting there is all the fun (at least for the critic) is what can only be called the pleasure the critic takes in seeing the certainties of the city-dweller falter. So, following the somewhat overburdened metaphor...the city is emptied. The structure stands, it is no longer inhabited--or, no longer inhaited in the same way.
Of course, the folks looking into the city, say from the hillside...with a telescope...feeling irritated at the behaviours of the city dwellers live surrounded in mystery: Do they come from a city of their own in comparison to which this one is especially provocative? If not, where do they live? Is their home on their back, are they nomads? Or, are they "homeless", wanderers? Are they looking for somewhere to stay?
I asked, for example, Samprimary "where he was coming from?" He didn't address the question, probably because he feels it's irrelevant to the argument at hand--after all, rhetorically speaking, the end is near--they're on the run--but, as a mildly interested observer myself, I wonder what the nature and the character of the inhabitants of his city are like? Where is it? Is it full of people or empty? Why is he lying on the side of the hill with a telescope?
To further confuse myself, it's not unlike a orphan criticizing the parents of another child. "Your dad yells at you!" "You mother drinks too much!" implying that the child should do what precisely? Leave home? Cry? Say "No, you don't live with us, you don't understand" The question to the critic is "What are you asking the child to do?" followed by "Is where you're coming from a better spot to be?" It better be, once the kid starts following you "home".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The 'city' is, of course, a metaphor.
Yes, I got that.
quote:The question to the critic is "What are you asking the child to do?" followed by "Is where you're coming from a better spot to be?" It better be..."
Would you suggest that no movie critic should review a film without offering other alternatives?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
haa. What strange motivations and pleasures I apparently have.
The metaphors (sadly) have little to do with my expectations, obligations, or purpose in pointing out when something that is asserted, from anyplace (be it a city of god or a carpark of atheism or a meandering blimp of apatheism or whatever), is not meaningful in the way that the asserters are inclined to convince themselves they are.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
Samprimary, in spite of what you might think, it seems to me that the very personal nature of your concerns is mainly what is at stake here. After all, you're the one who was/is irritated and feels that this irritation is worthy of a somewhat public airing. No? In our very hyper-individualistic consumer society you can hardly think it strange that you might feel 'irritation' at what you see as a poor product placement on the part of major religious institution--i.e. so far--that's what you seem to feel is at stake...e.g. you're not, rhetorically, "against" the Mormon faith or even accusing their leadership of anything more than (as far as I can tell) what amounts to poor marketing. If they'd just said they were using 'those' funds instead of 'these', then you could pass on to some other personal irriation/satisfaction--like the one about Muslims and veils, where I gather you've given Islam a few points for seeing things your way. As you quipped: "Good!"
It's this 'your way' question (i.e. Where are you coming from?) that I think you've some owness to speak to--at least, if you don't want to give the impression that only thing you really are taking issue with is poor product placement.
My impression is that your concerns lie deeper than that, although, you seem reluctant to offer a glimpse into that 'space'. Happy to try and take down Al Capone on tax evasion....and letting the public 'connect the dots'. (I'm not suggesting that the Mormon faith is like a criminal syndicate, but that your tactics are to treat it 'as if'.)
Anyway, just curious--which, in many respects, is my excuse for carelessness.
Tom -- regarding the film critic -- I see what you're getting at here and would agree.... and I hope you can see that this very question pervades my question to Samprimary: From the perspective of the city-dweller/child with parent...there is really only the possibility of leaving an empty city behind (i.e. as a first step towards, perhaps, an 'alternative'). From the perspective of the critic, the owness is to articulate an alternative.
Note: edited for (something like) clarity (look, it's a work in progress) and to add some names. Further edited to apologize to Tom for giving the unintended impression that I imagined he didn't see that this was metaphor. It just came out that way...
[ July 25, 2010, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: deerpark27 ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:haa. What strange motivations and pleasures I apparently have.
Not nearly as strange as BlackBlade, who is apparently all sorts of howling hypocrite and flagrant liar.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "ads"
Not "adds"
Don't address me. I have my rape whistle ready you monster.
Shouldn't that be "adress?"
Typo, I meant "undress."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Even if you are completely sanguine about the idea that the church separates these two cash flows to a ridiculous extreme, which is highly doubtful, you still financially support the church. Perhaps there is more granularity in the idea of supporting the church by doing business with it, but you are *giving it money*. Gratis. There is not much granularity in that.
I'm not sure what your point has to do what we're talking about, Orincoro.
Guuuuhhh.... seriously?
Why do you always do this?
You're wrong you're wrong you're wrong... ummmm... I don't understand what you're talking about!
Seriously? Lame.
quote: That is, I don't see what my supporting the church has to do with the level of granularity at which we're considering the use of tithing in the support of Prop 8.
'Twas YOU, who claimed I was being "too granular." You brought it up. I think it's very cut and dried. You refuse to understand, which is your go-to position when you're all out of logic-juice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Without your dollar bills, the infrastructure and cash flow would not be there for the church to fund prop 8.
Now you're getting onto much shakier ground, though, because this kind of reasoning applies to a great deal of spending that all sorts of Americans engage in every day in great amounts without being condemned. For instance, some of the stuff I buy from Wal-Mart is made in the USA. (Much more isn't, of course). But when I buy something made in the USA from Wal-Mart, exactly how morally liable am I for supporting unfair labor practices abroad?
I find that a rather distinct situation in that you are not giving your money away. Part of your position as a consumer, rather than just as a member of an organization, is that the company you are doing business with is regulated by law, and is a for-profit, non-political (more or less depending on the company) entity. The labor practices of its subsidiaries and partners abroad you can help to shape by your choosing not to support unfair labor practices, however you also pay your taxes, and part of that money your government spends on diplomatic missions which are attempting to achieve the same goal, ideally.
I think a key difference too is that we must do business with people, and we must pay attention to both our bottom lines and the moral implications of how we spend our money. Mormons and other donors and tithers are giving their money away. The only consideration involved is: "how are these people spending my money?" And if you can't be realistic about that, you aren't doing your due diligence.
quote: In fact the arguments you're making - that tithing dollars 'make possible' financial support for Prop 8 - seems pretty similar to a question of moral liability to me. Supporting someone who supports something objectionable is not necessarily the same thing as supporting it directly yourself. How much it is or isn't seems a pretty moral question.
It is not necessarily the same thing, philosophically. However, in this particular case, it is being argued that tithing to the church is tantamount to directly supporting the cause, and it is being suggested furthermore, that there may in fact be *no* material difference at all, because of the way the church conceals its financial practices. Now, given the way in which tithing money contributes to the church's political power in a very real sense, and the shadowy nature of the church's finances which make it entirely possible for the church to abuse the trust of its members and to spend money in ways it claims not to, I think it is reasonable to hold church members responsible for directly supporting the church's political agenda.
I'm wary of any too-specific analogy, because most of the ones I can think of are criminal: doing legitimate business with someone you know is spending the money on illegal enterprises, closing your eyes and firing a gun in a random direction and claiming not to be responsible for the outcome, etc. The point is that church members pay money into the church, and are not themselves informed of how that money is spent. Meanwhile, the church spends loads of money being political. Anybody claiming a lack of responsibility for what the church does, but is *giving it money*, is to my mind quite seriously in need of a wake-up call.
We are compelled to pay our taxes, we are compelled by circumstance to do business in an environment in which our money may be used against us politically, but we are not compelled to contribute cash to political entities, and I think when we do, we need to be quite aware of what they money is used for. I'm appalled that apparently every Mormon who has contributed to this thread both gives money to the church, and has no decent idea of how that money is spent. (And to head off cries of "what am I supposed to do about it??" I can say this: Don't give your money to shadowy organizations who spend billions of dollars a year but won't tell you where it came from.)
[ July 26, 2010, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It may be entirely true that no tithing money went to the gay marriage effort, but as has been pointed out, that is essentially meaningless for any organization that can shift funds between different parts of the balance sheet. If more tithing money goes to X, that may free up other money to go to Y, which otherwise would have been going to X.
Having said that, I don't think this issue should present a huge moral dilemma for Mormans - unless they are operating under the premise that the church needs to be absolutely perfect in order to receive tithing money. Only a small fraction of revenue went towards that particular effort.
It's definitely comparable to the taxes I pay to the government - I'm certain the government has committed worse acts than the Morman Church has with its money, yet I consider it moral to pay taxes because on balance it provides a lot more benefit than harm.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'll happily discuss this topic again when those folks who adamantly insist that there is wrong-doing afoot actually bring proof to the table.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
Scott,
The appeal to 'proof' is a curious one. Superficially, it would appear that you are suggesting there is one standard of proof that both a believer and a non-believer should agree to meet. What is the baseline case? Proof of the existence of angels? Miracles? Oh, I see, that is different. So, what kind of 'proof'? A document? A tape? A court decision?
It's hard to imagine any kind of standard of proof that you could appeal to that would be consistant. Invoking concept of 'proof' will carry you out of the city.
The proof is in the pudding.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I'll happily discuss this topic again when those folks who adamantly insist that there is wrong-doing afoot actually bring proof to the table."
You mean proof that the church supported proposition 8? I didn't think that was in dispute.
When your church makes public its documents, then we can exam the possibility you are right But since it WON'T, there's no possibility of providing the type of proof you are demanding. Until that time, finances being what finances are, I consider it rather unlikely that anyone being honest could support the proposition that tithing dollars did not go to fund proposition 8.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I consider it rather unlikely that anyone being honest could support the proposition that tithing dollars did not go to fund proposition 8.
I recognize that the logic you're using to maintain your bias isn't entirely without merit.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Let's look at this another way. I have no agenda here as I am not Mormon and don't really care about prop 8 but I am enjoying the discussion. First of all, a few assumptions have to be made.
1. Let's assume as fact that the church gave money to prop 8 and that tithing allowed more money to go to it.
2. Let's assume that hypothetical person Joe gives money to the church and does not like that the church is spending money on prop 8.
3. Let's assume that Joe knows as fact that the church does many other things with his money that he DOES agree with and support.
What are Joe's options?
1. He could stop giving money to the church. The problems here are that he is no longer supporting all the other things that he does agree with. Of course he could always send his support to those programs directly. Also, he is removing himself from a community that he feels very close to and does not want to lose that involvement so this might not be the best option.
2. He could just keep his mouth shut and continue on as before. This is what most people would do but Joe is a pretty moral and outspoken guy so he is not real fond of this option.
3. He could continue giving to the church and participating in its activities but try to educate his fellow members about his feelings toward prop 8 to see if he can, over time, change their viewpoint on the subject. It is probably a hopeless cause but may well be worth the effort.
Anyone see any other options for Joe?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I faced a similar dilemma with the Catholic Church. I did not want my contributions going to lawyers or settlements for the victims of sexual abuse. That should come out of the bishops' purses. My solution was to direct my usual donations away from "general funds" to "special offerings" - offerings that are taken where all that money goes to a specific thing or to Catholic Relief Services which does a pretty good job of keeping funds separate from the Church and accounting for the funds.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: That's because you are using a fail version of financial understanding. If I draw 90% of my income from X, and 10% from Y, and the dollars from Y are only possible because of X, even if I take dollars out of Y's checking account to pay for D, X is still is still paying for D, especially when funding from X is also used to motivate people to fund D.
Even if every step in this hypothetical were accurate, it would not support the statement, "Tithing dollars went to support Prop 8." That's a very specific statement. It would support, however, "The LDS church financially supported Prop 8." That's a bit of a different statement. Now, me personally, I don't think there's much difference between the two, but you might get more traction if you used the more accurate but less damning criticism.
quote:There's also the fact that the LDS church positions itself as a moral authority, heck *the* moral authority. So their questionably moral behavior demands more scrutiny than a corporation like WalMart for which "don't be evil" is in the "nice to have" column and not a core focus of the business.
I agree. I'm not likening the two except to say that we simply as a culture aren't really very conscious or interested in what our dollars do after they leave our wallets, and we ought to bear that in mind when we're criticizing folks for indirectly supporting bad things when, as a whole, we indirectly support lots of bad things ourselves.
quote:Now, given the way in which tithing money contributes to the church's political power in a very real sense, and the shadowy nature of the church's finances which make it entirely possible for the church to abuse the trust of its members and to spend money in ways it claims not to, I think it is reasonable to hold church members responsible for directly supporting the church's political agenda.
I'm not sure how this follows. Because the church might be acting deceptively with its finances, it's reasonable to hold its members responsible as though they were? Isn't the reasonable response to that situation to, well, hold its members responsible for possibly supporting the church's political agenda re: Prop 8?
It's not as though that isn't a pretty strong criticism in and of itself, considering how reprehensible Prop 8 is anyway.
-----------
quote:
When your church makes public its documents, then we can exam the possibility you are right But since it WON'T, there's no possibility of providing the type of proof you are demanding. Until that time, finances being what finances are, I consider it rather unlikely that anyone being honest could support the proposition that tithing dollars did not go to fund proposition 8.
Listen to yourself, Paul. If it's 'rather unlikely' that anyone being honest could support the notion that tithing dollars didn't go to support Prop 8 because financial records aren't released, isn't it also 'rather unlikely' that anyone being honest could support the notion that tithing dollars are funding prop 8? The reasonable accusation here is one of those Orincoro has made: that something potentially very fishy is going on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: Samprimary, in spite of what you might think, it seems to me that the very personal nature of your concerns is mainly what is at stake here. After all, you're the one who was/is irritated and feels that this irritation is worthy of a somewhat public airing. No?
I don't think I've been irritated by a single thing here. I'm more motivated than anything else by my interest in seeing in what ways and to what lengths (and what mental and argumentative strategies will be employed, be they delusional or not) to defend the statement. This is an excellent environment because it is full of all sorts of people of varying levels of varying types of indoctrination and worldview, and they are good to practice on. =)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Listen to yourself, Paul. If it's 'rather unlikely' that anyone being honest could support the notion that tithing dollars didn't go to support Prop 8 because financial records aren't released, isn't it also 'rather unlikely' that anyone being honest could support the notion that tithing dollars are funding prop 8? The reasonable accusation here is one of those Orincoro has made: that something potentially very fishy is going on. "
Nope. Because, as previously stated, it is irrational to believe that one organization does not cross-contaminate its finances, without significant proof, when all others do.
In other words, there is no reason to believe that the mormon church is the exception to the general rule.
Different example: If a health clinic receiving 90% of its funding from the government were to perform abortions, and claim no money from tax dollars were used to perform those abortions, there's not many pro-lifers who would agree.
[ July 26, 2010, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Nope. Because, as previously stated, it is irrational to believe that one organization does not cross-contaminate its finances, without significant proof, when all others do.
Oh, you've demonstrated that all other organizations do, have you? I'm fine with skepticism and even suspicion. When presented with an organization that is keeping something secret, that's a natural and rational response. But there's a difference between 'rational to suspect' and 'irrational to think it's not going on'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Nope. Because, as previously stated, it is irrational to believe that one organization does not cross-contaminate its finances, without significant proof, when all others do.
I think I need to know what cross-contamination means in this context.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One thing that might be helpful is to note the structure between individual local churches and the larger Church as a whole. Often those funds are kept very separate. For example with the Catholic Church, one can donate to specific things like a roof fund or an music fund and not have that be part of the parish's contribution to the archdiocese.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Skimming along, but this is how I understand the finances issue:
Organization receives funding as 10 $100 checks. 9 of these say "your discretion" and one of them says "only pay for the roof, please." The roof costs $150 to repair. So, half of one of the "discretion" checks go to the roof, plus the specified check. the other $850 gets split like this: $100 to Cause A $750 to Cause B.
If all 10 people had said "your discretion," the split would have been the same. $150 to the roof, $100 to Cause A, $750 to Cause B. The single person specifying, doesn't make much of a difference.
If only 9 people had contributed, then the Organization would have had $900 to split among the needs. Maybe $150 to that pesky roof, $50 to Cause A, and $700 to Cause B. Who knows.
Generally speaking, specifying your money doesn't alter the spending of the organization significantly. Only in the case of receiving more money than needed for that roof repair, or people withholding their donation, does it cause any change in the dynamics of how the money is split up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not necessarily. With special collections (at least at my parish) often there is no upper limit to the amount needed for a special project. For example, there was a special collection for Haitian relief after the earthquake. Everything that was collected for that went to that. None of that went to ease the burden of the contribution to the archdiocese. A roof fund might, for example, not pull anything from general funds - the roof will wait until there is enough in the roof fund. Or say, 3 of your 10 people directed their donation, there would only be $700 to split between Causes A & B.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Generally speaking, specifying your money doesn't alter the spending of the organization significantly. Only in the case of receiving more money than needed for that roof repair, or people withholding their donation, does it cause any change in the dynamics of how the money is split up.
Does it change the specifying person's moral responsibility?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'll happily discuss this topic again when those folks who adamantly insist that there is wrong-doing afoot actually bring proof to the table.
I think the wrongdoing was the church spending the money as it did, and you giving the church money. Are you denying either of those two things happened? There's a great potential for other kinds of fraud in this situation as well, but that's entirely *your* lookout. I don't give my money to these people, you do, and your show me attitude is funny in that light.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What's really funny is that none of my assertions even really have to do with the idea that there is 'wrong-doing' afoot. It's just pointing out that the statement that the church released stating that 'no tithing dollars were used on proposition 8' means nothing and isn't an indemnification in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If all of the money that the LDS Church gave to Prop 8 was from a special collection for that purpose would the "no tithe money" makes sense?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Technically, didn't the actual LDS church not give money at all? So if a church leader flew to California and urged people to vote some way, that was worth flight and manpower hours, but not actual cash. Or giving free ad time or whatever. Still supports the movement, but it is one more step removed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: Generally speaking, specifying your money doesn't alter the spending of the organization significantly. Only in the case of receiving more money than needed for that roof repair, or people withholding their donation, does it cause any change in the dynamics of how the money is split up.
Does it change the specifying person's moral responsibility?
Considering it has no significant material effect? I'd say no, especially if the person giving is aware of how these things operate, which they should be if they are giving their hard earned cash to people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Technically, didn't the actual LDS church not give money at all? So if a church leader flew to California and urged people to vote some way, that was worth flight and manpower hours, but not actual cash. Or giving free ad time or whatever. Still supports the movement, but it is one more step removed.
The church under-reported its more direct expenditures by, I think, about $200,000. Either way, they gave what is considered direct expenditures.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Technically, didn't the actual LDS church not give money at all? So if a church leader flew to California and urged people to vote some way, that was worth flight and manpower hours, but not actual cash. Or giving free ad time or whatever. Still supports the movement, but it is one more step removed.
That's not one step removed. That's spending money directly on the cause. If they just collected money and passed it on to somebody else who was also collecting money, that would be a step removed. This is direct spending. It doesn't get any *less* removed.
It's troubling that this very simple principle is presenting so much difficulty in the discussion. I don't generally think of the people who post here as liars, but if I didn't know better, I would suspect lying. I feel quite strongly that if we were talking about a non-religious organization, none of these confusions would be presenting themselves, yet here we are. It's troubling, anyway.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If all of the money that the LDS Church gave to Prop 8 was from a special collection for that purpose would the "no tithe money" makes sense?
If they collected money for another organization and were otherwise uninvolved in the political campaign against equal rights, then yes, it would make sense. That is not the case however, and so the point is moot.
Oh no, I've run over your dog in the driveway... If I were an elephant, would you get angry at me for squashing your dog?
Hmmm... too bad I'm not an elephant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Now, given the way in which tithing money contributes to the church's political power in a very real sense, and the shadowy nature of the church's finances which make it entirely possible for the church to abuse the trust of its members and to spend money in ways it claims not to, I think it is reasonable to hold church members responsible for directly supporting the church's political agenda.
I'm not sure how this follows. Because the church might be acting deceptively with its finances, it's reasonable to hold its members responsible as though they were? Isn't the reasonable response to that situation to, well, hold its members responsible for possibly supporting the church's political agenda re: Prop 8?
It's not as though that isn't a pretty strong criticism in and of itself, considering how reprehensible Prop 8 is anyway.
When you give your money to an organization you know to have an accountability problem, I'd say you are duly responsible for everything that organization does with your money. Ignorance of that accountability problem is not a strong defense, obviously. I see your point of course- the members are not responsible for whatever truly outrageous actions the church might take, which were not reasonably to be suspected of it, however this again is not that case. The church is very adamantly anti-gay and anti-equal-rights. In light of that knowledge, I think anyone giving money to that organization is fully accountable for supporting that agenda. As I've said, a church is a unique case- it is not a school, or a government, nor a business nor even a charity. It has a political agenda, and it needs to be treated, even by its members who would rather not be political, according to what it wants to accomplish. Does that hold its members to a higher standard of accountability than tax payers, payers of tuition and consumers in the marketplace? Yes, it certainly does. If you give your money to an activist organization with a political agenda, you had better be clear on what that means.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Samp:
First link doesn't work for me; second cannot be said to be wrong doing so much as an oversight.
quote:According to the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Web site, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “failed to timely report making late non-monetary contributions totaling $36,928.” The commission had requested the church pay $5,539 in fines, which it has done, and the commission will meet to vote on finalizing the penalty on Thursday in Sacramento.
In a statement, the church claimed that all the contributions it made in support of Proposition 8, “were reported to the appropriate authorities in California.” But it admitted that in the last two weeks of the highly contested campaign, it “mistakenly overlooked the daily reporting requirement for non-monetary contributions,” which would include things like staff time. The church’s statement called the reporting failure an “oversight” and thanked the commission for its “fairness and consideration” in dealing with the matter.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So the part where he explains it's not really about wrong-doing, but the inanity of the distinction you've insisted upon is met with... what? You just skip over those paragraphs while reading Scott?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Samp:
First link doesn't work for me; second cannot be said to be wrong doing so much as an oversight.
quote:What's really funny is that none of my assertions even really have to do with the idea that there is 'wrong-doing' afoot.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Samp:
First link doesn't work for me; second cannot be said to be wrong doing so much as an oversight.
quote:What's really funny is that none of my assertions even really have to do with the idea that there is 'wrong-doing' afoot.
Sorry-- I'm conflating folks' tone of post.
Orincoro, so you know, I'm not really paying attention to your posts.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: Samprimary, in spite of what you might think, it seems to me that the very personal nature of your concerns is mainly what is at stake here. After all, you're the one who was/is irritated and feels that this irritation is worthy of a somewhat public airing. No?
I don't think I've been irritated by a single thing here. I'm more motivated than anything else by my interest in seeing in what ways and to what lengths (and what mental and argumentative strategies will be employed, be they delusional or not) to defend the statement. This is an excellent environment because it is full of all sorts of people of varying levels of varying types of indoctrination and worldview, and they are good to practice on. =)
I realized in the early going that this was "all about you"--that's what I found fascinating -- being a bit of a professional solipsist myself. I'm still at a loss as to how you can continue playing without paying some respect to your hosts and giving them a glimpse of "Where you're coming from?" (what, exactly, are you praticing?)
I think the metaphor of the anthill might even be appropriate here, at least, in the way you seem to see your role in this environment: you see a little anthill and put your foot on it -- and then get excited when the ants come out (and, in your case, even more excited when they don't) Beyond a certain exploration of the contours of ones burgeoning cruelty, what sort of 'practice' is this? Practice for what?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think the metaphor of the anthill might even be appropriate here, at least, in the way you seem to see your role in this environment: you see a little anthill and put your foot on it -- and then get excited when the ants come out (and, in your case, even more excited when they don't)
... you're calling me a troll? Really?
sigh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They see me trollin They hatin Patrolling they tryin to catch me postin dirty
more later, I have to go carouse Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Considering it has no significant material effect? I'd say no, especially if the person giving is aware of how these things operate, which they should be if they are giving their hard earned cash to people.
Then it's not OK to support, in any way, an organization which does something objectionable even if you target your support quite surgically?
If I give money to the 'vaccinate the orphans' fund, well, that does free up finances for the Prop 8 fund, so...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Back on the ever so drearisome issue of the tea party: is anyone following how Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo is giving me a big shiny happy present of divided colorado conservatives?
It's possible that they're calling it the Tea PARTY because they actually plan to split into an ultra conservative third party, completely separate from the GOP.
That's great for liberals in the short term, since it splits the conservative vote, but it could be horrible long term, if it sticks, because it gives a stronger voice to ultra conservatives, with no need to moderate at all.
For the record, I'm not in favor of ultra liberals any more than ultra conservatives. If we make it about pushing special interest agendas at the expense of everyone else, we all lose.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
Orincoro, so you know, I'm not really paying attention to your posts.
Yeah you are, you've just run out of ways to prevaricate. It's ok, I understand your need to appear not to be a complete fraud. Runs rather parallel with the thread's subject, doesn't it?
Mind, I'm not *calling* you a complete fraud, I'm calling you vain- you haven't been particularly strong on "understanding" things in this thread, so I want that to be clear.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Considering it has no significant material effect? I'd say no, especially if the person giving is aware of how these things operate, which they should be if they are giving their hard earned cash to people.
Then it's not OK to support, in any way, an organization which does something objectionable even if you target your support quite surgically?
No, I'd say that piece of reductionism is not supportable according to what I've said. It's an important distinction that I and Samp and others have pointed out again and again that in *this* specific situation, support cannot be targeted with anything resembling surgical accuracy. That is because of the way the Mormon church functions. That applies to the Mormon church.
And we're a bit beyond the technicality of "does something objectionable." Action is one thing. If an organization acts in a way I don't agree with, but with an intent I do, I might still consider supporting it. I do vote democratic, after all, and they don't always do what I want. But if the goals of the organization you are supporting *are* fundamentally different from your own? If you wish to divorce yourself from those goals morally? Yeah, perhaps you should consider not supporting that organization *at all* until their goals change. It may be ok to support them in specific ways in the mean time, and it may not. That's a judgement call. But I don't see Mormons on this board exercising their judgement. How can they? They aren't being given enough information to judge for themselves what is happening with the money they give. That's untenable, or at least it would be for me. I would never donate money to an organization if I didn't know how that organization worked, or what was done with the money. These people do not know, and cannot know, and that would be unacceptable to me as a donor.
quote: If I give money to the 'vaccinate the orphans' fund, well, that does free up finances for the Prop 8 fund, so...
Yeah, it does. And I bet if you dug into the history of every unsavory backwards hate-driven organization that ever waved a flag against civil liberties, you would find that it too had a fund for orphans.
Perhaps I should start a fund for orphans and pledge to contribute one dollar to it every time someone agrees with me on Hatrack. I didn't know before that your principles were going wholesale to orphan supporters.
Perhaps the gays should get together and support orphans as well... but then in order to do so they would probably like to have legal recognition of their abilities to jointly care for those orphans, and that would mean... oh right, the Mormon church doesn't care enough about orphans to let gays raise them. How silly of me to think the LDS church might be so honorable.
[ July 27, 2010, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: That's great for liberals in the short term, since it splits the conservative vote, but it could be horrible long term, if it sticks, because it gives a stronger voice to ultra conservatives, with no need to moderate at all.
That only makes sense in the context of us being a parliamentary system. We're not; we're a first-past-the-gate system that naturally trends towards two-party and brutally punishes vote split through game theory. The tea party has nearly no moderate appeal, and they don't have the electoral strength to foster plurality support for their candidates in a hypothetical three-way or, for some inconceivable reason, they supplant mainstream conservatism despite tea party support (not membership) representing little more than 18% of the american populace, on issues that are trending downwards over time and now are only floated electorally by the support of individuals over the age of 65.
So this isn't like Canada or GB where they could easily run their own 'breakaway' campaign and force the conservatives into accepting many of their terms of policy and governance in return for coalition victory over the liberals. All they can do is split vote and artificially favor liberal candidates through that effect. And were the tea party to supplant the G.O.P. ... somehow, granted as a hypothesis ... then it would have even larger problems of intergenerational transmission of conservative ideals than what the G.O.P. faces now.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It's possible that they're calling it the Tea PARTY because they actually plan to split into an ultra conservative third party, completely separate from the GOP.
I'm not scared of that for the reason that I'm not scared of a Palin presidency. It will not, can not happen. The politics of the American people have not changed much, and they will not become more conservative as time wears on. You can divide the conservative pie in any way of your choosing, but any way you cut it, their piece is just getting smaller. Tarter, and bitterer, but smaller just the same.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Mind, I'm not *calling* you a complete fraud, I'm calling you vain...
Orincoro, maybe you shouldn't call him either. Why would you feel it necessary?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Orincoro: You are playing on the edge of the TOS. Discuss how much you disagree with, or dislike what other people's church's or groups are doing as much as you like. But don't directly disparage other posters, or religious organizations.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's possible that they're calling it the Tea PARTY because they actually plan to split into an ultra conservative third party, completely separate from the GOP.
I've heard mutterings along those lines. The Tea Party could feasibly attract GOP voters who are primarily interested in the fiscal and immigration stances of the party (small, hands-off government; no gun control; choke immigration). It could also attract a good many libertarians, and libertarian leaning moderates.
The GOP is definitely fracturing. I think it would be interesting to see a GOP that courts the minority vote with a positive view of socialized medicine, and that embraces education and immigration, in addition to its current stance on "traditional" values.
I don't think it will ever happen. But it would be interesting if it did.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
On that same note, despite the general ineffectiveness of the Dems in governing the country (consider the supremely low approval rating of Congress), they're united, more or less. As far as I can tell, even though they can't get anything done, they're closing ranks and quietly trying to ride out the death throes that are afflicting the Republicans.
Of course, there is that whole Charlie Rangel thing coming up.
We've got a long time until November. If the Dems can maintain their control of Congress, I believe the GOP will start to fracture in earnest. Although whatever party lumbers out of its ashes will make a good showing in 2012, I think the Dems will wind down the war in Afghanistan and will not fiddle with the economy enough to make much of a difference. Obama will win by a small margin for a second term, and that will destroy the GOP.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It could also attract a good many libertarians, and libertarian leaning moderates.
I tell you what: if it draws off the culturally conservative libertarians and other raving nutjobs who currently pollute that party, I'll officially become libertarian; that's the only thing keeping me from being a libertarian now.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ugh. Economic libertarians are at least as bad as social libertarians. At least social libertarians aren't cold-hearted thugs.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:culturally conservative libertarians
I didn't think you could be a culturally conservative libertarian. That's like saying you can be a merciful serial murderer.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I think the metaphor of the anthill might even be appropriate here, at least, in the way you seem to see your role in this environment: you see a little anthill and put your foot on it -- and then get excited when the ants come out (and, in your case, even more excited when they don't)
... you're calling me a troll? Really?
sigh.
Sorry about that, didn't mean to insinuate you were anything like a troll or, even more insidiously, that church members resemble anything like ants (even metaphorically speaking).
It was like a balloon that got loose--the ants and feet that is--and, I could only watch it float away.
Looking rather shrivelled, caught in the lilac bushes, this morning.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:culturally conservative libertarians
I didn't think you could be a culturally conservative libertarian. That's like saying you can be a merciful serial murderer.
Kevorkian? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I didn't think you could be a culturally conservative libertarian.
Oh, you'd be surprised. Almost all the registered libertarians I know are "I'm libertarian on most things, but this thing I think it's important for the government to do..." And, y'know, I'm perfectly okay with that; I think the Libertarian Party, as a political party, would function much better by holding to the principle that small government in most cases is a good idea and should be pursued, but that rare exceptions can and should be made. Many of its most principled members shoot themselves in the foot by clinging to the principle beyond all practicality, while its other members undermine this principled stand by being, well, drooling idiots. If you pull the drooling idiots out, I'm confident that the uncompromisingly principled ones would very rapidly be outnumbered by people who are fans of but not slavishly adherent to the principle.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Mind, I'm not *calling* you a complete fraud, I'm calling you vain- you haven't been particularly strong on "understanding" things in this thread, so I want that to be clear.
C'mon, dude. Of course you're calling him a fraud.
quote:No, I'd say that piece of reductionism is not supportable according to what I've said. It's an important distinction that I and Samp and others have pointed out again and again that in *this* specific situation, support cannot be targeted with anything resembling surgical accuracy. That is because of the way the Mormon church functions. That applies to the Mormon church.
Well, no, because as has been justly criticized, we don't know how the Mormon Church functions exactly with regards to its finances. They aren't publicized. You don't know what the specific situation is. And just as much as that's not a compelling reason to lean one way, it's neither a reason to lean the other way. Or at least certainly not as far as you're doing.
One of your and Samprimary's points is that it is effectively impossible for an organization to separate its finances. So, in fact, my bit of 'reductionism' does apply.
quote:Yeah, it does. And I bet if you dug into the history of every unsavory backwards hate-driven organization that ever waved a flag against civil liberties, you would find that it too had a fund for orphans.
That doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.
quote: Perhaps the gays should get together and support orphans as well... but then in order to do so they would probably like to have legal recognition of their abilities to jointly care for those orphans, and that would mean... oh right, the Mormon church doesn't care enough about orphans to let gays raise them. How silly of me to think the LDS church might be so honorable.
It does, it may surprise you to hear, seem to me to be pretty dishonorable as well. We Mormons flourish and are protected by the American system. Part of that system has been embracing the secular nature of our government. That secular nature has been a shield for us in the past, as for many other minorities, and we've been fortunate to have it. Now comes a time when another group attempts to avail themselves of that shield as we have, and our organization throws up roadblocks where it can (to put it mildly). For that reason alone I consider it pretty dishonorable, quite separate from my own opinion on homosexuality which is quite a bit more liberal than most, it seems.
Now, please be about telling me all the ways I'm deluding myself and attempting desperately to hide my shame from y'all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can tell, even though they can't get anything done
They've passed a large amount of wide-ranging bills, including but not limited to healthcare reform that radically adjusts the system and sets us on the path to single-payer much earlier, a banking reform bill, another stimulus bill, etc etc etc.
"congress can't get anything done" is a label that the g.o.p. is trying to foist and work to their advantage. The more they break congress, the better they do. So they've become the record party of obstructionism in our country's history and now create the serious concern that we might have to get rid of the filibuster entirely.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:No, I'd say that piece of reductionism is not supportable according to what I've said. It's an important distinction that I and Samp and others have pointed out again and again that in *this* specific situation, support cannot be targeted with anything resembling surgical accuracy. That is because of the way the Mormon church functions. That applies to the Mormon church.
Well, no, because as has been justly criticized, we don't know how the Mormon Church functions exactly with regards to its finances. They aren't publicized. You don't know what the specific situation is.
This. The Mormon church doesn't release its financial records, therefore in *this* specific situation, it is impossible to tell how the Mormon church spends its money. "How the Mormon church works" in this specific discussion was meant as "conceals its finances." So individuals cannot target their support with any reasonable level of confidence in how their money is being spent. See what I'm talking about now? The not knowing is the part that ought set off alarm bells, but doesn't seem to.
quote: Now, please be about telling me all the ways I'm deluding myself and attempting desperately to hide my shame from y'all.
I knew your attitude already, I'm not surprised by it. In that particular moment I wasn't really speaking to you, but reacting to the appeal you were nonetheless making: "The Mormons do good things too" bit. Perhaps they do, but it doesn't change the fact that they are committed to a cause with which I fundamentally disagree, and which I believe is contrary to ideals of liberty and democracy.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can tell, even though they can't get anything done
They've passed a large amount of wide-ranging bills, including but not limited to healthcare reform that radically adjusts the system and sets us on the path to single-payer much earlier, a banking reform bill, another stimulus bill, etc etc etc.
"congress can't get anything done" is a label that the g.o.p. is trying to foist and work to their advantage. The more they break congress, the better they do. So they've become the record party of obstructionism in our country's history and now create the serious concern that we might have to get rid of the filibuster entirely.
There have been some key issues that have made congress look unproductive. Chief among these has been Republican obstructionism. Ironic, but true.
As I believe someone here has posted about in great-length, either Lyr or Sam, or somebody else, or maybe I read it somewhere else entirely, the Republican party swift has become the party against government. Failures of government, even when engineered and effected by them, can be classed as victories for their philosophy. A political victory is a political victory, the Republican party wins- an utter defeat averted or mired in endless messy politics is a win as well, because "government is bad! See?" Never mind the inanity of such a philosophy amongst those who want to be elected representatives in government.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks, Samp, Juxtapose.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
HAHAHAHA.
I'm ignoring you I'm ignoring you I can't see what you're writing! Lalalalala!
Mature.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's entirely possible for two or more people to be immature at the same time.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
On this topic, I would say probable...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: HAHAHAHA.
I'm ignoring you I'm ignoring you I can't see what you're writing! Lalalalala!
Mature.
oh my god, give it a rest Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's entirely possible for two or more people to be immature at the same time.
Of course.
Posted by fseoer2010 (Member # 12369) on :
They're an old organization. The way this tea person uses it though... Where do They're an old organization. The way this tea person uses it though... Where do I even start? is it worth starting? I even start? is it worth starting?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is that poetry? *suspicious look*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think part of the problem is that people are seeing things like the health care reform and financial reform bill as somehow evidence of congress being effective. I don't think you can just look at the bills that got passed, but instead have to consider the quality of those bills.
On many major pieces of legislation, the Democrats have come out looking weak and incompetent and have ended up with results that are themselves weak and of poor quality.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And they are usually that way (true or assumed) due to attempting to wrangle their way past categorical filibuster designed solely as a measure of preserving republican viability in future elections by hindering legislative progress as often as possible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, but out of a range of possible ways to deal with the Republican's strategy of all filibuster all the time, they apparently chose the "whine about it, but otherwise lie there and take it" one. Oh, and compromised away most of the parts of the bills that their supporters really wanted without getting much of anything in return (although, with the financial regulation, I'm not sure that this wasn't by design).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Yes, but out of a range of possible ways to deal with the Republican's strategy of all filibuster all the time, they apparently chose the "whine about it, but otherwise lie there and take it" one.
I've heard less accurate approximations of what the democratic majority has accomplished, but this one's pretty amazing. If it were true, then the surest evidence of it would be that nothing in Juxtapose's link would be accurate (and in case it need be known, it IS accurate; the democratic caucus majority has strongarmed and strategized means to push through productive and wide-reaching legislation in spite of the most obstructionist campaign in American history).
However, you provide an important demonstration of the mobilizable elements of common perception that the republicans are banking on. It doesn't matter if their opposition has moved heaven and earth in spite of their obstruction. All they have to do is convince you that they're just 'whining and taking it' and otherwise being indolent or useless. Then they win.
SO, I suppose the level of gains they can expect in the next election largely have things like this to thank for it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
err...the article that Juxt posted says this:
quote:And now, Democrats' success at keeping 59 senators in line means little if they cannot find someone on the other side willing to become vote No. 60.
How is that not lieing there and taking it?
And, as I said, getting bills passed is not all that impressive, at least to me. Getting strong bills passed is. From what I've seen from both the health care and financial reform bills, they may have achieved the first, but the second is sorely lacking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: err...the article that Juxt posted says this:
quote:And now, Democrats' success at keeping 59 senators in line means little if they cannot find someone on the other side willing to become vote No. 60.
How is that not lieing there and taking it?
"Lying there and taking it" is going 'oh well, the republicans are just going to filibuster everything" and not doing, say, a ridiculous quantity of massive legislation with profound effect in spite of off-the-charts obstructionism.
quote:And, as I said, getting bills passed is not all that impressive, at least to me. Getting strong bills passed is. From what I've seen from both the health care and financial reform bills, they may have achieved the first, but the second is sorely lacking.
Great! So the republicans preventing these bills from being strong as they could have been by blocking legislation purely out of the need for the survival of their party makes you fault the democrats. There you go! You're exactly who they need.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh dude, seriously? When your kids bring home an A- paper with a big smile and a gleeful giggle, don't smack them in the faces and ask them why it isn't an A+.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"Lying there and taking it" is going 'oh well, the republicans are just going to filibuster everything" and not doing, say, a ridiculous quantity of massive legislation with profound effect in spite of off-the-charts obstructionism.
To me, the fact that it has become an uncontested facet of the American political scene that you need 60 people in the Senate to get anything done indicates that the Democrats have lied down and taken it in regards to the filibuster issue. I honestly don't see the legislation passed (which, as I've said, I don't find anywhere near as impressive as you seem to want me to) changes this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:To me, the fact that it has become an uncontested facet of the American political scene that you need 60 people in the Senate to get anything done indicates that the Democrats have lied down and taken it
This right here makes absolutely no sense. If the republicans start filibustering everything and the democrats DON'T challenge it, it's lying down and taking it. If the republicans start filibustering everything and the democrats challenge it as often as possible to worm in supermajority votes, that's not lying down and taking it. But you've taken the "the republicans start filibustering it" to mean they're lying down and taking it, without any additional qualifiers necessary.
It makes me wonder if your usage of the term is, like, from another language or something. Is the fact that it's an uncontested facet of the american political scene supposed to be the democrats' fault indicating utter passivity in your mind?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How would they not "lie down and take it"? What filibuster-busting strategy would work? Getting more seats is an obvious choice, but that is a tall order. Is the filibuster rule breakable? What are the consequences of that? What do we do about Dems who don't toe the party line like Sen Nelson or Sen Baucus? How do we make them vote with the party? Can we punish them? What are the consequences?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
Alternatively, they could make the Republicans pay for being so incredibly obstructionist. The Dems control the legislative agenda and the Presidency. They have numerous opportunities to really stick it to the Republicans. They also have an opponent who is being outrageous with the filibuster, but they have made no moves that I can see to capitalize on that with public opinion.
Samp,
quote:This right here makes absolutely no sense.
Or, alternatively, you don't understand my point. The Democrats have a great deal of options in addressing the Republicans absurd use of the filibuster to reign it in. They have, as far as I can tell, decided to go with not trying to address it.
As I said in the other thread, can you imagine anyone talking about how the Republicans lost control of the Senate because the Democrats picked up 41 seats? Of course not. But that was the story when Scott Brown got in.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Wow, MrSquicky, you make no sense. Why don't you list this great deal of options?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
What do you think an 'actual filibuster' is? I'm just curious.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
What do you think an 'actual filibuster' is? I'm just curious.
I think he meant forcing senators to actually stand up there and talk, rather than them just advising the majority leader that the filibuster is, "on."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: As I said in the other thread, can you imagine anyone talking about how the Republicans lost control of the Senate because the Democrats picked up 41 seats? Of course not. But that was the story when Scott Brown got in.
This says rather more about the Republicans than about the dems. The dems are understandably difficult to corral into voting all together on the same things. That's a *good* thing. The fact that the Republicans are so willing to sacrifice their individual concerns for a group victory that often has little to do with representing their constituencies or, gasp, helping those people they represent is a *bad* thing.
Good vs. Bad. Seriously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
What do you think an 'actual filibuster' is? I'm just curious.
I think he meant forcing senators to actually stand up there and talk, rather than them just advising the majority leader that the filibuster is, "on."
Still, waiting on his take.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
What do you think an 'actual filibuster' is? I'm just curious.
I think he meant forcing senators to actually stand up there and talk, rather than them just advising the majority leader that the filibuster is, "on."
Still, waiting on his take.
Fine, wait here all day for Mr. Squicky. I'm gonna go get icecream and play in one of those inflatable cities. You're welcome to come along.
[ July 29, 2010, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And, as I said, getting bills passed is not all that impressive, at least to me. Getting strong bills passed is. From what I've seen from both the health care and financial reform bills, they may have achieved the first, but the second is sorely lacking.
My understanding is that both these bills are massive improvements* on the status quo. Do you dispute that? Can you give examples of bills that you would hold up as paragons of strength?
*improvement is a subjective term. Obviously, for example, if one doesn't think poor people are entitled to health insurance, then the bill is not an improvement.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
So we're waiting, getting nothing done, while someone may or may not tell us about the fillibuster.
Nope, no irony here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess I'm lying down and taking it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Small-Business Jobs Bill Stalls in Senate
Democrats attempting to wrap up work on a small business jobs bill were stymied Thursday morning when they were unable to break a Republican filibuster. In calling for a vote to end debate on the bill, Harry Reid, the majority leader, said that he had won the support of one Republican, enough to reach the 60-vote threshold. But when the vote was counted, all the Republicans held together. The final tally was 58 to 2 — Mr. Reid switched his vote to no in a procedural maneuver that allows him to call for another vote and try again.
those democrats, am i right? :/
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Gah I hate how gutless both parties are at just removing the filibuster.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's a reason: senate rules are actually so broken that getting rid of the filibuster doesn't actually prevent the potential for legislative roadblock. If anything, it would make it easier. The minority party (or even ONE SINGLE SENATOR, I'm serious) can indefinitely shut down all bills as long as they are not dead.
The blatant self-interest overuse of the current congress' minority party is actually
The whole reason that Obama either put new agencies in place or expanded the powers of existing ones in the health care and finreg bills is because he couldn't get the Senate to actually do anything thanks to the procedural roadblocks, so he's basically putting more and more power into the executive branch because stuff has to get done and all the Senate does all year is punt bills. I mean, really, we're two years into his Presidency and the Senate still hasn't confirmed a crap-ton of his appointees, so guess what, he recess-appoints them or just lets some "doesn't need to be confirmed" lackey basically run the stuff forever. Which TOTALLY CUTS THE SENATE OUT OF THE EQUATION.
The abuse of the filibuster and the inability of the Senate to do its job is ceding more and more power from the legislative to the executive branch, making abuse of power ever more likely, and ever more dangerous, disrupts the checks and balances system, and increases the power of the unelected (and thus unaccountable) federal bureaucracy. People who support the G.O.P. becoming an entrenched obstructionist roadblock in the legislative via the filibuster or any means have no idea how their government (doesn't) work. Eventually, the Senate will have to get rid of all of its non-democratic obstruction means, and the longer that can't be done (ironically DUE to obstruction), the more the nation will suffer as a result.
And you can absolutely be sure that one of the obstacles to the removal of filibuster, besides other legislative roadblocks that can be employed, is the fact that the G.O.P. relies greatly on it as a survival mechanism and so would raise hell and high water were it to be challenged, like they previously did with the Nuclear Option.
Posted by fseoer2010 (Member # 12369) on :
(Post edited by JanitorBlade.
Spam is also a not desired on the board.)
[ August 03, 2010, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
OMG TYRRANICAL MODS
*stages own tea party*
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
When you guys pay the post tax I'll stop.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Give me spammerty, or GIVE ME DEATH!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It was the middle of a tough primary contest, and Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) had convened a small meeting with donors who had contributed thousands of dollars to his previous campaigns. But this year, as Inglis faced a challenge from tea party-backed Republican candidates claiming Inglis wasn't sufficiently conservative, these donors hadn't ponied up. Inglis' task: Get them back on the team. "They were upset with me," Inglis recalls. "They are all Glenn Beck watchers." About 90 minutes into the meeting, as he remembers it, "They say, 'Bob, what don't you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that. And he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn [the US] into a Muslim nation.'" Inglis didn't know how to respond.
As he tells this story, the veteran lawmaker is sitting in his congressional office, which he will have to vacate in a few months. On June 22, he was defeated in the primary runoff by Spartanburg County 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, who had assailed Inglis for supposedly straying from his conservative roots, pointing to his vote for the bank bailout and against George W. Bush's surge in Iraq. Inglis, who served six years in Congress during the 1990s as a conservative firebrand before being reelected to the House in 2004, had also ticked off right-wingers in the state's 4th Congressional District by urging tea-party activists to "turn Glenn Beck off" and by calling on Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) to apologize for shouting "You lie!" at Obama during the president's State of the Union address. For this, Inglis, who boasts (literally) a 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, received the wrath of the tea party, losing to Gowdy 71 to 29 percent. In the weeks since, Inglis has criticized Republican House leaders for acquiescing to a poisonous, tea party-driven "demagoguery" that he believes will undermine the GOP's long-term credibility. And he's freely recounting his frustrating interactions with tea party types, while noting that Republican leaders are pushing rhetoric tainted with racism, that conservative activists are dabbling in anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nonsense, and that Sarah Palin celebrates ignorance.
The week after that meeting with his past funders—whom he failed to bring back into the fold—Inglis asked House Republican leader John Boehner what he would have told this group of Obama-bashers. Inglis recalls what happened:
[Boehner] said, "I would have told them that it's not quite that bad. We disagree with him on the issues." I said, "Hold on Boehner, that doesn't work. Let me tell you, I tried that and it did not work." I said [to Boehner], "If you're going to lead these people and the fearful stampede to the cliff that they're heading to, you have to turn around and say over your shoulder, 'Hey, you don't know the half of it.'"
quote:During his primary campaign, Inglis repeatedly encountered enraged conservatives whom he couldn't—or wouldn't—satisfy. Shortly before the runoff primary election, Inglis met with about a dozen tea party activists at the modest ranch-style home of one of them. Here's what took place:
I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there's a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life's earnings, and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, "What the heck are you talking about?" I'm trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, "You don't know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don't know this?!" And I said, "Please forgive me. I'm just ignorant of these things." And then of course, it turned into something about the Federal Reserve and the Bilderbergers and all that stuff. And now you have the feeling of anti-Semitism here coming in, mixing in. Wow.
Later, Inglis mentioned this meeting to another House member: "He said, 'You mean you sat there for more than 10 minutes?' I said, 'Well, I had to. We were between primary and runoff.' I had a two-week runoff. Oh my goodness. How do you..." Inglis trails off, shaking his head.
While he was campaigning, Inglis says, tea party activists and conservative voters kept pushing him to describe Obama as a "socialist." But, he says, "It's a dangerous strategy to build conservatism on information and policies that are not credible...This guy is no socialist." He continues:
quote:The word is designed to have emotional charge to it. Throughout my primary, there were people insisting that I use the word. They would ask me if he was a socialist, and I would always find some other word. I'd say, "President Obama wants a very large government that I don't think will work and that spends too much and it's inefficient and it compromises freedom and it's not the way we want to go." They would listen for the word, wait to see if I used the s-word, and when I didn't, you could see the disappointment.
quote:When he returned to the House in 2005, Inglis, though still a conservative, was more focused on policy solutions than ideological battle. After Obama entered the White House, Inglis worked up a piece of campaign literature—in the form of a cardboard coaster that flipped open—that noted that Republicans should collaborate (not compromise) with Democrats to produce workable policies. "America's looking for solutions, not wedges," it read. He met with almost every member of the House Republican caucus to make his pitch: "What we needed to be is the adults who say absolutely we will work with [the new president]."
Instead, he remarks, his party turned toward demagoguery. Inglis lists the examples: falsely claiming Obama's health care overhaul included "death panels," raising questions about Obama's birthplace, calling the president a socialist, and maintaining that the Community Reinvestment Act was a major factor of the financial meltdown. "CRA," Inglis says, "has been around for decades. How could it suddenly create this problem? You see how that has other things worked into it?" Racism? "Yes," Inglis says.
quote:After winning six congressional elections since 1992, Inglis is now a politician without a party, a policy maven without a movement. And in a few months, he will be without his present job. He has no specific plan yet for his future. He mentions looking for "private sector opportunities" in a sustainable energy field—or an academic or think tank position. Becoming a lobbyist is another option he has started to mull.
Inglis is a casualty of the tea party-ization of the Republican Party. Given the decisive vote against him in June, it's clear he was wiped out by a political wave that he could do little to thwart. "Emotionally, I should be all right with this," he says. And when he thinks about what lies ahead for his party and GOP House leaders, he can't help but chuckle. With Boehner and others chasing after the tea party, he says, "that's going to be the dog that catches the car." He quickly adds: "And the Democrats, if they go into the minority, are going to have an enjoyable couple of years watching that dog deal with the car it's caught."
Oh tea party!
Posted by fseoer2010 (Member # 12369) on :
(Post edited by JanitorBlade)
Please stop posting spam, I'm not sure what your angle is.
[ August 04, 2010, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is there a Tea Party core? How typical are the experiences that Inglis relates?
I don't like 'em for their supposed policies and because I've only seen the whack-a-doos on TV.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BB, fseoer2010 is almost certainly not reading your admonitions. It's a spam account; ban it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: BB, fseoer2010 is almost certainly not reading your admonitions. It's a spam account; ban it.
I've also seen him/her post at least once normally. He also quoted my statement about alts, so I feel like he/she is doing this on purpose.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Mother Jones has a liberal slant so I would expect them to gloss over the biggest reasons why Inglis lost and focus on the anti Tea Party talking points
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think (hope, hope, hope) that the Tea Party's current successes are matched, if they continue to be a substantial factor in elections and dialogue, to be just as good at motivating, well, everyone who isn't a far-right conservative as they are at motivating far-right conservatives, and that way they'll get the political a#$-kicking they so richly deserve. I'm just past tired of hearing about them. Good grief, they make me wish the British had made some arrests at the Boston Teap Party.
ETA: So what, are they misrepresenting Inglish himself, then? Say what you will about the guy, he's got rock-solid credibility as a conservative politician. You ought at least trust him. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I think (hope, hope, hope) that the Tea Party's current successes are matched, if they continue to be a substantial factor in elections and dialogue, to be just as good at motivating, well, everyone who isn't a far-right conservative as they are at motivating far-right conservatives, and that way they'll get the political a#$-kicking they so richly deserve. I'm just past tired of hearing about them. Good grief, they make me wish the British had made some arrests at the Boston Teap Party.
Most of the media, especially the liberal corners, will keep hammering away at the Tea Party forever in an attempt to marginalize it.
quote: So what, are they misrepresenting Inglish himself, then?
quote: Inglis said he wasn’t surprised by the loss. Inglis said he knew his vote on the Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions could cost him his seat, but he said he doesn’t regret it or his vote against the troop surge in Iraq.
quote: In recent years, Inglis' work to promote environmental legislation has occasionally angered conservatives, and his vote in early 2007 supporting the Democratic resolution opposing the "surge" in Iraq was a key reason he drew a primary challenge last cycle. He beat back that challenge with relative ease, but this cycle Gowdy was able to capture the frustration that many Republican voters felt toward Washington and direct it squarely at Inglis.
The Mother Jones article is simply more anti Tea Party rhetoric. You didn't hear this kind of backlash from most media outlets against MoveOn when Bush was President.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You didn't hear this kind of backlash from most media outlets against MoveOn when Bush was President.
Speaking as a member of MoveOn: why would you? MoveOn isn't half as loony.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Most of the media, especially the liberal corners, will keep hammering away at the Tea Party forever in an attempt to marginalize it.
Yeah, and that couldn't possibly be because they're in any way objectionable, DarkKnight. It must be because they're liberal. For a moment there I forgot exactly how partisan you are.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that...efforts to boost bike riding are "converting Denver into a United Nations community...[that]...could threaten our personal freedoms."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The Mother Jones article is simply more anti Tea Party rhetoric. You didn't hear this kind of backlash from most media outlets against MoveOn when Bush was President.
Probably because even at their worst, MoveOn isn't even remotely comparable, except to people who conflate equivalence in the grossest ways possible.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre:
quote:Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that...efforts to boost bike riding are "converting Denver into a United Nations community...[that]...could threaten our personal freedoms."
hahahahahaha
"Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes muttered a few more platitudes about socialism, continued helping assure that Democratic Party contender Hickenlooper wins as "that one not crazy candidate"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, the tea party is actually actively helping me in colorado. I mean, they are actively doing me a favor, in a way that's like a pitch-perfect demonstration of everything I said about the tea party and game theory.
Tom Tancredo became the darling of the colorado tea party. Let's learn about Tom Tancredo!
quote:Tancredo has proved that he has quite a flair for the provocative statement and the dramatic gesture – and a knack for grabbing media attention.
Several years back, Tancredo said the U.S. ought to threaten to bomb Mecca and other Muslim holy sites. More recently, Tancredo expressed longing for a “civics literacy test” to be administered to all citizens before they earned the right to vote. He’s also big on impeaching President Barack Obama, whom he has repeatedly declared to be the biggest threat to the U.S., more dangerous even than al Qaeda.
During his short-lived run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, Tancredo made a splash with a TV ad depicting a bomb planted by illegal immigrants exploding in a mall and the slogan, “Tancredo – before it’s too late.” (He also put together a derisive video that portrayed his fellow Republican candidates wearing sombreros and attending cockfights, in an effort to slam them as soft on illegal immigration.)
This charming Definitely Not A Racist candidate sad he wanted to stand up to the mainstream establishment of his own party and stand up for the tea partiers! So he engaged in brinkmanship. Said he would split the vote and enter the gubernatorial race, so both the other conservatives better quit now. They didn't heed his call to back out for entirely his own benefit. So now colorado's vote is split between democrats, republicans, and tea party, so the democrat could breeze to victory on a comfortable plurality if he wanted.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)