posted
On that vein, white guys who say they have never benefited from racism are hilariously ignorant.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
[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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" 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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 :)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Within normal person reason.
