DCP Encourages Email Campaign Against Black Journalist

[_Droopy]

Give up, Darth. You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here.

Thanks for conceding the point about what racism is, Droopy.

I conceded nothing. I just pointed out the futility of debating you at all.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Droopy's reaction is pertinent to some of the points I've been making, which is that the Mopologists (and others in the Church, evidently) won't concede anything on the issue of race. Why not just say, "Yes: the Church has had a history of racism, and it was ugly, and I'm glad that we've made strides in moving away from that?" Instead, you get Droopy fighting back by insisting that everyone would have been just as racist as BY, Mark E. Peterson, and everyone else from bygone times, so this justifies the Church's racism.

[_Darth J]

I conceded nothing. I just pointed out the futility of debating you at all.

Racism is about lineage, not skin color.

Just not intellectually acute or nuanced (or honest) enough to "get it," are you, Johnnie? Numerous people with skin as dark or darker than people of black African descent have always been admitted into the Priesthood. Skin color happened to be associated with the ban, but it wasn't the cause or basis of the ban. That was lineage and heritage in a line which did not have right to the Priesthood. One may have been lily white and restricted as to priesthood ordination, for all that matters, so long as one was of the specific lineage.

Yes, you have certainly shown me a thing or two.

[_Darth J]

Droopy's reaction is pertinent to some of the points I've been making, which is that the Mopologists (and others in the Church, evidently) won't concede anything on the issue of race. Why not just say, "Yes: the Church has had a history of racism, and it was ugly, and I'm glad that we've made strides in moving away from that?" Instead, you get Droopy fighting back by insisting that everyone would have been just as racist as BY, Mark E. Peterson, and everyone else from bygone times, so this justifies the Church's racism.

I like the nuance of how the Church wasn't really racist because it was only one specific ethnic group that was denied the priesthood.

[_Drifting]

Droopy's reaction is pertinent to some of the points I've been making, which is that the Mopologists (and others in the Church, evidently) won't concede anything on the issue of race. Why not just say, "Yes: the Church has had a history of racism, and it was ugly, and I'm glad that we've made strides in moving away from that?" Instead, you get Droopy fighting back by insisting that everyone would have been just as racist as BY, Mark E. Peterson, and everyone else from bygone times, so this justifies the Church's racism.

I like the nuance of how the Church wasn't really racist because it was only one specific ethnic group that was denied the priesthood.

Does he go on to articulate how Bishops, during temple recommend interviews prior to 1978, were able to ascertain a members specific ethnicity?

[_Kishkumen]

Droopy's reaction is pertinent to some of the points I've been making, which is that the Mopologists (and others in the Church, evidently) won't concede anything on the issue of race. Why not just say, "Yes: the Church has had a history of racism, and it was ugly, and I'm glad that we've made strides in moving away from that?" Instead, you get Droopy fighting back by insisting that everyone would have been just as racist as BY, Mark E. Peterson, and everyone else from bygone times, so this justifies the Church's racism.

When he tries to defend the racism, he just ends up sounding creepier. What he doesn't seem to realize is that "lineage" was part of race theory too. Indeed, words like "heritage" have long been code for racist sentiments, so much so that the word heritage was used in that sense to make fun of a racist populist politician who was a member of the KKK in the film "O, Brother, Where Art Thou?"

I prefer the LDS teaching in which people are held accountable for their own actions, not punished for some distant ancestor's deed. It is a bizarre, convoluted theology indeed that connects unfathomable and unattested decisions in the pre-mortal existence with the descendants of a mythological character in the Bible in order to keep people who bear the DNA of an ancestor from Africa from holding the LDS priesthood. It is, in fact, so completely absurd and downright ugly, that it should be thrown in the fires of Mount Doom and allowed to slip under the tectonic plates.

[_honorentheos]

Ah. Then he isn't wrong; he's just politically incorrect. Thanks.

Hi Harmony,

Let's try this using a different, correct statistic and see what you think.

Suppose a person in a political debate were to say, "Blacks perform poorly on standardized tests compared to other ethnic groups."

It is a factual statement, statistically.

We could change the statement to read, "Poor kids perform poorly on standardized tests compared to affluent kids" and it would be just as correct, statistically. Does this mean kids from poor families are dumb? Maybe this explains why they are poor, right? After all, if they had parents who were smart they would have figured out how to become rich, right? Under capitalism you always get what you deserve, right? Sounds like a good line to use in an election I'd say.

But I suspect with your background you know that the statement itself fails to capture why the statistically correct statement is very, very flawed. Taken alone it suggests that the problem has to do with something innate within Blacks and poor people, probably their intelligence. That isn't the case.

What Romney said may not have been wrong, but what was said was similar to the point above and said in a way that lumped ethnic identity in with poverty and abuse. If you don't find that to be problematic, search your soul. I'd guess if he'd misused a statistic related to rural families compared to suburban families you'd see the problem. It wouldn't play well at a presidential debate, but it would be about the same. Is it political correctness that keeps people from talking affluence and rural areas during debates?

The point is, statistics about single parent homes are used in elections to appeal to people who think that all of the problems in the world are caused by a culture shift away from something vaguely defined as "traditional values". But the real causes underlying the statistical results are complex. Which is why the statistics get used to appeal to people during elections. Who wants complexity? Give me a statistic that appeals to my biases I say.

[_Buffalo]

Droopy's reaction is pertinent to some of the points I've been making, which is that the Mopologists (and others in the Church, evidently) won't concede anything on the issue of race. Why not just say, "Yes: the Church has had a history of racism, and it was ugly, and I'm glad that we've made strides in moving away from that?" Instead, you get Droopy fighting back by insisting that everyone would have been just as racist as BY, Mark E. Peterson, and everyone else from bygone times, so this justifies the Church's racism.

I like the nuance of how the Church wasn't really racist because it was only one specific ethnic group that was denied the priesthood.

This also proves that American slavery wasn't racist, since it was only legal to enslave people of African heritage.

[_harmony]

That doesn't explain how Romney is wrong.

I wasn't attempting to explain how Romney is wrong, as I mistakenly believed that where is he wrong would be self-evident to rational people. I was commenting on why you were wrong to accept his hysteria about single parenthood.

Romney's comment was that children in single-parent homes are less likely to finish high school or college. The premise of the statement is that single parents cannot raise children competently like dual-parent families can. But the relative success in life of kids who grow up in single-parent homes involves many other factors than the simple fact that only one parent is raising the children. Romney also throws out that assertion about "40% of children being born out of wedlock" as if that is equivalent to those children only being raised by one parent. Romney omits any mention of how many of these children do have two parents in the home even if those parents have not married each other. Nor does this statistic (the source of which he does not cite) account for children born to unwed parents who decide to marry after the baby is born.

He doesn't mention single parents who adopt, either. In Utah, for example, a single adult can adopt a child, but two unmarried adults who are cohabitating cannot. If the deck is so stacked against single parents and things are so much better for dual-parent homes, I wonder why Utah law would allow this (hint: it's to try preventing gay people from adopting children).

As the shamelessly venal political prostitute that he is, Romney is pandering to the socially conservative "Think of the children!" crowd by pitting single-parenthood as a threat to society, versus the implicit solution of "traditional marriage." Someone besides me has observed that someone coming from a Mormon background lecturing people about traditional marriage is like being lectured about loitering by a crack whore. But besides that, Romney is conflating single-parenthood with irresponsible parenting. There are many reasons why parents end up single. Not everyone who ends up divorced wanted to get divorced, for one thing. Sometimes widows or widowers are left with kids, too. Then there are people who find out a baby is on the way who want to marry the other parent to raise the child together, but that other parent is not willing to do so. And all of this is before we even delve into what it really means to be a "single" parent, since there are many divorced people who are still very involved with, and important in, their children's lives.

All of this is irrelevant to the presidency, anyway. There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution that entails the president defining or interpreting what marriage is, nor giving the president any authority to do anything about the alleged threat to our society about single parenthood. And although Charles Blow was not wise to phrase his response the way he did, Romney opened the door to it. Romney's remark was pure demagoguery to the religious right. When you are trying to persuade people to vote for you on the basis of your touted traditional religious values, you put your religious beliefs at issue. But then look at this richly hypocritical response Romney gave about Blow's comment:

"I think it's going to wear very badly and the American people are not going to line up for that kind of, if you will, divisiveness and demonization of their fellow Americans."

Oh, you mean like those fellow Americans who are probably going to abuse their kids and set them up for failure because the other parent is not around.

I really hope, though, that Romney's belief in the amalgam of Wicca, Scientology, and Protestantism to which he subscribes is not the basis for voters rejecting him. I would like to believe that the American people would aspire to a higher standard, and instead reject him for his utter dis ingenuousness and personal loathsomeness.

Now see? This is much better than your previous flippant comment. Thanks!

[_harmony]

Ah. Then he isn't wrong; he's just politically incorrect. Thanks.

Hi Harmony,

Let's try this using a different, correct statistic and see what you think.

Suppose a person in a political debate were to say, "Blacks perform poorly on standardized tests compared to other ethnic groups."

It is a factual statement, statistically.

We could change the statement to read, "Poor kids perform poorly on standardized tests compared to affluent kids" and it would be just as correct, statistically. Does this mean kids from poor families are dumb? Maybe this explains why they are poor, right? After all, if they had parents who were smart they would have figured out how to become rich, right? Under capitalism you always get what you deserve, right? Sounds like a good line to use in an election I'd say.

But I suspect with your background you know that the statement itself fails to capture why the statistically correct statement is very, very flawed. Taken alone it suggests that the problem has to do with something innate within Blacks and poor people, probably their intelligence. That isn't the case.

What Romney said may not have been wrong, but what was said was similar to the point above and said in a way that lumped ethnic identity in with poverty and abuse. If you don't find that to be problematic, search your soul. I'd guess if he'd misused a statistic related to rural families compared to suburban families you'd see the problem. It wouldn't play well at a presidential debate, but it would be about the same. Is it political correctness that keeps people from talking affluence and rural areas during debates?

The point is, statistics about single parent homes are used in elections to appeal to people who think that all of the problems in the world are caused by a culture shift away from something vaguely defined as "traditional values". But the real causes underlying the statistical results are complex. Which is why the statistics get used to appeal to people during elections. Who wants complexity? Give me a statistic that appeals to my biases I say.

Thanks.