More LDS Racism on MAD

[_Trevor]

I honestly do not see anything racist in what you've posted from the MAD board? Maybe I missed it. What I read was dialogue that included the differences between the two beliefs. Why one (in their minds) is better than the other. And the ties each candidate has with his church. I do agree that there are some pretty serious things we need to consider when thinking about Obama being president. A person can't just go to a church for 20 years and not believe in what the pastor is saying, can he? I agree, Obama could have found another Christian church to attend that didn't preach hate. There are a lot of them.

I am actually quite happy that he did go to that church for 20 years. It makes me think that he will have some understanding of the anger of African Americans in this country. If he had hung out with a bunch of stuffy, white Anglicans his whole religious life, I doubt he would understand it very well at all. He is, after all, not a descendant of American slaves.

[_Moniker]

I am actually quite happy that he did go to that church for 20 years. It makes me think that he will have some understanding of the anger of African Americans in this country.

I agree Trevor. While I disagree with a number of things Wright says it certainly does give a clear picture of the anger still seen in the African American community. I was watching a really awful interview Bill O' Reilly did, a few nights ago, and he was talking about how the Irish no longer hold a grudge for how they were treated when they came to America. I was stunned that anyone (hopefully not his viewing audience) could equate the treatment of some American immigrants to what the African Americans went through.

My oldest daughter asked me why the African Americans may still be angry after we watched that interview (with me pausing and commenting:) -- I took her a few days later to an old swimming pool that was filled in. They were filled in ALLLL over the South -- I told her that her best friend's father probably remembers that when he was a child. This is NOT ancient history where African Americans were treated as less than human and second class citizens.

I was reading a fascinating article the other day on victimization and the role society plays in shaming the victims -- there are perpetrators, the victim and the society. The perpetrator only wants the society to look away -- the victim asks for help and understanding (essentially the society to DO something!)... you must make a moral decision when faced with this. The perpetrator will first take steps to deny, say that there is exaggeration, say the victim is crazy, lying, etc... Then the victim feels helpless, ignored, stigmatized and finally angry. I get it!

[_Dr. Shades]

I think I can clarify what (I believe) the MA&Dites meant on the Obama vs. Romney faith issue:

In Obama's case, if he truly disagreed with what his pastor was teaching, he could've easily driven across town to another Protestant congregation and listened to a different preacher.

In Romney's case, if he truly disagreed with what LDS Inc. was teaching, could not have driven across town to another Ward, since LDS teachings were and are strictly homogenized from one congregation to the next.

IN OTHER WORDS, to be exposed to different teachings, Obama needed only to drive to a different building, whereas Romney would've had to switch religions entirely--a much greater and perhaps unreasonable sacrifice. Hence Obama's political liability is greater.

Does that make any sense?

[_Trevor]

I agree Trevor. While I disagree with a number of things Wright says it certainly does give a clear picture of the anger still seen in the African American community. I was watching a really awful interview Bill O' Reilly did, a few nights ago, and he was talking about how the Irish no longer hold a grudge for how they were treated when they came to America. I was stunned that anyone (hopefully not his viewing audience) could equate the treatment of some American immigrants to what the African Americans went through.

Yep. When was the last time a person with Irish ancestry was racially profiled by the police?

[_Dr. Shades]

My oldest daughter asked me why the African Americans may still be angry after we watched that interview (with me pausing and commenting:) -- I took her a few days later to an old swimming pool that was filled in. They were filled in ALLLL over the South -- I told her that her best friend's father probably remembers that when he was a child. This is NOT ancient history where African Americans were treated as less than human and second class citizens.

Forgive me, Moniker, but this is one of those times when I don't understand you. To whit:

What do swimming pools, filled in or otherwise, have to do with African-Americans?

[_Trevor]

Does that make any sense?

Sure, Shades, if I believed that this is really the source of their upset. I think this is a case of misplaced anger. Get angry because Obama, the uppity black man, is not held to the scrutiny the Mormon candidate was. I think this is what is actually going on.

[_skippy the dead]

Forgive me, Moniker, but this is one of those times when I don't understand you. To whit:

What do swimming pools, filled in or otherwise, have to do with African-Americans?

Admittedly, I'm a product of American public schools, with little course material dedicated to the civil rights movement, but I believe that in the South, swimming pools were filled in rather than admitting blacks to them (as required by civil rights legislation).

[_Moniker]

My oldest daughter asked me why the African Americans may still be angry after we watched that interview (with me pausing and commenting:) -- I took her a few days later to an old swimming pool that was filled in. They were filled in ALLLL over the South -- I told her that her best friend's father probably remembers that when he was a child. This is NOT ancient history where African Americans were treated as less than human and second class citizens.

Forgive me, Moniker, but this is one of those times when I don't understand you. To whit:

What do swimming pools, filled in or otherwise, have to do with African-Americans?

I hope you're kidding? Public swimming pools were closed or filled in (with concrete) -- The Southern communities would rather have NO ONE swim than to have whites swim with blacks. My best friend's father, no doubt, recalls this from when he was a child. My mother recalls it -- and she was one that was being protected from the "filth" of black bodies mingling next to hers in a pool. It makes me sick to consider it, truly.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think I can clarify what (I believe) the MA&Dites meant on the Obama vs. Romney faith issue:

In Obama's case, if he truly disagreed with what his pastor was teaching, he could've easily driven across town to another Protestant congregation and listened to a different preacher.

In Romney's case, if he truly disagreed with what LDS Inc. was teaching, could not have driven across town to another Ward, since LDS teachings were and are strictly homogenized from one congregation to the next.

IN OTHER WORDS, to be exposed to different teachings, Obama needed only to drive to a different building, whereas Romney would've had to switch religions entirely--a much greater and perhaps unreasonable sacrifice. Hence Obama's political liability is greater.

Does that make any sense?

I suppose it "makes sense," though logically, I don't think it holds up. Essentially, the MADites are arguing that Obama should have ditched his church over these few wacko things. Thus, for the logic to work, they would have to simultaneously reason that Romney should have ditched Mormonism over BY's racism, or ETB's John Birch-ism, or the SCMC, or the priesthood ban, or polygamy, etc., etc.

Their (apparent) argument that you don't get to "pick and choose" within Mormonism is complete bunk, since, as we are told so often, sometimes "doctrine" isn't Doctrine, and moreover, that the Church is frequently plagued with "rogue" SPs and bishops who do their own thing.

Bottom line: the MADites are hypocrites.

[_RockHeaded]

I think I can clarify what (I believe) the MA&Dites meant on the Obama vs. Romney faith issue:

In Obama's case, if he truly disagreed with what his pastor was teaching, he could've easily driven across town to another Protestant congregation and listened to a different preacher.

In Romney's case, if he truly disagreed with what LDS Inc. was teaching, could not have driven across town to another Ward, since LDS teachings were and are strictly homogenized from one congregation to the next.

IN OTHER WORDS, to be exposed to different teachings, Obama needed only to drive to a different building, whereas Romney would've had to switch religions entirely--a much greater and perhaps unreasonable sacrifice. Hence Obama's political liability is greater.

Does that make any sense?

I suppose it "makes sense," though logically, I don't think it holds up. Essentially, the MADites are arguing that Obama should have ditched his church over these few wacko things. Thus, for the logic to work, they would have to simultaneously reason that Romney should have ditched Mormonism over BY's racism, or ETB's John Birch-ism, or the SCMC, or the priesthood ban, or polygamy, etc., etc.

Their (apparent) argument that you don't get to "pick and choose" within Mormonism is complete bunk, since, as we are told so often, sometimes "doctrine" isn't Doctrine, and moreover, that the Church is frequently plagued with "rogue" SPs and bishops who do their own thing.

Bottom line: the MADites are hypocrites.

FEW WACKO THINGS? LOL those FEW things are HUGE!