DCP Encourages Email Campaign Against Black Journalist

[_Kishkumen]

The thing is, I can get your criticism of Blow. Fine, I say--your attacking what appears to be a double standard. With the Mopologists, though, you will get people complaining about double standards who complain at the same time about "political correctness." Well, which is it? Do you want to be treated as a protected, minority group? Or do you want to be able to provide pretzle-logic avoidance games on the issue of whether or not Brigham Young--or other of the Brethren--said racist things? The Mopologists want to label things such as Blow's comment as "bigotry," but they are unwilling to concede--not even one inch!--that the institution to which they pledge loyalty is also guilty of bigotry.

Apologists rarely concede anything when acting as such. At the same time, attacking a Mormon over Brigham's polygamy is like attacking a Catholic over the Crusades. It is fair to criticize the Mormonism of the present, much less so a Mormonism past. That includes certain past discriminatory policies.

And regardless, I don't think there was any need to either send an email, nor to encourage others to do so.

Well, you aren't LDS, and you don't particularly care for Mormonism, so I am not surprised. Actual believing Mormons understandably may feel differently. I understand that in other ways you are very concerned about discrimination.

[_honorentheos]

i would suggest DCP and all who are taking the pot shots by others at mitt romney's Mormonism -you had better be prepared,if mitt becomes the republican nominee, for an onslaught on Mormonism (and mitt's connection to it) the likes of which those in happy valley or anywhere else for that matter have never ever seen before. as i write , i have it on very credible authority that democratic party ads being prepared and screened now,blog subjects being developed on mo'ism, research being performed on Joseph Smith, BY, polyamy, God as man, etc will be the lowest of low blows of any presidential election campaign. these ads and blogs by demo supporters of every kind will make the Book of Mormon musical seem as a primary skit.

so my advice to DCP and everyone else who is sensitive to the way Mormon beliefs, theology and culture are portrayed during the primaries, -be prepared , you will be absolutely shocked at the attack romney, if he is the nominee, and mormanism will receive as the demos push to win in nov.

you heard it first here- zion will be shaken to its very core!!!

k

I hope not, to be honest. First, because it would be in poor taste. And second, it could potentially backfire by causing sympathy for Romney if the ads are seen as attacking his religious beliefs rather than his political views.

[_harmony]

I'm trying to figure out how Romney is wrong?

Harmony, as a single dad raising two kids, my response to your attempt to figure out how Romney is wrong is as follows:

Go f*** yourself.

That doesn't explain how Romney is wrong.

[_harmony]

i would suggest DCP and all who are taking the pot shots by others at mitt romney's Mormonism -you had better be prepared,if mitt becomes the republican nominee, for an onslaught on Mormonism (and mitt's connection to it) the likes of which those in happy valley or anywhere else for that matter have never ever seen before. as i write , i have it on very credible authority that democratic party ads being prepared and screened now,blog subjects being developed on mo'ism, research being performed on Joseph Smith, BY, polyamy, God as man, etc will be the lowest of low blows of any presidential election campaign. these ads and blogs by demo supporters of every kind will make the Book of Mormon musical seem as a primary skit.

so my advice to DCP and everyone else who is sensitive to the way Mormon beliefs, theology and culture are portrayed during the primaries, -be prepared , you will be absolutely shocked at the attack romney, if he is the nominee, and mormanism will receive as the demos push to win in nov.

you heard it first here- zion will be shaken to its very core!!!

k

Not gonna make any difference to the average Mormon. There will be lots of talks about persecution though. What would make a difference would be if someone was able to hack into the bank accounts and publish the real facts about how the church takes care of the donations. Some active Mormons would likely get upset about those facts.

[_harmony]

I'm trying to figure out how Romney is wrong?

Hi Harmony,

I didn't say what Romney said was wrong. Statistically, what Romney said is correct in that a high percentage of Black as well as Native American children are born out off wedlock.

What I was getting at was how Romney said it, in particular how it came across to me live during the debate. Maybe it was the tone or the cadence of his comment, but when he took the statistic Rick Santorum had just cited about 40% of children being born out of wedlock and then added in rapid succession the comment about ethnic groups, then poverty, then abuse - it came across as being much more offensive than some of the quotes Romney has been hit with by the media in the recent past. For that reason, I think I understand Blow's feelings and why he said what he said at that point in time. And that is what I meant by it seemed to come from somewhere inside him. It's interesting that he'll be called out for saying something about owning multiple cars including Cadillacs and Ford Mustangs because it shows how out of touch he is, yet I didn't think twice about that comment. He's rich, of course he has more than one car and probably nice ones at that. The comment from the Arizona Debate was something else, to me anyway. Being "pro" two-parent households is understandable and that was how I read Santorum's response. Romney's response seemed to be an attempt to "one up" Santorum and how he chose to do so was done with poor judgment, in my opinion.

Anyway, the context made his comment seem "wrong" in a moral sense, not in a statistical sense.

Blow apologized and moved on. So, I don't know that his involvement is that much of an issue to me.

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

[_Doctor Scratch]

The thing is, I can get your criticism of Blow. Fine, I say--your attacking what appears to be a double standard. With the Mopologists, though, you will get people complaining about double standards who complain at the same time about "political correctness." Well, which is it? Do you want to be treated as a protected, minority group? Or do you want to be able to provide pretzle-logic avoidance games on the issue of whether or not Brigham Young--or other of the Brethren--said racist things? The Mopologists want to label things such as Blow's comment as "bigotry," but they are unwilling to concede--not even one inch!--that the institution to which they pledge loyalty is also guilty of bigotry.

Apologists rarely concede anything when acting as such. At the same time, attacking a Mormon over Brigham's polygamy is like attacking a Catholic over the Crusades. It is fair to criticize the Mormonism of the present, much less so a Mormonism past. That includes certain past discriminatory policies.

Like the Crusades? Well, no. But we don't have to lean on the BY example. Take Mark E. Petersen's racism if you want, which is less than a generation ago. Or the attacks on gays; the discriminatory practices against women. It doesn't much matter, does it? The point is, simply, Why point is there in going after a double standard when you (and by "you" I mean "the Mopologists") are supporting a double standard yourself? I.e., if you want to object to something like "magic underwear"--if you want to object so much, in fact, and you urge an email campaign against the guy who said it--how can you also do things like characterizing homosexuals as "degenerate Korihors"? What Dan did to this guy would be akin to us emailing his home department to complain about his butchered Camus quote, or the fact that he quotes freely from a noted and notoriously anti-semetic writer.

[_Kishkumen]

Like the Crusades? Well, no. But we don't have to lean on the BY example. Take Mark E. Petersen's racism if you want, which is less than a generation ago. Or the attacks on gays; the discriminatory practices against women. It doesn't much matter, does it? The point is, simply, Why point is there in going after a double standard when you (and by "you" I mean "the Mopologists") are supporting a double standard yourself? I.e., if you want to object to something like "magic underwear"--if you want to object so much, in fact, and you urge an email campaign against the guy who said it--how can you also do things like characterizing homosexuals as "degenerate Korihors"? What Dan did to this guy would be akin to us emailing his home department to complain about his butchered Camus quote, or the fact that he quotes freely from a noted and notoriously anti-semetic writer.

It may be the case that people have emailed BYU to complain about Daniel. I have no idea. It seems to me that there may be a conflict between individual hypocrisy and larger issues of power and prejudice. I bristle at Blow's words, and similar acts of derision, because I am still culturally Mormon. Being Mormon is a big part of who I am. And, I don't think that every Mormon should be the target of those who are eager to throw mud ignorantly at a whole community of people. I don't like the hypocrisy of the belief that it's OK to ridicule and dismiss Mormons because the LDS Church did or taught one controversial thing or another. I don't go around bagging on Catholics because I disagree with Mother Theresa's morbid fixation on human suffering, or Catholic opposition to birth control. I don't hold communists personally responsible for Stalin's atrocities. So why is it OK for people like Blow to casually ridicule a community of millions of people, when some media personalities have lost their jobs for similar infractions? I get that Mormons do and believe things we may not like. I just don't think that justifies turning prejudice and hatred back in their direction. I am not saying Blow should lose his job; I am saying that Mormons have a right to be upset and complain, even when it appears to be hypocritical of them to do so. If hypocrisy were a disqualifier, no community would be able to protect itself from such attacks, I would wager.

[_Darth J]

I'm trying to figure out how Romney is wrong?

Harmony, as a single dad raising two kids, my response to your attempt to figure out how Romney is wrong is as follows:

Go f*** yourself.

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.

[_Doctor Scratch]

That's exactly it, Darth. I saw Charles Blow's comment as a kind of visceral, knee-jerk response to what he saw as a broad-brush attack on single parents. Was what he said re: garments rash, and perhaps mean? Yeah, I suppose so. But I can at least understand why he did it, and given that context, I have to ask how and why an email campaign to the man's work is an appropriate or useful response. Blow has by now retracted his statement. Have the Mopologists done the same?

[_RayAgostini]

That's exactly it, Darth. I saw Charles Blow's comment as a kind of visceral, knee-jerk response to what he saw as a broad-brush attack on single parents. Was what he said re: garments rash, and perhaps mean? Yeah, I suppose so. But I can at least understand why he did it, and given that context, I have to ask how and why an email campaign to the man's work is an appropriate or useful response. Blow has by now retracted his statement. Have the Mopologists done the same?

Isn't This sufficient?