DCP Encourages Email Campaign Against Black Journalist

[_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?

Isn't This sufficient?

No. I think there should be a retraction of the call to send emails.

[_Droopy]

Check this out:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/02 ... -mitt.html

This journalist Charles M. Blow, who is African American, made an off-the-cuff comment on his Twitter feed in reaction to a comment about that Romney made about single parents (Blow is apparently a single parent himself). So, in other words, this was a rather casual, knee-jerk response to something that appears to be an emotional issue for Mr. Blow. This comment has no obvious connection whatsoever to Blow's job with the New York Times, and yet DCP is urging readers of his blog to complain to Blow's boss:

If you find such comments and attitudes inappropriate for a serious journalist at a serious newspaper, feel free to contact Mr. Arthur Brisbane, the "public editor" of the Times...

Yes, the guy is rather obviously a bigot who thinks he can mock and jeer at things that are sacred to others. As a journalist who makes his living at public writing, he should be held accountable. What problem do you have with this, Scratch?

My only problem with the initial comment on the blog is that, while mocking anything Muslim will at present get you broken on the rack of multicultural ideological purity, its been open season on Jews (and especially in there most nefarious guise, that of "neoconservatism") in this country, in the U.K., and on the Continent for a number of years now.

[_Droopy]

With the Mopologists, though, you will get people complaining about double standards who complain at the same time about "political correctness."

Oh, a few "Mopologists" are, nonetheless for being Mopologists, neck deep in political correctness. Most, however, avoid it as detrimental to both intellectual and spiritual health (as do many non-members of the Church).

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.

Besides the fact that your argument here is a logical maze with no outlet (even if a cogent argument could be made that the institutional Church was ever "racist" in the normal North American sense of the term, this has no logical relation to individual non-racist members (the vast majority, like the vast majority of other white Americans) demanding accountability regarding another individual bigot), the Church was never "racist" in anything like that sense (not to say individual members and leaders held some of the common idea about black people in past generations). The Priesthood ban (and I'm not going to go around the sugar bowl again with this, because I know your not listening) was about lineage, not skin color.

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.

There was nothing wrong with Brigham's, Joseph's, or anyone else's plural marriage so long as it was entered into according to the laws of the Priesthood and for the appropriate reasons by the appropriate authority.

Take Mark E. Petersen's racism if you want, which is less than a generation ago.

Ahhh, bringing "railing accusation" again. Was Peterson a "racist?" Perhaps in some sense (and so was Peter), but as I've vainly attempted to point out, years on end, had you and most, if not all of the sanctimonious liberal moral posturers in this forum been born and enculturated in his generation, you probably have hardly escaped the prevailing assumptions regarding general black inferiority.

Or the attacks on gays;

The church has never attacked homosexuals. CFR.

the discriminatory practices against women.

This is a hoot. You clearly still don't understand LDS doctrine well enough to engage this subject intelligently.

...how can you also do things like characterizing homosexuals as "degenerate Korihors"?

That's in quotes. Could you provide the source and the larger context?

The bulk of your post, Scratch, is nothing but a poorly manufactured, artificially concocted attack on the church for your own emotional and psychological catharsis. Someday you may actually catch up with Graham in the obsessive gadfly department.

[_Darth J]

Besides the fact that your argument here is a logical maze with no outlet (even if a cogent argument could be made that the institutional Church was ever "racist" in the normal North American sense of the term, this has no logical relation to individual non-racist members (the vast majority, like the vast majority of other white Americans) demanding accountability regarding another individual bigot), the Church was never "racist" in anything like that sense (not to say individual members and leaders held some of the common idea about black people in past generations).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_thought_disorder

In psychiatry, thought disorder (TD) or formal thought disorder (FTD) is a term used to describe incomprehensible language, either speech or writing, that is presumed to reflect thinking. There are different types. For example, language may be difficult to understand if it switches quickly from one unrelated idea to another (flight of ideas) or if it is long-winded and very delayed at reaching its goal (circumstantiality) or if words are inappropriately strung together resulting in gibberish (word salad).

The Priesthood ban (and I'm not going to go around the sugar bowl again with this, because I know your not listening)

Your/You're

was about lineage, not skin color.

Racism is about lineage, not skin color.

You know the Nazis who sent Jews to concentration camps? They were the same skin color.

You know the ethnic cleansing in places like Africa and Bosnia? It involves people of the same skin color.

[_Darth J]

There was nothing wrong with Brigham's, Joseph's, or anyone else's plural marriage so long as it was entered into according to the laws of the Priesthood and for the appropriate reasons by the appropriate authority.

Joseph Smith's plural marriages were not entered into according to the laws of the priesthood and for the appropriate reasons, which we find in D&C 132.

Therefore, by his own allegedly revealed standards, there was something wrong.

[_Droopy]

Hi Darth. At one time, I thought Kevin Graham was the most intellectually unqualified interlocutor in any room, but I may have to reconsider that dubious distinction in your case.

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.

I reference again the fact that the white, European gentiles from whom the early members of the Church sprang were under an effective priesthood ban for nearly two millennia, according to the Church's own teachings. Indeed, they were under an effective Church membership ban, as the gospel wasn't even present among them until the early 19th century.

You know the Nazis who sent Jews to concentration camps? They were the same skin color.

And all the American Indians, Mexicans, South Americans, dark skinned Polynesians, Asians, and Eskimos Mormons have been baptizing since the inception of the church are...what Darth? Different skin colors, hair texture, and physical appearance.

The single exception of black people here is in no sense similar to traditional white ethnocentrism, which was historically broad in its bigotry and encompassed blacks, Latin Americans, Asians, Jews, and even other Caucasian groups, such as Italians and Irish. This single exception indicates to me something quite other than "race" as the determining factor. That factor is lineage, to which skin color was simply correlated.

I don't expect a foaming anti-intellectual bigot like yourself to accept any of this, as I don't expect a foaming anti-Mormon bigot who fills oceans of bandwidth with anti-LDS screeds and mocking derision of others religion to carefully and honestly engage dissenting views.

I leave it here only as chum in already bloody waters.

[_Darth J]

[/irrelevant banter]

race

1.
a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2.
a population so related.
3.
Anthropology .
a.
any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b.
an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c.
a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4.
a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5.
any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

racism
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

race
1:
a breeding stock of animals
2
a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
3
a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : breed c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
4
obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5
: distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

racism

1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

[_Darth J]

Have you ever noticed how many internet Mormon crusaders affirm your point while claiming to refute it?

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.

[_Droopy]

Have you ever noticed how many internet Mormon crusaders affirm your point while claiming to refute it?

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

[_Darth J]

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.