Another religious topic......
- Thread starter pickledXgrandma
- Start date
Yeah, Obama went to that church and it didn't take him much time to distance and abandon it when he was more than a Senator. I'm sure attending it made him look good the community that elected him, and that's about it. Then again I do find it shocking that a politician would do something for political reasons. All that being said, if that church was so powerful in daily life how come nobody outside of Chicago had ever heard of it before Obama ran for office? At least the other two nutjobs you listed had been heard of, though they are pretty much taken as a joke by the large majority of the populace.
Again, your assertion is that they are out there twisting black arms into voting Democrat. I don't buy that. Whether you like Democrat policies or not, blacks on the whole tend to and will vote for them, mostly because blacks on the whole tend to be poorer than most other groups in this country. It's a rather simple concept that people vote for who they feel represents their best interests, and the poor getting funding for the government is an interest for them.
Not much of a freduen slip, unless you can tell me how the word "market" really applies. Mostly just a continuation of one word to another that I type constantly.
You can laugh at whatever, it doesn't make it less true. What political power do these guys have? It's a bloc that has been voting Democrat regardless of religion for the past 30-40 years or so, ever since the end of the Civil Rights era and the southern Democrats died out and the GOP took their place. They don't need the pulpit. The pulpit capitalizes on their feelings and preaches to their constituents, which is pretty good if you want the collection plate to fill with money. And Obama is no proof of that clout whatsoever. Obama would have been the President if he would have went to the most white bread Presbyterian church in the world. He is a political genius, as most guys who win the Presidency are. He threw Jeremiah Wright under the bus so fast that you can still see tread marks on the guy's face.
I have no idea what religious reasoning the LDS used to deny blacks from the priesthood, and I don't care. People used to use religious reasoning to justify slavery, and they were wrong then. I don't think there has been a black pope, although the difference there is I don't think there is a stated prohibition against it. And frankly, I'm not fan of the Catholic church at all so I wouldn't defend them. And if "Dawiniacs" believe that blacks are the closest thing to apes in the human race, then yes, it is black mark on them, though I don't believe that's true for a second.
I have no idea what you're talking about. This all started with the simple statement that I believe that the LDS church denying blacks into the priesthood was a bad period in their history. It's really as simple as that. If that is having a chip on my shoulder than, hm, well, you must have an amazingly low standard as to what defines that.
Mormon doctrine with regard to blacks was never very well-developed, and there were always facts within the Mormon community that ran in opposite directions . Mormons were mostly "Christian" prior to their becoming Mormons, mostly northern and abolitionist. . . . and later mostly British, in the period where "No sugar in my tea" was a civil protest against the slave trade, which was taking blacks to the Carribean sugar plantations owned by Brits.
Southern converts were required to give their slaves their freedom as a necessary step into Mormonism, because "It is not right that any man should be held in bondage."
Mormon teachings contained diverse statements about curses causing God to "change" some people's skin color, while later in the same Book of Mormon related how some dark-skinned "Lamanites" were more righteous than the "Nephites", or treated their wives and families better. Common Mormons used to believe the Lamanites would become white again, and open statements about the justice of God plainly claimed that blacks who faithfully served the Lord, though lacking the Priesthood in this life, would receive all God has to offer in God's due time.
While ignorance is universal, and human prejudice the common lot. . . . and can really only be treated with patience and effort to advance understanding of others. . . . the argument to show actual Mormon doctrine on the subject of blacks to be related to scriptural beliefs arising from the Abrahamic covenant originally, with references to lore pre-dating even that, is sometimes not allowed into the discussion. The Mormon idea of a "universal priesthood" is quite unique and distinct from Christian and Jewish origins, though. In the chapters of the Bible where it is written that God wants a "nation of priests", the scriptural origin of LDS "universal" priesthood ideas, also contains specific restrictions on marriages and acceptance of named tribes listed as descendants of Ham in the same "Law of Moses". Some dispassionate, objective erudite historian might call this mere tribalism, and note that the tribes named were so "judged" on an issues of their behavior, not their skin, and that anyway they are not known today, etc etc etc, but the Bible goes on several hundreds of years later to deal with the same issue again. And decries Solomon for not observing the distinctions.
But Christians early on dropped those ideas in the crush of believing Jesus' atonement was universal, and there is no "known to me" evidence of Christians having restrictions on blacks in regard to holding office in the early Church. However Mormonism arose, it did so in a context where there was a lot of contention in regard to race. We were doing genocide against the natives, and holding humans as slaves, and politically fighting to maintain/abolish slavery. We even went through a civil war on the subject. Mormons supported the North.
In the mix of all that, the main appeal of Mormonism was "restoration", of the Biblical covenant people, and they read the Bible, and got their doctrine from the Bible on that subject. And did not "hate" blacks or exclude them from membership or meetings, and made some exceptions to their rules, and carried divided ideals all the way.
What I am saying is that people, like Nate, who make statements about Mormon "racism", are ignorant of the history, the angst within Mormonism, and the compassion most Mormons have always had for all people. It seems to me that Mormons deserve to be understood in better terms, and that sentiments promoting throwing out hate-laden vitriol like "racist" are actually just as ignorant as any Mormon ever was.
We're a long way from being perfect, as humans of any kind. Understanding and tolerance are necessary conditions for people to have their inalienable human rights. I think it is worthwhile to make the effort.
The right to speech and belief is just as sacred as the right to go to the nearest toilet. The Mormons deserve that.
Wow, that was an amazing display of apologism. Truly stunning. All of which does absolutely nothing to refute that the LDS church had restrictions that were racially based. But great job of trying to excuse it, that's like wonderful.
So the early days of the LDS were people who were abolitionists. That's great, and something they should be proud of. They treated natives good as well. Again, that's good. I knew all that. I was not ignorant of that history. That does not excuse a near century of racism after it. And frankly, I doubt this would have been an issue if they were excluding blacks from the priesthood until the 40s or 50s or whatever. The US was a pretty racist place in those times. However, they kept the exclusion up until 1978, well after Jim Crow had been abolished. When you're slow to change with your racist beliefs that's not a good thing. Imagine if they still held these beliefs today. They would be getting roasted over the coals, and rightfully so, because civil rights in this country have made great progress since the 60s, and most groups who practice any sort of exclusionary ideas based on race are way behind the times.
The last sentence is just a pathetic strawman. Nobody is denying Mormons their right to speech or belief, and nobody has never made that claim. They are protected under the First Amendment like everyone else. Not to mention you're acting like I'm painting the LDS church with some sort of horrible brush. I have nothing against the LDS church. They have a bad period of their history like damn near any group that has been around forever has, and my biggest criticism of it is that it took them too long to get past it and that's why it looks so bad. This isn't just limited to the LDS church. My family is Methodist and I love that church to death, despite being an agnostic. However the Methodist church to this day does not allow gay pastors, and I believe it is a dark mark on the church that still stands. Doesn't mean I hate the Methodist church and don't understand or tolerate members of the church or people who agree with that view. But IMO, it's wrong, and I believe in the future people will be looking at it as an intolerant time in the church's history. Now if in 20-30 years there are other mainstream Protestant denominations that allow gay priests and gay rights are more concrete in this country (like their right to marry) and the Methodist church still doesn't allow it, that will look much worse on them.
So the early days of the LDS were people who were abolitionists. That's great, and something they should be proud of. They treated natives good as well. Again, that's good. I knew all that. I was not ignorant of that history. That does not excuse a near century of racism after it. And frankly, I doubt this would have been an issue if they were excluding blacks from the priesthood until the 40s or 50s or whatever. The US was a pretty racist place in those times. However, they kept the exclusion up until 1978, well after Jim Crow had been abolished. When you're slow to change with your racist beliefs that's not a good thing. Imagine if they still held these beliefs today. They would be getting roasted over the coals, and rightfully so, because civil rights in this country have made great progress since the 60s, and most groups who practice any sort of exclusionary ideas based on race are way behind the times.
The last sentence is just a pathetic strawman. Nobody is denying Mormons their right to speech or belief, and nobody has never made that claim. They are protected under the First Amendment like everyone else. Not to mention you're acting like I'm painting the LDS church with some sort of horrible brush. I have nothing against the LDS church. They have a bad period of their history like damn near any group that has been around forever has, and my biggest criticism of it is that it took them too long to get past it and that's why it looks so bad. This isn't just limited to the LDS church. My family is Methodist and I love that church to death, despite being an agnostic. However the Methodist church to this day does not allow gay pastors, and I believe it is a dark mark on the church that still stands. Doesn't mean I hate the Methodist church and don't understand or tolerate members of the church or people who agree with that view. But IMO, it's wrong, and I believe in the future people will be looking at it as an intolerant time in the church's history. Now if in 20-30 years there are other mainstream Protestant denominations that allow gay priests and gay rights are more concrete in this country (like their right to marry) and the Methodist church still doesn't allow it, that will look much worse on them.
Nice thread, would skim again.
Well, no straw man there. I disagree with your whole rant here, but it's like talking to OB. Of course I'd disavow the situation if it were as you portray it. And of course, unless you want to understand what I said, you're going to react to it in terms of your own prejudices.
Maybe you're not ready to change your ways. Too bad. Maybe forty years from now your kid will carp about how you didn't listen and understand something when you should have.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I guess if you want that mind field his dogs are leaving, you are welcome to it.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
This conversation has raised a question I have been wondering about. Are there varying degrees of racism, or is every single racist act or attitude exactly equal to any other? Is the lds church denying the priesthood to blacks, while in no other way restricting anyone at all exactly the same as, say, the kkk burning Crosses and hanging blacks?
No straw man? You actually wrote this:
"The right to speech and belief is just as sacred as the right to go to the nearest toilet. The Mormons deserve that. "
Who was denying the Mormons their right to free speech and belief? Nobody was here, and especially not me, the person you were responding to. Yet you presented this as some sort of argument and then attacked it. It's the classic definition of a straw man.
I have no idea what you mean about "changing my ways." The LDS church has a past history of racism, but they changed that in '78 which is great for them. IMO they did it too late, but they did it and I have no real issues with the church other than certain social policy issues. But they are totally free to have them. I doubt this is some sort of horrid and unique position I take. You come off like an apologist who just can't admit that your side actually did wrong in the past because you bizarrely believe it would invalidate your whole position/religion/etc.
Absolutely not. The KKKs brand of racism is far far worse. The Mormon brand was just shameful, the KKKs is criminal and barbaric.
How about this question.
When we have to fill out some "informational, statistical" survey on if we are "white, non hispanic", or blablabla.... does that reinforce any racism that still exists in this country? Every time I fill out a job application, government paperwork, etc.... are they in a way saying "we want you to be reminded every day if possible that you are different than other people around you"?
Is the government racist?
Is the government giving something to companies that hire people of a certain race, supporting racism in our country?
Are professional sports racists to the core?
There is a huge percentage difference in the number of athletes that make up the NFL, NBA, MLB vs the percentage breakdown of races in the US, or in the world. Should the government give teams a break for tax purposes if they hire someone white-non hispanic, or native american, or indian or something? This is a huge injustice!!!!! My son, who could be white-non hispanic is disadvantaged when it comes to his dream of playing in the NBA, the odds are stacked against him, and we need to fix this injustice!!!!
When we have to fill out some "informational, statistical" survey on if we are "white, non hispanic", or blablabla.... does that reinforce any racism that still exists in this country? Every time I fill out a job application, government paperwork, etc.... are they in a way saying "we want you to be reminded every day if possible that you are different than other people around you"?
Is the government racist?
Is the government giving something to companies that hire people of a certain race, supporting racism in our country?
Are professional sports racists to the core?
There is a huge percentage difference in the number of athletes that make up the NFL, NBA, MLB vs the percentage breakdown of races in the US, or in the world. Should the government give teams a break for tax purposes if they hire someone white-non hispanic, or native american, or indian or something? This is a huge injustice!!!!! My son, who could be white-non hispanic is disadvantaged when it comes to his dream of playing in the NBA, the odds are stacked against him, and we need to fix this injustice!!!!
I disagree.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
People from Africa origins are, as a whole, slightly stronger and faster for a couple of reasons, one is Allen's Rule. Another is white slaveowners only let mate their strongest slaves. After a couple of generations of that, it increased the average athleticism of slaves. The biggest reason though is the mentality that people have. Black people are poorer as a whole and one way to escape the slums is professional athlete. Black people want it more. I would say it is 99% mentality. Are Asians smarter then whites who are smarter then Mexicans and Blacks?? HELL NO. Gotta get your mind straight and correct habbits down and the difference in intellect between people is miniscule, this is same for natural athleticism though not quite to the same extent as intellect as you still gotta have height and decent proportions. Bruce Lee was one of the weakest kids growing up for example and was a beast before he died just to provide an extreme example.
Now Black people and Mexicans are poorer as a whole then whites. Of course this is ONLY due to the upbringing they have etc and not because whites deserve the better jobs. The government is trying to fix this so Blacks and Mexicans have a slightly easier time getting into good schools and some jobs, they aren't doing enough imo.
So Black people want it more, so they become professional athletes. All those white athletes that say they really wanted to become professional athletes, just didn't really want it bad enough deep down. It's not that they are just a step slower or less athletic. Like I said, the government needs to step in and fix this unfair advantage just like they do with the other races that just don't want to become coaches, doctors, lawyers bad enough.
By the way, there are plenty of poor white people too. How about we put in an effort to help all races of people instead of just focusing on helping different types of people?
Maybe there's a way we can take the slums out of the people and let them take themselves out of the slums, instead of taking people out of the slums, and now they are out of the slums but are still of the same mindset.
By the way, what's with the handle? Couldn't you just be "The Swordsman"?
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
You don't want it more by saying you want it more. It's all about your actions, working out harder, or studying more then others etc.
They are helping people in the slums from every race about equally, you don't get more welfare for being Black.
Being black you get advantages when doing things like applying to Medical School.
Most people applying to medical school were able to afford all of 4 year university and are far from the slums.
The Black Swordsman is actually a white guy in black armor in a comic book...
They are helping people in the slums from every race about equally, you don't get more welfare for being Black.
Being black you get advantages when doing things like applying to Medical School.
Most people applying to medical school were able to afford all of 4 year university and are far from the slums.
The Black Swordsman is actually a white guy in black armor in a comic book...
1- So people in the slums just need to work harder, or study more to get out of the slums?
2- Welfare doesn't really help people they way they have it set up, it enables.
3- Businesses do get financial help for hiring people of certain races.
4- I know for a fact that people going through medical school get some insane loans available to them in anticipation that they will make a ton of money and pay it back. It is possible that kids from poorer families have much more stress and real life things to deal with that take them away from their studies, which makes it difficult for them to become doctors and such... but it is still possible. Like you said earlier, if you want it bad enough you will be able to do it. There are plenty of inspirational stories of people overcoming the odds and earning for themselves a better situation.
5- Good to know on the comic book thing. I'm really out of date when it comes to my comic book knowledge. I guess I just don't want it bad enough.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
1) I NEVER said poor people have it fair or close to fair. ALL I am saying is that Black and White people from the slums are equally screwed. YOU are the one saying that they should help black and white people equally in the slums. All I am saying is that they do and it is bad for both.
2)Same as number 1.
3) Ya they need like a certain percent of each race, the same percent that the American population is made up of. Lets say 14% of Americans are Black, they get financial help for close to 14%.
4) I agree with you there.
5) Hey man I never said you needed to know, I'm just saying where the Black in my name comes from because you asked.
2)Same as number 1.
3) Ya they need like a certain percent of each race, the same percent that the American population is made up of. Lets say 14% of Americans are Black, they get financial help for close to 14%.
4) I agree with you there.
5) Hey man I never said you needed to know, I'm just saying where the Black in my name comes from because you asked.
on the #5 thing, I got you. I was just saying I must not have wanted comic book knowledge in my life, or I would have tried harder to get it.
haha haha ha bleh
As to the welfare system, I don't like it. I think it is just a handout to people, who get in a rut and stay where/who they are, with their hand out waiting for more. There should be some sort of accountability, give and take, progression, something to actually help people that truly do need the temporary help so eventually they are self sufficient. As it is, many people on welfare have children and raise those kids to also live off of welfare. This just exacerbates the problem.
It's similar to that overused saying, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
My dogs leave little bits of their brains on the front lawn. Don't you two idiots look STUPID!!!