Robert F. Smith Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 ......................................................... Likewise for other communities. Black leaders have done little to help the black community get out of the problems the black community faces today. America is not a white black society. It is now a muliti racial society with the whites becoming a minority in the next few years. Also, african immigrants coming to america are doing very well in the states as can be seen from the recent research:..................................................................................................... My point: the lds church teaches wonderful values that can certainly help the african american community. Since african immigrants seem to fair better than african americans in the USA, something is inherently wrong within the community itself. And what have the black churches done to help the situation and black leaders who still pit race against race and see victimization from the outside in instead of from the inside out? I say to mormonnewb, instead of moaning about the lds church and a policy that happened years ago, I encourage him to be a missionary in the black community and lead his brothers and sisters to the lds church. Then, one will see a transformation in the community one baptism at a time.What you are saying is both true and false at the same time. It is true that Black immigrants from Africa and from Jamaica have done extremely well in America. However, they haven't had to deal with communal anger over slavery and racism in this country. It is not true that Black leaders in this country have not preached the truth to their communities. Many Black people have listened in recent generations and have made great strides into the middle class. Most of those have even left the Black community behind and moved into White suburbia for the same reasons the White folk did -- to get away from gangs and crime. I remember very well my first realization that a vast change had come the day when I had to see an orthopedist back in the late 1980s, and he was a Black man. Entirely competent and trustworthy. Next I went to see an opthalmologist, and she was Black, and with a wonderful sense of humor. I had no idea of their race beforehand, and didn't care, but I was gratified to see professional Black people moving on up. Since the 1980s I have had the great pleasure to work with many Black professionals in L.A. In some respects they treated me better than White folk. The same applies to my Hispanic and Asian colleagues. I took such great pleasure in seeing Los Angeles become such a cultural and racial mosaic. Now I live in Utah, and I do not detect any residual racism here either -- even if it is a throwback to the 1950s. 1
KevinG Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 If you want to hear harsh attitudes about the culture of victim hood talk to a successful Jamacian immigrant. They faced slavery too. My Jamacian employee has some strong opinions. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 If you want to hear harsh attitudes about the culture of victim hood talk to a successful Jamacian immigrant. They faced slavery too. My Jamacian employee has some strong opinions.The difference is that they had a huge slave rebellion in 1831 which led to the end of slavery for the entire British Empire in 1833. The great Colin Powell is of Jamaican ancestry and is typical. He has strong opinions too, as you may recall. I'd even vote for him for President, regardless of party affiliation. 1
rpn Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) So the church is essentially saying that gays should not be discriminated against in housing unless the landlord believes on religious grounds that gays are immoral. Then he can refuse to rent to them. So essentially, allowing for discrimination against gays. I don't think that is what Elder Oaks and Christopherson were saying on Thursday. I think they were saying that the values of religious freedom and nondiscrimination can neither be absolutes. (Meaning that in some situations it would NOT be okay for people to claim religious freedom to deny benefits to gays (or any other group.) And that people on both sides should start talking about where the lines should/could be drawn to appropriately respect both positions that represent important values. I would say that landlords who live in a fourplex or smaller housing complex could refuse to rent to unmarried couples, to gay couples, to families with children (it is currently illegal to discriminate on teh basis of marital status --- which leaves people of faith to feel compelled to support cohabitation that is against their faith; or for having children in many communities). Landlords who live in the bed and breakfast/hotels they own of less than ten rooms might also have that right. But no landlords of larger public accommodations (because for them the religious faith exception doesn't have as much impact, the cozy I'm inviting you into my family atmosphere and expect you to respect my standards doesn't really apply in a larger establishment. (As a practicle matter, I'm not sure how someone can have a deeply felt religious believe against gay couples and be able to rent to cohabitating opposite sex couples without issue. And I don't see how one could ever have a deeply felt religious believe that prevented renting to someone just because they are gay, either, so long as the issue of gay couplehood did not exist.) I think that the exception that the church wants to be able to that somehow controls all of the housing in Provo, Rexburg should not apply, but that landlords within __ miles of a college in college towns should be able to establish single sex and single language dorms, and any other separate options that they choose (like alchohol free dorms, and no non-roommates in the apartment after ten dorms, etc ,). AND that colleges should be able to designate their own conditions for on campus housing whether based on religious belief, or what is best for their students. (This is I would permit a sole proprietor, S corp, partnership, closely held corp, where the owners were actively engaged in daily management on site, to decline to create, make, sell, service, use or distribute items that are they do not approve of on religious grounds, IF they polled their employees and were unable to identify an employee who did not have religious objections to create, make or sell etc. the item, and IF they had non-discriminatory hiring practices. But I would require that they must provide that prospective customer a flyer given them by the government identifying nearby competitors who were willing to provide the service or sell the item. I would permit employees to refuse to sell or provide services that violate their deeply felt religious beliefs without repercussion, so long as they advised their employer or a manager so that some one else could be found to do it, and provided the person requesting it with a government provided flyer identifying other places they could get it. I would not allow employees or business owners to encourage, persuade, or advocate among their employees to object to selling or providing services based on religious belief. (Let's face it, many religious people would not object to selling a wedding cake to a gay couple, even if they objected to placing a same gendered couple figurine on top. And others would not object to that either. And many people of faith do not see R386 as an abortion pill and would have no problem selling it. So letting bosses or fellow employees badger others to adopt their religious interpretations would undermine the whole careful protection of validly held belief.) I would prohibit retaliation in the form of change in employment conditions or housing, or public calls or support for boycotting a business for speech, donations or voting, enforced by automatic fines, tripled with attorney fees if the injured party had to sue to collect. (Everyone would absolutely be free to stop using any business and wear a sticker saying "I'm not longer shopping at X". But when they began publically organizing a boycott of a business because of actions based on religious belief, that would cross the line.) (This one probably needs some more work.) Edited January 31, 2015 by rpn 1
why me Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) What you are saying is both true and false at the same time. It is true that Black immigrants from Africa and from Jamaica have done extremely well in America. However, they haven't had to deal with communal anger over slavery and racism in this country. It is not true that Black leaders in this country have not preached the truth to their communities. Many Black people have listened in recent generations and have made great strides into the middle class. Most of those have even left the Black community behind and moved into White suburbia for the same reasons the White folk did -- to get away from gangs and crime. The fact that african immigrants are succeeding because of hard work and strong family values would take the wind out of the sail of mormonnewb's race baiting posts. I have not seen a post, and of course, I could have missed it, where he looks inward into the community itself. He tends to look outward, primarily by focusing on white people. Unfortunately, the black american faces racism from africans too. Not to mention asians. We need to remember that during the riots in LA it was the korean community that suffered the most when it came to store burnings and lootings. The black leaders who take media attention are the race baiters and the leaders who incite anger. My point was simple: if the american black community would embrace lds values, the community would be stronger. Mormonnewb would do well to be a missionary among the black community, and preach the gospel to them: the word of wisdom, self reliance, body as temple, education, chasity, honesty, etc. But like I said, these values are for all. But instead of concentrating on this, we have countless threads about blacks and the priesthood from the past. And mormonewb heads to the black church because they care about the black community. Really? He needs to be a ward missionary in the black community so that black americans can have the same benefits that he has: a strong family centered in good healthy values. If he truly wants to help black people, teach them the word of wisdom and other fine principles. I understand the problem of history very well. But there comes a time when we all need to saddle up and leave the past behind. Hard but necessary. We just need to find the right saddle. Edited January 31, 2015 by why me
mormonnewb Posted January 31, 2015 Author Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) The fact that african immigrants are succeeding because of hard work and strong family values would take the wind out of the sail of mormonnewb's race baiting posts. I have not seen a post, and of course, I could have missed it, where he looks inward into the community itself. He tends to look outward, primarily by focusing on white people. Unfortunately, the black american faces racism from africans too. Not to mention asians. We need to remember that during the riots in LA it was the korean community that suffered the most when it came to store burnings and lootings. The black leaders who take media attention are the race baiters and the leaders who incite anger. My point was simple: if the american black community would embrace lds values, the community would be stronger. Mormonnewb would do well to be a missionary among the black community, and preach the gospel to them: the word of wisdom, self reliance, body as temple, education, chasity, honesty, etc. But like I said, these values are for all. But instead of concentrating on this, we have countless threads about blacks and the priesthood from the past. And mormonewb heads to the black church because they care about the black community. Really? He needs to be a ward missionary in the black community so that black americans can have the same benefits that he has: a strong family centered in good healthy values. If he truly wants to help black people, teach them the word of wisdom and other fine principles. I understand the problem of history very well. But there comes a time when we all need to saddle up and leave the past behind. Hard but necessary. We just need to find the right saddle. WHAT are you talking about? For one, please define "race baiting." I've been black most of my entire life (I don't count the eight years that I lived in Boston) and yet, I can't even fathom how my blackness is "bait" for anything? Or is it just a reflexive term so that ANY conversation dealing with race can be dismissed as being something for which "we need to leave the past behind"? Until such time as I start a thread called "Random Claims Made by O'Reilly," I'm really not interested in your attempts to halt conversation by throwing out terms that have no meaning whatsoever. Second, I have no interest in debating your theories on the problem of black culture, because that isn't what this thread (or board) is about. Race came up in this context in making parallels between the Church's "PR problem" with the priesthood ban and its current PR problem on SSM. No one was trying to "relitigate" the case on whether the ban was right or wrong. Certainly, no one was attempted to resolve the problems of "black America." We were trying to discuss whether the Church would ever cave to political pressure and, if so, would that cause a mass exodus from the Church (which is why we got bogged down in member reactions in the immediate aftermath of OD2). It was an attempt to draw parallels (or make distinctions). Now, why YOU saw that as some secret plot by Sharpton and Jackson to divide the nation (and this board) by "inciting anger" is beyond my capacity for comprehension. Calmoriah certainly didn't seem to sense such hostility. She provided me with helpful resources that served to give me a clearer perception of the general atmosphere at the time (although I'm sure they will be greatly supplemented when Brother Stevenson's book arrives). And to my knowledge, we exchanged just a few racial and gender slurs in the process (yes, I'm teasing ... or as you would call it, "baiting"). Seriously, every mention of race is not an indictment of all white people -- just most of you (yes, I'm just "baiting"). But if you'd really like for the message of the Restored Gospel to be embraced by black Americans, then this must be a topic that the saints are willing to discuss because believe it or not, I am relatively mild in my critiques of Mormons in this regard. And I'm completely serious. I have been educated in predominately white schools. I've spent most of my career working in what might be statistically the whitest profession in America -- lawyers. I live in an all-white neighborhood and obviously, go to an all-white church. I am about as comfortable in all-white environs as any black man. So if I have questions, I PROMISE you that my family members and the people I grew up with in "the hood" are going to have LOTS of questions. And it might be a good idea if you "practice" your answers on me, because SOME of my brothers and sisters don't have my always cheerful demeanor. So instead of seeing every mention of race as an effort to "race bait," perhaps you could see it as an opportunity to understand how we can help someone see past the issue so that they can grasp the restored gospel and we can be fishers of men (can a black man be poetic or what?). Edited January 31, 2015 by mormonnewb
why me Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 WHAT are you talking about? I have been educated in predominately white schools. I've spent most of my career working in what might be statistically the whitest profession in America -- lawyers. I live in an all-white neighborhood and obviously, go to an all-white church. I am about as comfortable in all-white environs as any black man. So if I have questions, I PROMISE you that my family members and the people I grew up with in "the hood" are going to have LOTS of questions. And it might be a good idea if you "practice" your answers on me, because SOME of my brothers and sisters don't have my always cheerful demeanor. So instead of seeing every mention of race as an effort to "race bait," perhaps you could see it as an opportunity to understand how we can help someone see past the issue so that they can grasp the restored gospel and we can be fishers of men (can a black man be poetic or what?). The black american community needs the lds church and its values and way of life. I would let the spirit guide me as it has done in the past. You would be a great missionary in the black community. Tell your testimony, tell what it has done for your life and let the spirit do its work. The church is growing in africa. Why? And it can grow in the black community too. The gospel is for everyone. That was my point.
Recommended Posts