The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[smac97]

So there are apparently strong feelings about the MoTab Choir performing at the inauguration of President-elect Trump.  I had a few thoughts I wanted to share, and then invite others to weigh in as well.  Although this touches on "political" partisanship, I hope we can generally refrain from getting into political argument.  

And now, a few thoughts:

1. The Tabernacle Choir has been invited to perform in five previous inaugurations: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Richard M. Nixon in 1969, Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and George W. Bush in 2001.  

2. The common element in the foregoing inaugurations is that the incoming president had won the popular vote in Utah.  

3. The Choir has also previously performed for other presidents in other venues, including William Howard Taft, who attended a concert in the Tabernacle on Sept. 26, 1909, and also concerts in the White House for Taft again on Nov. 15, 1911, and later sang for Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter.

4. I suspect that all of these performances were given at the invitation of the president (with the possible exception of the concern at the 1909 Tabernacle concert attended by Pres. Taft).

5. The above list pretty much establishes that the Choir's performances before U.S. presidents have been nonpartisan.

6. This last election cycle has been particularly (singularly?) divisive in terms of political ideology and affiliation.

7. In the news today is an item about a member of the Choir, Jan Chamberlin, who has quit the Choir specifically because it is going to perform at next month's inauguration:

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY — A member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has submitted her resignation from the choir, saying “I could never look myself in the mirror again with self respect” if she were to perform with the choir at Donald Trump’s inauguration next month.

Jan Chamberlin announced her resignation in an email to choir president Ron Jarrett and the rest of the choir. Earlier this month, the choir accepted an invitation to perform at the January 20 inauguration in Washington D.C.

In a statement sent to FOX 13 Friday, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said participation in the choir, including performance at the inauguration, is voluntary.

“Only a limited number of Choir members are participating (the number is limited by the Inaugural committee), and none are required to participate,” the statement said.

In Chamberlin’s message to Jarrett and the choir, she expressed concerns that performing at the inauguration will have a negative effect on the public’s perception of the choir.

So she was not required to perform at the inauguration, so her very public resignation appears to be more politicized grandstanding than anything else (if you doubt this, read the rest of the above-linked article, which quotes Sis. Chamberlin's comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler, and his pending administration to "tyranny and fa{s}cism").  She also publicly posted her resignation letter on Facebook.

8. While I understand and respect Sis. Chamberlin's decision, I think her publicizing her political disagreement with Mr. Trump is in stark contrast with the Choir's demonstrated nonpartisanship.

9. Daniel Peterson recently commented on the same issue raised by Sis. Chamberlin (whether an inaugural performance by the Choir constitutes some sort of endorsement of the incoming administration):

Quote

I know that some, both Trumpists and critics of Trump, will try to spin the Choir’s appearance at the inauguration as some kind of endorsement, specifically, of Mr. Donald J. Trump’s election.  That will be unfair and unjust.  It’s a celebration, rather, of the peaceful transfer of power — something that remains a considerable and historically rather uncommon achievement — in a great democratic republic that, Latter-day Saints believe, was to some degree established by the hand of God himself.

I think that's right.  Dr. Peterson also wrote a slightly longer blog entry on this issue: Another thought on the Trump inauguration and the Tabernacle Choir.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Some are really upset, apparently, that by accepting an invitation for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to sing at the inauguration of Donald Trump and Mike Pence, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is making a political statement.

This is nonsense.

The Tabernacle Choir has already performed at the inaugural ceremonies for the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson (1965), as well as for the Republicans Richard M. Nixon (1969), Ronald Reagan (1981), George H.W. Bush (1989) and George W. Bush (2001).  So far as I’m aware the Choir has performed at every presidential inauguration to which it has been invited.  

So the determinative issue is not whether the Choir (and, hence, the Church itself) is "endorsing" political administrations.  Rather, the issue is . . . whether the Choir is invited to perform or not.

Quote

Accepting the invitation to perform at the Trump inauguration isn’t a political statement.  Fully anticipating that controversy would ensue, I almost wish that the invitation hadn’t been extended, great honor to the Choir though it is.  Once the invitation had been extended, however, refusing it would have made a political statement.  Accepting it doesn’t.

This is, I think, quite correct.  Jan Chamberlin has done far more to inject partisan political hostilities into the Choir's upcoming performance than the performance itself.

The Choir's acceptance of an invitation to perform is simply an extension of the Choir's ongoing nonpartisan track record.  Rejecting the invitation, on the other hand, would have been nakedly partisan.

Quote

P.S.  If Mr. Trump were to invite me to Washington DC for advice and counsel ... I would go.   Despite the fact that I publicly and vocally affiliated myself with the “Never Trump” movement at a very early point and wrote against him as energetically as I could, and despite the fact that I didn’t vote for him, I respect the office of the presidency enough, and I love my country enough, that I would do so.  It would scarcely be an “endorsement.”

I echo these sentiments.  I think we as individuals should respect the office of the president, even if we don't respect the individual holding it.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 30, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

If you have to go back 50+ years to claim non-partisanship you don't know what it means.

[halconero]

My thoughts?

Maranatha. I'm tired.

Edited December 30, 2016 by halconero

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So there are apparently strong feelings about the MoTab Choir performing at the inauguration of President-elect Trump.  I had a few thoughts I wanted to share, and then invite others to weigh in as well.  Although this touches on "political" partisanship, I hope we can generally refrain from getting into political argument.  

And now, a few thoughts:

1. The Tabernacle Choir has been invited to perform in five previous inaugurations: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Richard M. Nixon in 1969, Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and George W. Bush in 2001.  

2. The common element in the foregoing inaugurations is that the incoming president had won the popular vote in Utah.  

3. The Choir has also previously performed for other presidents in other venues, including William Howard Taft, who attended a concert in the Tabernacle on Sept. 26, 1909, and also concerts in the White House for Taft again on Nov. 15, 1911, and later sang for Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter.

4. I suspect that all of these performances were given at the invitation of the president (with the possible exception of the concern at the 1909 Tabernacle concert attended by Pres. Taft).

5. The above list pretty much establishes that the Choir's performances before U.S. presidents have been nonpartisan.

6. This last election cycle has been particularly (singularly?) divisive in terms of political ideology and affiliation.

7. In the news today is an item about a member of the Choir, Jan Chamberlin, who has quit the Choir specifically because it is going to perform at next month's inauguration:

So she was not required to perform at the inauguration, so 1- her very public resignation appears to be more politicized grandstanding than anything else (if you doubt this, read the rest of the above-linked article, which quotes Sis. Chamberlin's comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler, and his pending administration to "tyranny and fa{s}cism").  She also publicly posted her resignation letter on Facebook.

8. While I understand and respect Sis. Chamberlin's decision, I think her publicizing her political disagreement with Mr. Trump is in stark contrast with the Choir's demonstrated nonpartisanship.

9. Daniel Peterson recently commented on the same issue raised by Sis. Chamberlin (whether an inaugural performance by the Choir constitutes some sort of endorsement of the incoming administration):

I think that's right.  Dr. Peterson also wrote a slightly longer blog entry on this issue: Another thought on the Trump inauguration and the Tabernacle Choir.  Some excerpts:

2- So the determinative issue is not whether the Choir (and, hence, the Church itself) is "endorsing" political administrations.  Rather, the issue is . . . whether the Choir is invited to perform or not.

This is, I think, quite correct. 3- Jan Chamberlin has done far more to inject partisan political hostilities into the Choir's upcoming performance than the performance itself.

The Choir's acceptance of an invitation to perform is simply an extension of the Choir's ongoing nonpartisan track record.  Rejecting the invitation, on the other hand, would have been nakedly partisan.

I echo these sentiments.  I think we as individuals should respect the office of the president, even if we don't respect the individual holding it.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll just comment on 3 of your statements.

1- Is it wrong for this woman to make a political statement about something in which she strongly believes? If so, why?

2-  I agree that refusing to sing at the inauguration could have been seen as a political statement but choosing to sing can also be seen as a statement. I'm indifferent because I don't see it as a major issue and tend to view the opportunity to sing for any presidential inauguration as an honor. However, not everyone agrees with that, and like you said there are strong feelings on both sides. I think those feelings are valid even if I don't share them.

3- This is giving too much credit/blame to this former choir member. This was a political issue the moment it was announced. As a choir member, is she not allowed to voice her opinion and make a statement?

Frankly I think she made a strong statement that conflicts with the official management of the choir. So she resigned. Not only did she not want to sing for Trump but she didn't want to be seen as affiliating with a choir that some people perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be endorsing him. Resignation seems like an honorable route where she has such strong disagreement.  

Edited December 30, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[PeterPear]

More hatred toward Trump spawned by Mitt Romney, soaked up by a bunch of shallow-minded Utah Mormons who can't live their religion and despite having the armor of God cower under it like a turtle with an outdated 1847 Nauvoo Persecution complex believing they'll catch leprosy and lose their virtue and their souls will be cast to Hell if the shadow of Donald Trump passes over them.

When Donald Trump comes to Utah town, they masquerade behind Indian paint and massacre him in a nearby Mountain Meadow.

Grow up, dweebs.

Banned from thread

[smac97]

On 12/30/2016 at 10:27 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll just comment on 3 of your statements.

1- Is it wrong for this woman to make a political statement about something in which she strongly believes? If so, why?

I don't know.  She appears to be using (exploiting?) her position as a (now former) member of the Choir to publicly advance politically partisan arguments.  I find that . . . tacky and inappropriate.

Quote

2-  I agree that refusing to sing at the inauguration could have been seen as a political statement but choosing to sing can also be seen as a statement.

So if Pres. Obama had invited the Choir to perform at one of his inaugurations, would that have been "seen as a statement {of endorsement}"?

There are people whose worldview is predominated by politics.  It is the lens through which they view pretty much everything.  I don't think that's reasonable.  I also don't think we can or should hop to simply because some people may construe the Choir's participation as an endorsement.  We can never please everyone, which is why I generally like that the Church appears to strive to do what its leaders think is right, rather than what they think is popular.

Quote

I'm indifferent because I don't see it as a major issue and tend to view the opportunity to sing for any presidential inauguration as an honor.

I concur.

Quote

However, not everyone agrees with that, and like you said there are strong feelings on both sides. I think those feelings are valid even if I don't share them.

Reasonable minds can and do disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.  But I do not think that this means that disparate opinions are therefore of equal validity.

Quote

3- This is giving too much credit/blame to this former choir member. This was a political issue the moment it was announced. As a choir member, is she not allowed to voice her opinion and make a statement?

Certainly she is so allowed.  I just found it to be tacky and inappropriate.  The Choir is now probably going to get a bunch of politically partisan carping.  Consider this:

Quote

Needless to say, the news has sparked a lot of reaction, both positive and supportive of Chamberlin's stand, and a a caustic surge of criticism against her on social media. It's worth noting that she didn't actually have to resign in order to avoid singing at the inauguration ― according to The Salt Lake Tribune, it's a voluntary event, with only about 215 of the choir's 360 members expected to attend.

And this:

Quote

In a moving letter to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir’s president and fellow members, a female singer announced her resignation, citing her “deep patriotic feelings” as a determining factor in her decision.

“I’ve tried to tell myself that by not going to the inauguration, that I would be able to stay in choir for all the other good reasons. I’ve tried to tell myself that it will be all right and that I can continue in good conscience before God and man,” Jan Chamberlin wrote in the letter that she later posted on Facebook.” But it’s no use. I simply cannot continue with the recent turn of events. I could never look myself in the mirror again with self respect.”

Chamberlin concluded the letter by writing: “I only know I could never ‘throw roses to Hitler.’ And I certainly could never sing for him.”

Consider the vitriol here.  Sis. Chamberlin is essentially publicly accusing the rest of the Choir (and, by extension, the Church) of "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

Is that fair?  Is she allowing reasonable minds to disagree about the propriety of the Choir accepting an invitation to perform at an inaugural event (as it has done many times in the past)?  Nope.  She has literally triggered Godwin's Law ("an Internet adage which asserts that that 'As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1'").

Sis. Chamberlin has cratered the discussion.  She has besmirched the character and reputation of Choir and, by extension, the Church.  

Quote

Frankly I think she made a strong statement that conflicts with the official management of the choir. So she resigned. Not only did she not want to sing for Trump but she didn't want to be seen as affiliating with a choir that some people perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be endorsing him. Resignation seems like an honorable route where she has such strong disagreement.  

I am fine with her resignation.  I take exception with her deliberate, calculated, public characterization of the Choir's upcoming performance as the moral equivalent of "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 4, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you have to go back 50+ years to claim non-partisanship you don't know what it means.

CFR, please, as to any time when the Choir has, for politically partisan reasons, refused an invitation to perform for a U.S. president.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

I think it's wrong for Jan Chamberlain to attempt to make the Choir singing at the inauguration a political action, when it's clearly not.  I think it's wrong for her to use her membership in the choir (and her leaving it) to make a political point.  

I don't like Trump at all, but i rolled my eyes when i read Chamberlain's words in the news article.  I have no issue with her feeling like she does, and she can do whatever she wants to do and more power to her, but when she published it and used it to make a political point at the expense of the Choir's decision to accept, then she invited me to judge her actions.

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please, as to any time when the Choir has, for politically partisan reasons, refused an invitation to perform for a U.S. president.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's from your own post. 1. The Tabernacle Choir has been invited to perform in five previous inaugurations: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Richard M. Nixon in 1969, Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and George W. Bush in 2001.

[CA Steve]

I do not see this as a political issue. For me it is a moral issue. I applaud Sis Chamberlain and her public concern for the moral character of the church.

[Duncan]

If the new Phillipino President asked them to play I wonder what they would say? As I said before I don\t know why they don't get the KKK to sing, they have the robes for it and everything!

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It's from your own post. 1. The Tabernacle Choir has been invited to perform in five previous inaugurations: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Richard M. Nixon in 1969, Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and George W. Bush in 2001.

Again (emphasis added): "CFR, please, as to any time when the Choir has, for politically partisan reasons, refused an invitation to perform for a U.S. president."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I do not see this as a political issue. For me it is a moral issue. I applaud Sis Chamberlain and her public concern for the moral character of the church.

Right.  I am sure her fellow Choir members appreciate being publicly characterized as "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again (emphasis added): "CFR, please, as to any time when the Choir has, for politically partisan reasons, refused an invitation to perform for a U.S. president."

Thanks,

-Smac

Again from your own post. 1. The Tabernacle Choir has been invited to perform in five previous inaugurations: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Richard M. Nixon in 1969, Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and George W. Bush in 2001.  

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  She appears to be using (exploiting?) her position as a (now former) member of the Choir to publicly advance politically partisan arguments.  I find that . . . tacky and inappropriate.

I might be able to understand why some would consider it "tacky" but I can't see why it's inappropriate. Can you explain that?

So if Pres. Obama had invited the Choir to perform at one of his inaugurations, would that have been "seen as a statement {of endorsement}"?

I absolutely think that if they sang at the Obama inauguration some members would view that as a political statement, if not an endorsement. The difference is that the church has been very staunch GOP supporters for many years so the endorsement seems more plausible.

There are people whose worldview is predominated by politics.  It is the lens through which they view pretty much everything.  I don't think that's reasonable.  I also don't think we can or should hop to simply because some people may construe the Choir's participation as an endorsement.  We can never please everyone, which is why I generally like that the Church appears to strive to do what its leaders think is right, rather than what they think is popular.

Agreed

I concur.

Reasonable minds can and do disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.  But I do not think that this means that disparate opinions are therefore of equal validity.

Maybe, but others might say the same about your opinion. That's why it's an opinion 

Certainly she is so allowed.  I just found it to be tacky and inappropriate.  The Choir is now probably going to get a bunch of politically partisan carping.  Consider this:

And this:

Consider the vitriol here.  Sis. Chamberlin is essentially publicly accusing the rest of the Choir (and, by extension, the Church) of "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

They've been facing political backlash since the minute they announced it. I don't see that this woman's written statement changes much.

Is that fair?  Is she allowing reasonable minds to disagree about the propriety of the Choir accepting an invitation to perform at an inaugural event (as it has done many times in the past)?  Nope.  She has literally triggered Godwin's Law ("an Internet adage which asserts that that 'As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1'").

She's hardly the first to embrace Godwin's Law. Cliche's are sometimes true  How is she disallowing reasonable minds to disagree? She expressed an opinion. She hasn't shut down conversation in any way. She made her statement. It just so happens her statement is getting more play than some others, largely because of her association with the choir.

Sis. Chamberlin and cratered the discussion.  She has besmirched the character and reputation of Choir and, by extension, the Church.  

I think this is the real problem most people have with what she said, even though most are unwilling to admit it. It's seen as an embarrassment, as disloyal, as besmirching the church. In actuality, all she has done is state that she has extremely strong feelings against the POTUS-elect and views the choirs participation in the inauguration to be distasteful and inappropriate. She is welcome to her individual opinion, and she's welcome to share it. But I don't see that as any kind of attack or lack of loyalty to the church.

I am fine with her resignation.  I take exception with her deliberate, calculated, public characterization of the Choir's upcoming performance as the moral equivalent of "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

If you want to make a statement that you feel is important, wouldn't you want the largest audience you could muster? It seems rational to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the good conversation.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Again from your own post. 1. The Tabernacle Choir has been invited to perform in five previous inaugurations: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Richard M. Nixon in 1969, Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and George W. Bush in 2001.  

And they never refused to sing for anyone of them, right?  So by accepting every invitation, they have demonstrated political neutrality...and that is what you are saying, right?

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Again from your own post. 1. The Tabernacle Choir has been invited to perform in five previous inaugurations: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Richard M. Nixon in 1969, Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and George W. Bush in 2001.  

These are instances when the Choir was been invited to perform, and when they have performed.  I am asking you for evidence that the Choir has been invited to perform, and - for politically partisan reasons - refused that invitation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 30, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

I think it is a misuse of her former position.  I would not like to see people using their choir position to inflate their visibility while they are on it, resigning does not give then the privilege to do the same.  Sure, make all the political statements she wants, but do not include the fact one is or was a choir member.  One should not use church callings to give themselves political clout unless that is part of the purpose of the calling.  

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

She's hardly the first to embrace Godwin's Law. Cliche's are sometimes true  How is she disallowing reasonable minds to disagree? She expressed an opinion. She hasn't shut down conversation in any way. She made her statement. It just so happens her statement is getting more play than some others, largely because of her association with the choir.

When people say 'reasonable minds can disagree' what that means is that it's reasonable for someone to see this issue differently than i do.  It's not about not allowing other opinions to exist, it's about allowing that those other opinions are as reasonable given the point of view of the person espousing them, even if you disagree with them.

But when Chamberlain says "singing at the inauguration of Trump will be throwing roses at the feet of Hitler" she's essentially saying that no reasonable person would sing at the inauguration.  

 

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is a misuse of her former position.  I would not like to see people using their choir position to inflate their visibility while they are on it, resigning does not give then the privilege to do the same.  Sure, make all the political statements she wants, but do not include the fact one is or was a choir member.  One should not use church callings to give themselves political clout unless that is part of the purpose of the calling.  

Given that membership in the choir is essentially viewed as a being on a musical mission (i have a friend who is in it and they made this point to her when she joined-it's also why choir members hold no other callings in the church while they are members), it seems very inappropriate.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know.  She appears to be using (exploiting?) her position as a (now former) member of the Choir to publicly advance politically partisan arguments.  I find that . . . tacky and inappropriate.

I might be able to understand why some would consider it "tacky" but I can't see why it's inappropriate. Can you explain that?

She is speaking from a privileged position, namely, as a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

She is only speaking publicly, and gaining notoriety, because of her position with the Choir.  So she's not speaking strictly in a personal capacity.

Quote

So if Pres. Obama had invited the Choir to perform at one of his inaugurations, would that have been "seen as a statement {of endorsement}"?

I absolutely think that if they sang at the Obama inauguration some members would view that as a political statement, if not an endorsement. The difference is that the church has been very staunch GOP supporters for many years so the endorsement seems more plausible.

"The church has been very staunch GOP supporters for many years?"  Come again?

Quote

Consider the vitriol here.  Sis. Chamberlin is essentially publicly accusing the rest of the Choir (and, by extension, the Church) of "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

They've been facing political backlash since the minute they announced it. I don't see that this woman's written statement changes much.

I think she is intensifying the backlash.  She is deepening the partisan political hostility.  She is making things worse for the Choir and for the Church, while simultaneously publicly declaring herself to be morally superior to the other Choir members who will - in her words - be  "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

Quote

Is that fair?  Is she allowing reasonable minds to disagree about the propriety of the Choir accepting an invitation to perform at an inaugural event (as it has done many times in the past)?  Nope.  She has literally triggered Godwin's Law ("an Internet adage which asserts that that 'As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1'").

She's hardly the first to embrace Godwin's Law. Cliche's are sometimes true  How is she disallowing reasonable minds to disagree? She expressed an opinion. She hasn't shut down conversation in any way. She made her statement. It just so happens her statement is getting more play than some others, largely because of her association with the choir.

Sis. Chamberlin and cratered the discussion.  She has besmirched the character and reputation of Choir and, by extension, the Church.  

I think this is the real problem most people have with what she said, even though most are unwilling to admit it. It's seen as an embarrassment, as disloyal, as besmirching the church.

It's "disloyal" and "besmirching" to the extent she has essentially publicly accused the Choir (and, by extension, the Church itself) of "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

Quote

In actuality, all she has done is state that she has extremely strong feelings against the POTUS-elect and views the choirs participation in the inauguration to be distasteful and inappropriate. She is welcome to her individual opinion, and she's welcome to share it. But I don't see that as any kind of attack or lack of loyalty to the church.

She is characterizing the Choir's upcoming performance as "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether this constitutes an "attack."  I think it is self-evidently so.

Quote

I am fine with her resignation.  I take exception with her deliberate, calculated, public characterization of the Choir's upcoming performance as the moral equivalent of "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

If you want to make a statement that you feel is important, wouldn't you want the largest audience you could muster? It seems rational to me.

I would not exploit my calling in the Church to advance my partisan political sentiments.

I would not publicly accuse people in the Church who disagree with my position (friends and acquaintances with whom I have sung in the Choir) of "'throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him."

Quote

Thanks for the good conversation.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 30, 2016 by smac97

[oremites]

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I do not see this as a political issue. For me it is a moral issue. I applaud Sis Chamberlain and her public concern for the moral character of the church.

We should be very careful about judging the moral worth of someone else because their politics differ from ours.  

The real threat to our freedom and democracy is becoming so polarized that we can no longer put aside our differences and come together as Americans even if our party isn't the one in power this year.  If you don't want to celebrate the inauguration of President Trump, at least celebrate the peaceful transition of power which is one of the things that makes our country great.  That's why the choir is singing and what the inauguration ceremony is really about.  

 

[Duncan]

Just now, oremites said:

We should be very careful about judging the moral worth of someone else because their politics differ from ours.  

The real threat to our freedom and democracy is becoming so polarized that we can no longer put aside our differences and come together as Americans even if our party isn't the one in power this year.  If you don't want to celebrate the inauguration of President Trump, at least celebrate the peaceful transition of power which is one of the things that makes our country great.  That's why the choir is singing and what the inauguration ceremony is really about.  

 

What though about Non Americans and the ripple this is making. I bring this up because two days ago I was at a restaurant and two ladies in the table behind us brought this up, and though the MTC was "sullying" their good name. I never said anything because my ice cream and two bite brownie were to die for but people do notice these things

[Storm Rider]

I find a significant difference between the office and the man.  An inauguration is about the office primarily and it is not about the man.  It happens consistently at a given time frame and has for a long time in our country's history.  

Entertainers are entertainers; they are not and have never been politicians much to the ridiculous efforts to the contrary.  If an entertainer is asked to perform at the nation's presidential inauguration then they should perform IF they love the country and support its form of government.  Choosing to perform is NOT a political statement and it never has been.  

It is an honor to be asked and to perform for the office.  It does not indicate whether you support a specific party or not.  It does not mean anything other than the entertainer is a citizen and has a role to play as a citizen of our country.  

I have no respect for those who seek to politicize the nation's inauguration and I think such a choice sets a dangerous precedent.  I don't think a Democrat should only have fellow Democrats perform any more than I don't think a Republican should have only Republicans perform and/or participate in an inauguration.  This type of behavior is often chosen by those who provide lip service to tolerance, inclusiveness, etc.  Yet their actions consistently demonstrate they have no concept of the words they use.  Everyone must do what they want in the exact manner they want it and everyone else is burned at the stake if they dare to contradict their "love, tolerance, and inclusiveness".  

I strongly support banning individuals such as Sister Chamberlin because their actions clearly demonstrate a selfish, "me-first" attitude that has no place in the MoTab. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

When people say 'reasonable minds can disagree' what that means is that it's reasonable for someone to see this issue differently than i do.  It's not about not allowing other opinions to exist, it's about allowing that those other opinions are as reasonable given the point of view of the person espousing them, even if you disagree with them.

But when Chamberlain says "singing at the inauguration of Trump will be throwing roses at the feet of Hitler" she's essentially saying that no reasonable person would sing at the inauguration.  

 

Maybe. Or maybe that's the best way she knows how to describe her feelings. I don't know that it's necessary to assume that by expressing her feelings she sees everyone else as unreasonable if they disagree. I see this as her making a statement about how bad she thinks he is and justifying her action to resign. I don't see it as a condemnation on everyone else.

ETA- If you felt so strongly that you considered singing at the inauguration to be akin to giving Hitler flowers, would you do it? Or would it be the moral thing to stand up in opposition? I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but if that's how she views it, and I have no reason to think otherwise, it seems to me she made a conscientious decision and merely used strong language to explain her thought process.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by HappyJackWagon