The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[CV75]

The performance has been politicized, but not by the choir.

Anyone decrying the choir’s performance at the inauguration with accusations that it is endorsing misogyny and racism (themes that of themselves are are appropriately politicized) aren’t listening to what it has repeatedly explained it stands for. They also seem to ignore that the choir stands for respecting women and religious, racial and immigrant tolerance as well; albeit not in a politicized fashion. This sort of things is low-down political behavior, but the choir is not accusing the petitioners and critics of opposing freedom, endorsing incivility, or disrupting the peaceful transition of power. It refuses to politicize things that transcend politics, and simply stands for correct principles at the most fundamental level.

[Duncan]

Just now, bluebell said:

They're our traditions though. Americans shouldn't go off on Canada's goofy traditions because we don't really understand them and also because they are irrelevant to us. 

Canadians should go off on America's goofy traditions for the same reasons.  

I'm trying to give up taking home leftovers but I can't!!!! or watching Storage Wars! and they got rid of Golden Corral in Grand Forks, what the heck!! 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Duncan

[Duncan]

Just now, CV75 said:

The performance has been politicized, but not by the choir.

Anyone decrying the choir’s performance at the inauguration with accusations that it is endorsing misogyny and racism (themes that of themselves are are appropriately politicized) aren’t listening to what it has repeatedly explained it stands for. They also seem to ignore that the choir stands for respecting women and religious, racial and immigrant tolerance as well; albeit not in a politicized fashion. This sort of things is low-down political behavior, but the choir is not accusing the petitioners and critics of opposing freedom, endorsing incivility, or disrupting the peaceful transition of power. It refuses to politicize things that transcend politics, and simply stands for correct principles at the most fundamental level.

 

and where do you get this message? not on the Church website, an inauguration transcends politics? well, is it a bake sale then?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

and where do you get this message? not on the Church website, an inauguration transcends politics? well, is it a bake sale then?

The choir’s statements (and its detractors’) have been in the news outlets; I think some of them are quoted in this thread. The inauguration is the part of the US political system that formally admits the president to office, but presidents of all stripes (both morality- and party-wise) have been admitted into office from the beginning.

I could go on and on about the virtues of the democratic republic system of government and the merits of supporting its constitution, not so much about some of the things that have been done by individual characters in power or in the name of the country. I may wax political in the latter, but when supporting the virtues of the system and the principles it is designed to uphold, I transcend my politics.

While ideals such as respect for women; religious, racial and immigrant tolerance; freedom and liberty; respect for the constitution; civility and the peaceful transition of power transcend politics or partisanship, they are also appropriately politicized in how a people govern themselves in deciding the best way to address these issues through government. Undermining and then misrepresenting what another stands for to make a point about what one stands against represents one of the worst political tactics.

[Sleeper Cell]

11 hours ago, Duncan said:

I would hope that the cops are trying to clamp down on these upticks but Trump's rise to power seems to give impetus to thugs and crooked people and let's hope the alt right crowd don't get violent come Jan. 20th

I served in the Arcadia mission!  i'm just saying that PUSA are swearing to uphold the constitution by swearing on the Bible, shouldn't they swear on the constitution?

“Trumps rise to power seems to give impetus to thugs and crooked people.?”

Can’t much the same be said about Obama’s tacit support of the anti-cop “Black Lives Matter” rhetoric?   Do you have any evidence that there has been an increase in violence committed by Trump supporters, or do you blame Trump for the violence committed by those who oppose him?  Or for the apparent increase in violence among apolitical thugs?   

Frankly, I am far more worried about violence from the anti-Trump “alt left” than violence from the  allegedly pro-Trump “alt right.”  After all, isn’t it the left who are primarily the ones trying to characterize their opposition to Trump as essentially a fight against a second Hitler?  

Swearing in on the constitution to uphold the constitution would seem to be redundant.  Whether or not you think it is appropriate to swear on the Bible to uphold the constitution, the fact remains that those who actually wrote the constitution didn’t think it was inappropriate.  Indeed, as I have pointed out, the tradition of swearing in on the Bible was begun by the very man who served as president of the constitutional convention (which wrote the constitution) -- George Washington.

 

Arcadia Mission, huh?  Maybe you have already have had dinner at my house!   Probably didn’t talk much about politics, however.  

[Sky]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From what I can tell, nobody here is really objecting to her mere refusal to sing at the inauguration. It's the grandstanding via social media, thereby inciting attacks on the choir and the Church, plus the over-the-top remarks about "throwing roses to Hitler" -- reflecting negatively on the choir and its leadership -- that have bothered some of us. The line between conscience and vindictiveness is thus blurred.

 

 

There are some instances that warrant a stronger response than simply passing up the opportunity to sing at an inauguration...which I realize she could have done.  

The point was to make a public stance and to make her voice heard.  If that makes some people uncomfortable, then so be it.  

When the Choir performs for Trump, it will unfortunately be seen as an endorsement of all that he's done and all that he stands for, justified or not.  

All minorities feel under attack under Donald Trump, and for good reason.  Can you not see that?  This is something that we as Mormons should be sympathetic and understanding towards.  Now is not the time to be passively silent and turn a blind eye towards the oppressed!  

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Reminders aren't enough to understand how it all went down. I'm sure it's fascinating to be surrounded by so much history though!

My favorite experiment on group think (the one that I think is most interesting) is the Stanford Prison Experiment.  

The Milgrim Experiment using electric shock is also really interesting, though I see that some scientists are starting to question Milgrim's conclusions.

Group think is always dangerous, and certainly you don't need an evil Hitler figure to bring it about.  Lord of the Flies is probably the best example.

 

I was trying to paint you a picture: in addition to my own reading and studying, I see, talk to, and live in around the people and places where it happened.

Many nice and law-abiding people made the Holocaust possible.  I think that some major elements preceeding mass crimes against humans are, first, villification of an entire group, be it a religion, ethnic group, national origin, class, etc... Then, the state treats these people as second-class citizens in some way, before it gets worse.  There's also a heightened intolerance for dissent combined with a monopoly on "legitimate" information sources.

I don't think a Hitler-like situation will be exactly repeated.  There is a whole spectrum of unacceptable evil things that are not as bad as the Holocaust. If we don't want to facilitate evil, we have to reject villification of people, especially large swaths of people belonging to any particular group. We have to be staunch defenders of human rights. We have to be willing to be vulnerable and fair-minded enough to discuss and talk out disagreements.  And we have to try to stay informed from a wide variety of sources, and be skeptical of any one news entity knowing everything.

Something notable: I noticed that before the election, there were memes going around comparing the liberal left to Hitler.  I think this is one reason the right managed to stomach electing Trump: it was decided that no one could be worse than a leftist Clinton, that her "gun-grabbing, religion-threatening" agenda would be a precursor to Nazi-like state control. It's interesting that ramped-up fears of one party equated to Hitler may have resulted in a campaign and the election of a candidate with at least as many similarities!

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The performance has been politicized, but not by the choir.

Anyone decrying the choir’s performance at the inauguration with accusations that it is endorsing misogyny and racism (themes that of themselves are are appropriately politicized) aren’t listening to what it has repeatedly explained it stands for. They also seem to ignore that the choir stands for respecting women and religious, racial and immigrant tolerance as well; albeit not in a politicized fashion. This sort of things is low-down political behavior, but the choir is not accusing the petitioners and critics of opposing freedom, endorsing incivility, or disrupting the peaceful transition of power. It refuses to politicize things that transcend politics, and simply stands for correct principles at the most fundamental level.

 

The performance at an inauguration is already political in nature.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I'm trying to give up taking home leftovers but I can't!!!! or watching Storage Wars! and they got rid of Golden Corral in Grand Forks, what the heck!! 

I so miss Golden Corral here in Logan...duh...it was always full and can't believe they closed it!!!!

[Duncan]

Just now, Sleeper Cell said:

“Trumps rise to power seems to give impetus to thugs and crooked people.?”

Can’t much the same be said about Obama’s tacit support of the anti-cop “Black Lives Matter” rhetoric?   Do you have any evidence that there has been an increase in violence committed by Trump supporters, or do you blame Trump for the violence committed by those who oppose him?  Or for the apparent increase in violence among apolitical thugs?   

Frankly, I am far more worried about violence from the anti-Trump “alt left” than violence from the  allegedly pro-Trump “alt right.”  After all, isn’t it the left who are primarily the ones trying to characterize their opposition to Trump as essentially a fight against a second Hitler?  

Swearing in on the constitution to uphold the constitution would seem to be redundant.  Whether or not you think it is appropriate to swear on the Bible to uphold the constitution, the fact remains that those who actually wrote the constitution didn’t think it was inappropriate.  Indeed, as I have pointed out, the tradition of swearing in on the Bible was begun by the very man who served as president of the constitutional convention (which wrote the constitution) -- George Washington.

 

Arcadia Mission, huh?  Maybe you have already have had dinner at my house!   Probably didn’t talk much about politics, however.  

I served in Glendale for 9 months (1st and 2nd wards), Pasadena/Altadena, San Marino, La Verne, La Puente and Glendora 2 ward for 2 months.  There is violence on both sides but now that Trump is in could it get worse? I have a friend that cancelled a summer trip to the US because they don't want to get involved or have anything happen

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I was trying to paint you a picture: in addition to my own reading and studying, I see, talk to, and live in around the people and places where it happened.  

I appreciate that, but I don't see that it adds much to the discussion when it comes to understanding how Hitler rose to power-good people doing nothing is arguably not even in the top 5 reasons for his rise.  

For example, I see, talk to, and live around people and places where atrocious native american massacres took place, and on the front lines of the injustice of the American government towards native americans that occurred in the past and for which the NA population is still suffering from.  Reservations are often (not always) horrible places today, with crime rates higher than most inner cities and poverty that matches what you see in India.  I've worked on them and have seen it up close.

But while that helps me understand some of what happened in the past, it's not nearly enough, in an of itself, to understand how it all came about.  Only primary sources from all sides, including the major perpetrators, can begin to do that.

Quote

Something notable: I noticed that before the election, there were memes going around comparing the liberal left to Hitler.  I think this is one reason the right managed to stomach electing Trump: it was decided that no one could be worse than a leftist Clinton, that her "gun-grabbing, religion-threatening" agenda would be a precursor to Nazi-like state control. It's interesting that ramped-up fears of one party equated to Hitler may have resulted in a campaign and the election of a candidate with at least as many similarities!

Exactly my point.  People use the Hitler/Nazi comparison when they are afraid and they want to use fear to get others to be afraid of the same things they are afraid of and therefore do what they want them to do.  Because it's used so often, people don't even consider anymore that the comparison might be accurate.  Everyone knows it's just a manipulation technique, and it's used to rally people who already agree with you, not to convince others that they don't that they are wrong.

Using them doesn't do a thing to counter group think.  It actually helps group think to occur because it gives the emotional majority a very easy rallying point.

Here's a good article on why the right managed to stomach Trump.  It's written by a liberal.   Anthony Bourdain slams 'privileged' liberals...

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I so miss Golden Corral here in Logan...duh...it was always full and can't believe they closed it!!!!

Have you tried Chuck Wagon?  It's pretty good, all things considered.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I served in Glendale for 9 months (1st and 2nd wards), Pasadena/Altadena, San Marino, La Verne, La Puente and Glendora 2 ward for 2 months.  There is violence on both sides but now that Trump is in could it get worse? I have a friend that cancelled a summer trip to the US because they don't want to get involved or have anything happen

There is no data supporting the idea that violence has increased.  The coverage of it has increased, old examples are being trotted out again as if they just happened, and some reports have turned out to be hoaxes.

This was reported by the BBC so a fairly reliable news source (if that even exists anymore).

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have you tried Chuck Wagon?  It's pretty good, all things considered.

I will try it again.  I went the first time when it opened up and there wasn't any food to pick from..it was not like the big one in SLC.  I love to pick out what I want..the buffets!  I will try it though...Subway is getting old..

[longview]

49 minutes ago, Sky said:

All minorities feel under attack under Donald Trump, and for good reason.

Absolutist statements like this does NOT give you much credibility.  Sorry.

[Duncan]

Just now, bluebell said:

There is no data supporting the idea that violence has increased.  The coverage of it has increased, old examples are being trotted out again as if they just happened, and some reports have turned out to be hoaxes.

This was reported by the BBC so a fairly reliable news source (if that even exists anymore).

right heh

 

I just read something about Trump is changing the Government ethics committee and no press access, what's that about?

Edited January 3, 2017 by Duncan

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I appreciate that, but I don't see that it adds much to the discussion when it comes to understanding how Hitler rose to power-good people doing nothing is arguably not even in the top 5 reasons for his rise.  

For example, I see, talk to, and live around people and places where atrocious native american massacres took place, and on the front lines of the injustice of the American government towards native americans that occurred in the past and for which the NA population is still suffering from.  Reservations are often (not always) horrible places today, with crime rates higher than most inner cities and poverty that matches what you see in India.  I've worked on them and have seen it up close.

But while that helps me understand some of what happened in the past, it's not nearly enough, in an of itself, to understand how it all came about.  Only primary sources from all sides, including the major perpetrators, can begin to do that.

Exactly my point.  People use the Hitler/Nazi comparison when they are afraid and they want to use fear to get others to be afraid of the same things they are afraid of and therefore do what they want them to do.  Because it's used so often, people don't even consider anymore that the comparison might be accurate.  Everyone knows it's just a manipulation technique, and it's used to rally people who already agree with you, not to convince others that they don't that they are wrong.

Using them doesn't do a thing to counter group think.  It actually helps group think to occur because it gives the emotional majority a very easy rallying point.

Here's a good article on why the right managed to stomach Trump.  It's written by a liberal.   Anthony Bourdain slams 'privileged' liberals...

My point cannot be summarised as "good people doing nothing." I was not referring to that, even, but to otherwise "good" people actively participating. 

Again, I've also read and studied this subject extensively.

As you saw in my post,  I did describe the mechanics of collective support for mass crimes against humans. (I've also seen something similar happen on a micro level.)

Regarding reductio ad hitlerum, I don't recommend it as a rhetorical device, but that doesn't change the fact that the Holocaust should be a teachable moment, and that detailed comparisons of the mechanics of the collective crimes can still be legitimate.

 

[bsjkki]

32 minutes ago, Duncan said:

right heh

 

I just read something about Trump is changing the Government ethics committee and no press access, what's that about?

You don't have your facts correct on the ethics committee. Blame the house Republicans. http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-scolds-house-gop-for-prioritizing-vote-to-weaken-ethics-office-as-unfair-as-it-may-be/

And as far as the Press goes...I think this quote by Ari Fleischer sums it up. "

Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary for Bush, said the feeling is mutual between Trump and the press, calling it a “double-barreled hostility” where the media can’t stand Trump and Trump returns the favor. 

"He can use it to his advantage, because as the Gallup poll recently indicated, confidence in the press to report the news accurately and fairly has never been lower,” Fleischer said. "And so the press has made itself vulnerable, because it lost the trust of their readers and their viewers — and Trump has widely taken advantage of it.”

The press made themselves irrelevant. Trump got elected in spite of them and most American no longer trust them. http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

Update...and because of a Trump tweet the House drops their plans. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html

Edited January 3, 2017 by bsjkki

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

and where do you get this message? not on the Church website, an inauguration transcends politics?

The Church's website states the Choir is going to serve the country.  Nothing about serving the President.  I think it is unfair to ignore that.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The performance at an inauguration is already political in nature.

But it doesn't have to be partisan.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The performance at an inauguration is already political in nature.

I don't see that it is. By nature, the inauguration is merely the neutral process (in this case, the USA system of government) that formally admits presidents to office, regardless of their party or personal morality, which seems rather transcendent to me... The choir clearly described why it is performing, at a function that transcends politics.

Now there is nothing wrong with addressing transcendent values in the political process, as morality is the root of law. But undermining the expression of other common, transcendent values and misrepresenting someone's good-faith expression of what he stands for, to make a political point about what you stand against, is dirty no matter how worthy the values; none of them are mutually exclusive anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

You are mistaken on your  timeline.  The first few years will be the consolidation of power.  Obama began that process already by making the FBI, DOJ and IRS as political tools of power.  The political hacks had nothing to fear in their illegal activities, and they simply dealt with Congressional hearings with misinformation and utter contempt.  The DOJ would give them legal cover regardless of their activities, the IRS would weild politial power over those on the "enemies list",  and the FBI became a shell of its former self.

Like Hitler, we will see a consolidation of this power, especially with the invocation of emergency powers such as the Sedition Act of the Civil War and others from WWII.  These emergency powers would then become permanent.  The judicial system would become controlled thru the appointment of "friendly" judges to fill the vacancies and may even stack the Supreme Court with additional Justices  (there is no limit to this number).

Like Obama before him, the FBI and NSA will gather personal information, very embarrassing information, on certain key justices and blackmail them for favorable decisions on selected cases.  (Remember the "sudden" turnaround of Justice Roberts on ObamaCare?)

All of this takes time, but the nation will be compliant as he is able to build up the army and defeat ISIS and other terrorist armies.  Basically the people will be willing to give up civil liberties for safety, industrial power and strong leadership.   America will indeed "Become Great Again" as Soros, Putin and Trump become pals.

Obama laid the groundwork, and someone "mighty and strong" will build on that foundation.

I'm not calling it a timeline, merely saying I will revisit the question every year on the anniversary of the inauguration. 

Of course, it will be moot for me, since I don't expect Trump will be Hitler incarnate, but this will be in the interest of holding others to account, including Jan Chamberlin. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I served in Glendale for 9 months (1st and 2nd wards), Pasadena/Altadena, San Marino, La Verne, La Puente and Glendora 2 ward for 2 months.  There is violence on both sides but now that Trump is in could it get worse? I have a friend that cancelled a summer trip to the US because they don't want to get involved or have anything happen

Well when Trump praises a tyrant leader like Putin, I understand their reasoning.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The performance at an inauguration is already political in nature.

It depends on how you define political. Bluebell has already made this point, but if you mean partisan, your assertion is debatable. 

And the Church and choir have already made it clear their intent is not partisan endorsement. 

I don't think you can honestly blow off their statement of intent. They must be regarded as the world's foremost authorities on what their intent is. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Well when Trump praises a tyrant leader like Putin, I understand their reasoning.

Obama was cozying up to a tyrant-leader, Fidel Castro. Why wasn't that bothering would-be visitors?