The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

"of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.

"a period of political and economic stability"

synonyms:governmental, government, constitutional, ministerial, parliamentary, diplomatic, legislative, administrative, bureaucratic; More

of or relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics.

"a decision taken for purely political reasons"

synonyms:politically active, party; More"

She is referring to the first definition and you, the second, I believe.  Partisan is a less ambiguous word choice for what you mean, I think.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Meadowchik previously pointed out the political/governmental meaning...unless I completely misunderstood her.

[GingerRed]

I think it would have been worse for the choir to have refused  the invitation.   Wouldn't that have made us look bad?  Anyone else here think of what would have happened had they said no?

 

RED

 

[bsjkki]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

his brietbart website? take a look at that prize.Where this smoke and all, I highly doubt everyone is lying against this guy. The guy is trouble all over the place and the American people fought a war over people like him and now they let him in the White House-appropriately named of course.................... I don't know anything about the UN/US relations so I can't speak to that

Read this story...facts do matter and there is a reason the press stopped vilifying Bannon. The facts were not supporting the accusations. http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/impotent-rage-about-trump-directed-at-steve-bannon/2016/11/15/0/ You can casually dismiss all conservative reporting but that does put you in an echo chamber. The story about the Russian hacking of a Vermont utility by the Washington Post has been proven to be full of untruths. I saw the story repeated by many news organizations even though the 'evidence' and facts were wrong. Everyone needs to read news articles extremely critically no matter the source and read differing viewpoints to find the full picture. It isn't easy right now to know what is true. http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/washington-post-officially-now-admits-totally-blowing-story-about-russian-hacking-u-s-power-grid/

Edited January 3, 2017 by bsjkki
Fixed link

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

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!  

I have been following this thread for a while and have been pretty much undecided on this issue.  I can see both sides of the argument.  I have to say though, your post pushed me to the side of a choir member speaking out.  She did the right thing.  She stood up for what she believed knowing full well the outcry that would probably come from those within the church.

And actually it was Scott's objection that also helped push me over to this side of the argument.  Scott makes an argument for staying quiet in the public square, something that he was jumping up and down about when the church made a very public statement in the public square on gay marriage.  So which is it?  Should we make political statements in the public square when a question of morality is at stake or should we quietly sit in the corner.  

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Meadowchik previously pointed out the political/governmental meaning...unless I completely misunderstood her.

Perhaps I missed that. This is a fast-moving thread, and I might not be catching every post. 

I would point out that words carry varied connotations, and in discussing sensitive or controversial matters, it is vital to make one's meaning clear, such as not necessarily saying "political" when one means governmental. 

Of course, those whose intent is to purposely spin something may intentionally use ambiguous terminology. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, GingerRed said:

I think it would have been worse for the choir to have refused  the invitation.   Wouldn't that have made us look bad?  Anyone else here think of what would have happened had they said no?

 

RED

 

Keen observers would have pointed out that the choir up to now has accepted every invitation to sing at a presidential inauguration and would have interpreted the refusal as a partisan political statement. And they would have been right to do so. 

It would have been a worse can of worms than what we are seeing now. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have been following this thread for a while and have been pretty much undecided on this issue.  I can see both sides of the argument.  I have to say though, your post pushed me to the side of a choir member speaking out.  She did the right thing.  She stood up for what she believed knowing full well the outcry that would probably come from those within the church.

And actually it was Scott's objection that also helped push me over to this side of the argument.  Scott makes an argument for staying quiet in the public square, something that he was jumping up and down about when the church made a very public statement in the public square on gay marriage.  So which is it?  Should we make political statements in the public square when a question of morality is at stake or should we quietly sit in the corner.  

It is not self-evident that performing at the presidential inauguration is a matter of morality. I would earnestly argue that it isn't. 

[Calm]

CB, there is a significant difference, imo, in using a calling...especially a missionary calling...to gain publicity to be heard.

If she had resigned and then publicly called for them to refuse the invite without referring to her former calling, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it.  My main problem though is the whole Trump is early Hitler vibe even if I think it inappropriate to promote oneself using church callings when that is to give oneself an edge in judging the Church, even if the promotion is for good intentions.

I can see someone appropriately using their experience as a missionary or bishop or whatever to explain how they became familiar with a community's need in their humanitarian efforts, but if they were then to add that they were stepping up because the Church was doing things the wrong way and needed to change or trashed the community they were called to serve with love and compassion, that would be inappropriate in my view and disrespectful of one's calling and the ultimate source the calling was serving, God.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[cdowis]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

And actually it was Scott's objection that also helped push me over to this side of the argument.  Scott makes an argument for staying quiet in the public square, something that he was jumping up and down about when the church made a very public statement in the public square on gay marriage.  So which is it?  Should we make political statements in the public square when a question of morality is at stake or should we quietly sit in the corner.  

I am having difficulty in seeing an endorsement of Trump as being a moral instead of a partisan political issue.  If I voted for Trump, do I need to confess this to the bishop?  Have my temple recommend taken away?

If someone is prepared to look foolish, by all means declare yourself in the public square and we will help clarify things for you.   But it will be painful.

Does that answer your question.

Edited January 3, 2017 by cdowis

[Sky]

1 hour ago, longview said:

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

It's the truth.  And I'm not sorry for speaking up!  

[thesometimesaint]

It would have been better to not perform at any inauguration. What puts a partisan political stink on it is the last 50+ year one sided singing at Republican inauguration's. If we, as a church, truly are non-partisan this gives the impression of political support when there should be none.

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I am having difficulty in seeing an endorsement of Trump as being a moral instead of a partisan political issue.  If I voted for Trump, do I need to confess this to the bishop?  Have my temple recommend taken away?

If someone is prepared to look foolish, by all means declare yourself in the public square and we will help clarify things for you.   But it will be painful.

Does that answer your question.

That's between you and God. But you should be very clear with God as to why if you voted for Trump.

[Gray]

38 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Read this story...facts do matter and there is a reason the press stopped vilifying Bannon. The facts were not supporting the accusations. http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/impotent-rage-about-trump-directed-at-steve-bannon/2016/11/15/0/ You can casually dismiss all conservative reporting but that does put you in an echo chamber. The story about the Russian hacking of a Vermont utility by the Washington Post has been proven to be full of untruths. I saw the story repeated by many news organizations even though the 'evidence' and facts were wrong. Everyone needs to read news articles extremely critically no matter the source and read differing viewpoints to find the full picture. It isn't easy right now to know what is true. http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/washington-post-officially-now-admits-totally-blowing-story-about-russian-hacking-u-s-power-grid/

Just based on the hyperlinks and headlines, these don't sound like credible sources at all. Fake news strikes again?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Sky said:

It's the truth.  And I'm not sorry for speaking up!  

Depends on what you mean by minority.

 

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps I missed that. This is a fast-moving thread, and I might not be catching every post. 

I would point out that words carry varied connotations, and in discussing sensitive or controversial matters, it is vital to make one's meaning clear, such as not necessarily saying "political" when one means governmental. 

Of course, those whose intent is to purposely spin something may intentionally use ambiguous terminology. 

Or saying "political" when one means partisan.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It would have been better to not perform at any inauguration. What puts a partisan political stink on it is the last 50+ year one sided singing at Republican inauguration's. If we, as a church, truly are non-partisan this gives the impression of political support when there should be none.

People are ignoring the fact that the MoTabs have sung for every president since Taft (maybe not Obama as the article was 2012).  That they have not sung at some presidents' events because they were not invited is hardly their fault.  They sung at others when invited by Democrats just as they did Republicans.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Sky said:

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.  

 

The same argument could have been made about each of the past six presidential inaugurations at which the choir has performed.

So are you going to argue, as some here have done already, that the choir should not participate in any inaugural ceremonies or any government events, for that matter? That doesn't strike me as acceptable policy given that the mission of the choir is to be a goodwill ambassador for the Church, and that much of its reason for being is to carry forth a good influence in the world at large and to help carry out the scriptural mandate to bring the Church out of obscurity.

Quote

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!  

I see that someone else has already taken you to task for your absolutist statement about "all minorities." Perhaps you didn't mean it to be absolutist.

But to the extent that any feel "under attack," we must evaluate whether such a feeling is justified. (And before anyone starts with me on this, no, I do not accept the notion that "perception is reality.")

I think it can be reasonably argued that such such a feeling, to the extent it exists, has as much or more to do with the pervasiveness of anti-Trump rhetoric as it does to reality. Thus, I have announced my intent to revisit this matter annually for the next four years, to determine to what extent the present paranoia will have been justified.

So, it is fair to ask whether the choir and the Church ought to let their behavior be driven by what, after all, may be nothing more than reaction to partisan rhetoric.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, Sky said:

It's the truth.  And I'm not sorry for speaking up!  

The use of "all" makes it untrue.  I will prove you wrong. My husband has a co-worker who is black who voted for Trump. After the election, my husband walked up to him and asked if he was "racist" for voting for Trump. He thought that was so funny. His brother may still not be talking to him but he was a minority and a Trump supporter. And here is one more.  Have you heard of Diamond and Silk. http://www.diamondandsilkinc.com/  They have been on the Trump bandwagon since the beginning of his campaign. The rhetoric during this election season has been so strident and divisive and some choose to believe every nasty interpretation about the other side without any research at all. Here is a liberals analysis of Trumps statements on Mexican immigrants. It may have a spin you haven't heard before. http://www.salon.com/2015/12/21/the_media_needs_to_stop_telling_this_lie_about_donald_trump_im_a_sanders_supporter_and_value_honesty/ 

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is not self-evident that performing at the presidential inauguration is a matter of morality. I would earnestly argue that it isn't. 

Neither is denying gays the right to marry self-evident that it is a matter of morality.  It all depends on the eye of the beholder.

[Sky]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on what you mean by minority.

 

I mean Muslims, Jews, women, people of color, refugees, and LGBT people.  

Almost everyone that isn't white, straight, affluent, and Christian.  

[cinepro]

Interestingly, the choir just announced which song they're singing and it looks like they may be taking this to the next level.

[Sky]

I'm referring to all the people and groups that Trump has insulted. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

People are ignoring the fact that the MoTabs have sung for every president since Taft (maybe not Obama as the article was 2012).  That they have not sung at some presidents' events because they were not invited is hardly their fault.  They sung at others when invited by Democrats just as they did Republicans.

The Sometime Saint continues to ignore it on this thread when he has been corrected each and every time he has raised the point here. If there is any "political stink," it is not the fault of the choir or of the Church, when they have consistently accepted every invitation that has come to them.

If The Sometime Saint contends otherwise, let him cite even one instance in which the choir has refused an invitation to perform at a government event such as an inauguration when that invitation has been extended by Democrats.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Neither is denying gays the right to marry self-evident that it is a matter of morality.  It all depends on the eye of the beholder.

Performing at a presidential inauguration has never been regarded by the Church as a moral issue. So Jan Chamberlin and others who are holding the choir (and, by logical extension, the Church) in contempt for performing at the inauguration are endeavoring to hold the Church accountable for a standard that the Church does not accept.

 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Sky said:

It's the truth.  And I'm not sorry for speaking up!  

White, rich men are a minority...they do not make up 51% of the population.  Women are viewed as a minority though they are greater in numbers than men due to their lower power and status in general society.  White women would actually be a minority in terms of total population (probably around 35-40%) even if they are the largest group...but then you can break them down into mothers and not mothers, single mothers, empty nest mothers, working women, homemakers, students, etc.

"All minorities" can be defined as including every person as they can be identified in some category as belonging to a subcategory that is less than 51% of thepopulation.

One of the problems with absolute statements is the usual poor detail provided that allows them to be disproved easily...given the majority of white women voted for Trump, that is one minority that contradicts your statement.

But you likely mean minorities in terms of ethnic issues.

But then you need to deal with those ethnic minority individuals who voted for Trump.

Unless you mean that as a total group the majority of the group felt this way. 

This may or may not be true.  And may be confusing of the actual reactions to Trump that led to his winning rather than enlightening anyway.

I came across an interesting article, haven't verified the accuracy, but if accurate, then it needs to be explained why a greater percentage of minorities voted for Trump than other Republicans in the past and this difference is what got him elected, not his appeal to white voters.

https://thehornnews.com/sorry-liberals-minority-votes-won-trump/

"Did Trump say some awful things? Yes, and guess what? White voters responded — Trump’s winning coalition had a smaller proportion of the white vote than Romney or McCain or Bush in either of his elections. 

Sorry liberals, but it’s true. Trump wasn’t elected by white racists, and we can prove it.

If you look at the data and do the math, the difference in Tuesday’s election was African American and Hispanic voters supporting Trump and rejecting Clinton.

The Horn News showed last month that polling data showed Trump was going to win… thanks to increased support among African American and Hispanic voters. 

Guess what happened?

Trump won the votes of Hispanic and African Americans in a greater total proportion among any Republican presidential candidate in 20 years.

When you break down the numbers, Trump had less support proportionally among white voters than McCain, Bush in 2000, and Romney did. But his support among African American voters was more than double John McCain’s support in 2008, and nearly twice as large as Mitt Romney’s in 2012.

It wasn’t huge, but in an incredibly tight election that small swing won him the critical swing states.

For all the mainstream media talks about racism, xenophobia, sexism and bigotry, the fact is that Obama’s “identity politics” coalition failed.

In 2012, Mitt Romney lost Florida to Barack Obama by 1% of the vote. In 2016, Donald Trump won Florida over Hillary Clinton by 1.3%.

The difference? African American voters. Trump won a meager 8% of the black vote in Florida – but that was three points higher than Mitt Romney. The difference made up approximately a 0.6% shift in the total vote from one side to the other, a 1.2% total impact.

In other words, if Romney had the support among African Americans voters that Trump did, he would have won Florida too.

In state after state, the numbers prove that Trump had an unexpected groundswell of support among minorities. It was the difference maker that gave him the edge. Between Hispanic and African American support, Clinton lost 3% nationally to Trump TOTAL. In an election decided by less than 1% of the vote, that’s significant."

I don't think just because some support came from minorities, that means Trump is not a racist or even that those who voted for him don't see him as a racist.  I know of people who both view him as a racist and still voted for him, including some because they viewed Clinton's policies as more damaging to their communities than Trump's attitudes while his economic policies would be less harmful/more helpful.   Just using the article for the numbers, I find its tone inappropriate and many of its conclusions reaching. (If I had looked harder and found the below first, I would have only posted that, but since others have read the post with this cite, I feel I should leave it).

Here is another article supporting that claim:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.7f31899f0720

"There are different benchmarks one can use to see how Trump performed compared with prior Republican nominees. Comparing yesterday’s results with 2012, as this Washington Post feature does, shows that Trump actually performed slightly worse among white voters than Mitt Romney did. He did, however, perform better than Romney among blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans, making it more difficult to claim that racial resentment was the dominant factor explaining Trump’s support nationally."

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm