The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I feel like you misread bluebell, she stated in my opinion that she was accepting the reasoning to change it to the same language you are saying here:  you made a comparison.

Thanks, Calm, I did catch her change.

I was speaking to the subject itself, trying to show that reductio ad hitlerum is only one mistake of many when trying to learn from the Holocaust.

Dismissing/delegitimizing complaints because they invoke the Holocaust is a mistake, too.

I guess we just can't afford to not think deeply, which is scary, because the nature of dialogue itself limits things.

Maybe that is why the Spirit is so important. I've voiced my concerns about Trump and about the Motab performance, now I will hope that, in this, all of us can pray that the Spirit can be with us, and especially there at the inauguration. 

 

[why me]

Trump became a media invention. First they prop him up and then attempted to take him down. They failed. But on the way to failure they disparaged trump with all sorts of accusations. And many of these stuck. For example, trump took a lot of heat about the wall. And yet, the wall was clinton's idea before it was trump's idea. She called for physical barriers to protect the border before trump did. And yet, no claims that she is racist. In fact, the media ignored what she said in this interview:

Why not? It is unforunate that people do not realize this and that many are so addicted to media interpretations. I am sure that the woman who does not want to sing in the choir for trump would have found no problem singing for clinton, regardless of her stances on abortion and other issues that may contradict lds teachings. There is a certain shallowness about it all.

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not persuaded he blanketly insulted any of these groups, but regarding LGBT people, can you cite a specific instance? In the one interview I saw where this came up, he was asked his view on gay marriage. He replied that the question is irrelevant, because gay marriage is now a matter of law. 

That's more moderate than I would have been. I would have replied forthrightly that I am opposed to it on principle. 

 

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Trump is no friend to the gay community.  Actions count a lot.  Virtually every cabinet member he has appointed has had some pretty horrible things about LGBT people.  I think like most of the minority groups Trump has attacked, the LGBT are very afraid of what he might do.  Who he appoints to the Supreme Court has a lot of people nervous.  

 

Your opinion is noted, but it doesn't really take up the challenge I put to Sky, which is to cite a a specific instance where Trump has insulted LGBT people. There may be one -- I didn't see all the pre-election coverage -- but I have yet to see it cited. At this point I'm inclined to think many people, former MoTab soprano included, are reacting more to a caricature of Trump than they are to the real man. (I realized, though not until after the election, that I had been doing that to some extent myself, and I have subsequently been doing some rethinking of my position.) And as a sometime defender of the Church of Jesus Christ, I have been an observer of unjust caricatures and reactions thereto.

Quote

Personally, I am not going to get excited about what might happen.  I am willing to give him a chance.  When he actually does something that I disagree with, then I will voice my concern.

I think this is a reasonable attitude.

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe that is why the Spirit is so important. I've voiced my concerns about Trump and about the Motab performance, now I will hope that, in this, all of us can pray that the Spirit can be with us, and especially there at the inauguration. 

 

I join you in that hope, but I'm afraid such a prayer might seem rather hollow coming from one who, invited to participate in the inauguration, refused to do so on partisan grounds. Which is why it has been so important that the choir leadership respond affirmatively, forthrightly and enthusiastically to the invitation to perform there.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

Maybe everyone should wait and see just what he does as president. At the moment, people are making judgements about him, including the resigned choir singer. The poor guy is not even president yet. However, I do know that the people in Indiana who work for the air conditioner company are grateful to him. Without trump they would be unemployed and losing their homes. And now we have Ford creating jobs in Michigan and not Mexico. And Ford said it was because of trump. Those people are also grateful. So why the judgementalism? Trump was a national figure for years as a celebrity. I never heard anyone say that he was racist, sexist etc. He was quite honored in fact. So, why the change? People should sit and wait and see what happens. And comparisons to Hitler are not applicable.

Hitler was against Jews. Trump's daughter is jewish. Even many Isrealis support trump. Hitler was expanionist. Trump isn't. Just the opposite. In fact, George W. Bush, Obama and Hillary Clinton were expansionist is forcing countries to change their governments: iraq, libya, egypt, syria, ukraine, etc.  Hitler put people in concentration camps, mainly communists, socialists as political enemies. Not to mention jews and gypsies etc. I see no such plans by trump. I find it amazing the level of insight some americans have, such as the woman who sang in the choir.

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[why me]

I think we need to see just what this mass hysteria about Trump could lead to. Americans seem to be easily led by mass hysteria, usually sponsored by the media. Does anyone remember the mass hysteria about saddam and Iraq? And the mass hysteria for war with him? The usa was pumped up for war. If anyone opposed the war, they were listed as unamerican. Most were convinced that saddam was the great threat to the world since hitler because of his weapons of mass destruction. Now, years later, where did this mass hysteria lead? To disaster. We also had mass hysteria when the soviet union invaded afghanistan, a country that bordered the soviet union. And where did this mass hysteria lead? To supporting what became known as the taliban to defeat the soviets. And now we are beginning to see hysteria about putin. But not from trump but rather from the same people who gave us iraq and afghanistan among other foreign initiatives.

And of course, we have this mass hysteria about trump. Who created such hysteria? Who is behind such hysteria and why? Could it be the same elite who gave us the war with iraq and the proxy war with the soviets in afghanistan in 1980? And the war with libya under obama? What has that done for us: a chaotic state. I hope that americans would sit back and relax. The usa has done much to create chaos already due to hysteria. And now we have hysteria against trump and russia and many calling trump hitler. Enough is enough. People should not be puppets. Sit back and think about who is leading this mass hysteria...something that the former choir member did not do.

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[why me]

And finally, why the backlash against trump now? Because the media lied to clinton supporters. They had her winning by a landslide and trump defeated by huge margins. But the opposite happened. Shock. And now they are lashing out. I believe that the choir member is one of those people in shock. And the hollywood A listers too. Mormons should be proud of their choir. They will be performing with marching bands from local communities across the land...and with military bands and with groups of people from the entire country.  The choir did not fall for the mass hysteria and for the threats. They are strong in their faith and in their mission and when this is all over, that choir member will perhaps have regrets because the performances from middle america and the marching bands will be great.

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It was funny that you take such issue with comparisons to Hitler but had no trouble simplifying my characterisation,  in effect, enhancing that characterisation to Hitler to an absolute equivalence! 

The essential problem with reductio ad hitlerum is what you had just done, mass generalisation. It tends to exploit one atrocity for its emotional capital. But there is even a worse problem, which is to characterise genuine comparisons as mere rhetorical over-generalisation. That generates the opposite intended effect: providing a protective shield over very bad things as soon as they're compared to the Holocaust.

I'm glad that at least we both agree that the nature of emotional politicization as part of Trump's movement is concerning.

My goodness MK, I apologized and changed the wording to match more accurately what you did.  Don't read anything nefarious into it.

I was lazy in my word choice and used the word "same" instead of "comparable," nothing more sinister is going on behind the curtain than that.  

 

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thank you for that.  Very nice.  I was once a specialist in Russian language, culture, music, politics, and gov't -- brought back some balalaika memories.

I can't think of any presidents elected in my lifetime who were greeted with inordinate dismay on their inauguration, and that's about 13 of them.  This or that party has always come into office with a lot of good will from the opposition, and nearly everyone behaved in a very civil manner.  Even taking into account the recent dysfunctional Congress, there is no precedent for the type of nonsense we see with our incoming President -- and the dangers are quite real.

Where I live, there were quite a few members who sincerely believed that Obama was going to overthrow the government and become a dictator when he won the second time.  They were devastated when he was elected. 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thank you for that.  Very nice.  I was once a specialist in Russian language, culture, music, politics, and gov't -- brought back some balalaika memories.

I can't think of any presidents elected in my lifetime who were greeted with inordinate dismay on their inauguration, and that's about 13 of them.  This or that party has always come into office with a lot of good will from the opposition, and nearly everyone behaved in a very civil manner.  Even taking into account the recent dysfunctional Congress, there is no precedent for the type of nonsense we see with our incoming President -- and the dangers are quite real.

As a liberal, I would happily take any of the previous Republican presidents over Trump. Unfortunately I have come to live in the days of the fulfillment of the old Chinese curse - "may you live in interesting times"

Edited January 4, 2017 by Gray

[BlueDreams]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where I live, there were quite a few members who sincerely believed that Obama was going to overthrow the government and become a dictator when he won the second time.  They were devastated when he was elected. 

True. But I think that fell far more on partisan lines...to those who were republican or conservative. far more than the concerns for Trump is. Most the people I knew were happy if not excited and joyous (particularly if they voted for Obama). Or at the very least ok, though disappointed. And that's before I talk about the place that minorities of all colors felt about it....didn't matter ones political views on that one. 

Trump concerns are not as divided by partisan lines. In fact in many ways it's been a uniting factor from those who are very conservative but hate him. I just had a conversation with someone the other day who is the polar opposite to me politically and feels equally, if not more concerned about Trump. All of my friends, no matter their political ideology, are nervous and not exactly super optimistic. The best lines of optimism I have is that "maybe he won't be as bad as his vast array of statements and behavior point him out to be." It says something that though Chanberlain is very publically against Trump, I can't say for sure she's a democrat or even all that liberal.

of course there are those like my mother who is happy and not worried in the least. Of course half of THAT is definitely more about partisan and political beliefs and the fact that Clinton lost....less about the man and more about the party.

 

with luv, 

BD

Edited January 4, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

My goodness MK, I apologized and changed the wording to match more accurately what you did.  Don't read anything nefarious into it.

I was lazy in my word choice and used the word "same" instead of "comparable," nothing more sinister is going on behind the curtain than that.  

 

I was not reading into it, merely commenting about what you had said. Thank you for the correction. Then I added commentary about the subject, not directed at you personally...because the ideas involved here are bigger than us.

Perhaps tone would be more easily understood in person!

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Where I live, there were quite a few members who sincerely believed that Obama was going to overthrow the government and become a dictator when he won the second time.  They were devastated when he was elected. 

I was almost ready to buy into those fears with Obama but didn't get completely convinced, which is why the approval of Trump by seemingly many of the same people is so mindboggling to me. To me, Trump is so obviously worse , he just ran as a Republican.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

True. But I think that fell far more on partisan lines...to those who were republican or conservative. far more than the concerns for Trump is. Most the people I knew were happy if not excited and joyous (particularly if they voted for Obama). Or at the very least ok, though disappointed. And that's before I talk about the place that minorities of all colors felt about it....didn't matter ones political views on that one. 

Trump concerns are not as divided by partisan lines. In fact in many ways it's been a uniting factor from those who are very conservative but hate him. I just had a conversation with someone the other day who is the polar opposite to me politically and feels equally, if not more concerned about Trump. All of my friends, no matter their political ideology, are nervous and not exactly super optimistic. The best lines of optimism I have is that "maybe he won't be as bad as his vast array of statements and behavior point him out to be." It says something that though Chanberlain is very publically against Trump, I can't say for sure she's a democrat or even all that liberal.

of course there are those like my mother who is happy and not worried in the least. Of course half of THAT is definitely more about partisan and political beliefs and the fact that Clinton lost....less about the man and more about the party.

 

with luv, 

BD

I completely agree.  Trump is unique.  My only point was that, for some people, Obama was a very scary event.  I personally didn't understand it, but it was their reality for a time.

[why me]

Americans elected Trump for a reason. We must go into what exactly happened during the last 20 years to find out why he was elected. Something happened during these years that made people elect trump. And historians will be looking at the roots and debating the reasons for his success. However, many americans are tired or the same old, same old. In fact, many whites voted for obama for hope and change. Obama ran on change....change from neoliberal policies that have guided america since the time of reagan. He failed and became part of the establisment. The democrats and the republicans neglected the white working class and it is this class that revolted by voting for trump. But they were not alone: hispanics, asians, and blacks also voted for trump, more than they did for romney. People are tired and they sought relief. And democrats abandoned the working people and became obessed with poltical correctness. And left many people to suffer.

Trump's victory was a victory for hope that he can change the current direction of the US and make it more people centered. This is what obama voters wanted and he failed. Lets see what trump can do.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/why-hillary-clinton-lost/507704/

The choir is making the correct decision. And they need to sing loudly for hope because this is what people in the US need and desire..

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[why me]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree.  Trump is unique.  My only point was that, for some people, Obama was a very scary event.  I personally didn't understand it, but it was their reality for a time.

Obama became a false prophet. He did not deliver the hope that people were looking for. He got many white voters to vote for him the first time. Less so the second time. Maybe he was scary for the people in the valley. But for many people, he represented a dream that america can heal from the last president and the wars. And what happened? More war: libya, syria and isis. And more poverty and lost dreams and lost hope. Thus, trump. And now people are scared of him because of fear.

The democrats put up clinton, made sure that she was their candidate because it was her time and they lost. Clinton was the past, not the future and she was very flawed (she was behind the war with libya) and we can see the tragedy of this now being played out with mass migration into europe through libya.

http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-how-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html?utm_term=.1ffb6c8b9ae9

So, why trump? It is obvious. And so why boycott him? Would clinton have been better?

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[bluebell]

Just now, why me said:

Obama became a false prophet. He did not deliver the hope that people were looking for. He got many white voters to vote for him the first time. Less so the second time. Maybe he was scary for the people in the valley. But for many people, he represented a dream that america can heal from the last president and the wars. And what happened? More war: libya, syria and isis. And more poverty and lost dreams and lost hope. Thus, trump. And now people are scared of him because of fear.

I didn't live in the valley at the time.  I've only been in Utah 3 years.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, why me said:

Americans elected Trump for a reason. We must go into what exactly happened during the last 20 years to find out why he was elected. Something happened during these years that made people elect trump. And historians will be looking at the roots and debating the reasons for his success. However, many americans are tired or the same old, same old. In fact, many whites voted for obama for hope and change. Obama ran on change....change from neoliberal policies that have guided america since the time of reagan. He failed and became part of the establisment. The democrats and the republicans neglected the white working class and it is this class that revolted by voting for trump. But they were not alone: hispanics, asians, and blacks also voted for trump, more than they did for romney. People are tired and they sought relief. And democrats abandoned the working people and became obessed with poltical correctness. And left many people to suffer.

Trump's victory was a victory for hope that he can change the current direction of the US and make it more people centered. This is what obama voters wanted and he failed. Lets see what trump can do.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/why-hillary-clinton-lost/507704/

The choir is making the correct decision. And they need to sing loudly for hope because this is what people in the US need and desire..

 

In my opinion, if the choir sings, its identity and purpose should be independent of Trump himself, it should be to contribute the Spirit to the occasion, to contribute to betterment by encouraging the bad to good and the good to better.

[Bernard Gui]

So far, Trump has not behaved like the typical American politician and that has people worried. He won by running his campaign like he aggressively runs a competitive business, not by treachery and murder like Hitler. Comparing him with Hitler is absurd and inflammatory. Such hysteria does not serve us well. We have the good will of the American people and the constitutional protections of the division of power should he decide to govern inappropriately. Unfortunately, those have been weakened by the current administration. Time will tell which way he will preside. We will survive.

[Meadowchik]

My opinions on this have progressed to this:

All the speculation including my own makes me think of chess. Or a fight. Who will win with which moves? Which move shall the Church take to win?

The answer is to not play the game. Join the Judge, seek the Spirit, work independently of the board, don't be a pawn.

Whatever you do, seek to do that which the Spirit directs. 

[BlueDreams]

This is another thread that I haven't been paying attention to because vacation meant Star Wars and Bro time was far more important to me.

Needless to say, I haven't read all 19 pages of this, but I have been thinking about it.

My initial reaction is that I don't necessarily agree with all her reasoning and I don't think I personally would have resigned from the choir. My loyalty would get in the way. But I also wouldn't sit quietly about opting out. I would want my reason for doing so clear. On one of the other threads about the choir's decision, someone pointed out that I couldn't infer the reasons someone wasn't going, and I saw a number infer that basically those not going were doing so for reasons that were NOT about Trump's incineration and to do with logisitics with work. Obvious that was not always the case.

I've looked for video interviews of her reasoning, because it gives a better sense, to me, of feel and state-of-mind.

THey're short blurbs like this:

  There was another even shorter one that I can't find, but in both, she seems about the same if a little more smiley. She's calm, respectful, faithful, and it doesn't seem to fall on a political platform for her but a moral one.

And with that, I've also been watching a documentary series on the history of the U.S. from about WWII on. It's been good, though with bias at points. One thing, though, that has crossed my mind is just how much bad is forgotten about US policy and presidential choices. How many actions are hidden from public eye for a long time before coming to the light of day. And how easy it is to implement deplorable acts in the presidency....the power within that office. It may have a set of checks and balances, but this is one of those rare moments where the checks and balancing is fairly skewed. I've thought about group think and the mirror fest Trump has for his cabinet. I've thought of strong man syndrome. I've thought about vulnerable populations and how much of their plights and struggles go unseen and when seen are minimized. I thought of Gitmo and Torture. Is he likely to commit atrocities to the extent that Hitler did? No, I don't think so. The nation is currently not at a place that could allow it. His scape goating isn't an obvious vitriolic hatred....still racist, just not as potent or pointed. There are differences in the state of the nation, the strength of the democracy, etc. But that he may incur human rights disasters or that he may worsen the situation for the families of minority and vulnerable sectors isn't that far off nor without president in our past. That he has a personality and leadership style that on a good day is caustic and flippant and on a bad is punishing, oligarchic, and veering toward autocratic is a concern. He's showing some serious and disturbing pre-requisites to concerns that won't just effect the american people but the world. And he is in a seat of power that doesn't have an exact equivalent in said world. And there have, arguably, been abuses of power before in U.S. history, as a world power. Some of these are remembered, such as japanese concentration camps, and some are more distant from the American psyche or given more nobel intentions/justifications than warranted.

I think she could have worded it better. I've tried to stay away from h=Hitler analogies even though I do see some comparisons....not in who he became, but in the pre-req's and initial stances. But I think her point of a moral decision v. a political one does have standing. This isn't about a party, really. I don't hold similar ideals to much of the republican platform. But I've mentioned before, if it were Romney or McCain or someone of similar caliber I wouldn't be as worried. Not peached, but not filled with dread. I would expect them to follow most rules and do a decent job even if/when I disagreed with their approach. I can't say that with Trump. Though I may disagree with her approach, I can agree that the premise of it isn't about partisan allignment but moral standards. And to be neutral with that may be, in the long run, a poor decision. 

Which leads me to my last question in my head..if it's a moral stance, when is it too soon to speak up? When they're showing warning flags but haven't "done" anything serious yet? When there's at least a couple of minor immoral decisions? When they've had their first major atrocity? In historical retrospect the people who spoke out first on the right side of history are seen often as heroic, examples of following one's conscience even when it was unpopular or even life-threatening. We ignore the fact that at that time in that climate and in the social norms and beliefs these people probably looked crazy, dangerous, stupid, bull-headed, lacking temperance, etc. That at points, large parts of the population would have thought they were "too much." I think there are also those who take a stand that do so in ways that even in history are caustic and whose actions are questionable even if they have the "right" perspective. They may lean toward violence or polarizing messages or harm folks in the name of their cause. But that's not what I see from Chamberlin.

The short answer is I don't know when is too early to speak up. My guess is that answer would vary. I know moreso how to speak up that would be crossing moral lines, and Chamberlin hasn't crossed that line  to me. She's speaking loudly, but she's generally doing so with respect to those who see differently. But I have no strong reason to believe that this was a political statement for her, but a moral one. THis moral one happens to run through politics, but that is secondary. Similar to how concerns over abortions would be running secondary. That she holds a different standard of moral obligation to the Choir's decision also doesn't make a zero-sum game on moral stances where either she or the choir is wrong.

 

So though I may not have made the same exact choice, I don't have enough reason to cast shade into her decisions.

With luv,

BD  

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

This is another thread that I haven't been paying attention to because vacation meant Star Wars and Bro time was far more important to me.

Needless to say, I haven't read all 19 pages of this, but I have been thinking about it.

My initial reaction is that I don't necessarily agree with all her reasoning and I don't think I personally would have resigned from the choir. My loyalty would get in the way. But I also wouldn't sit quietly about opting out. I would want my reason for doing so clear. On one of the other threads about the choir's decision, someone pointed out that I couldn't infer the reasons someone wasn't going, and I saw a number infer that basically those not going were doing so for reasons that were NOT about Trump's incineration and to do with logisitics with work. Obvious that was not always the case.

I've looked for video interviews of her reasoning, because it gives a better sense, to me, of feel and state-of-mind.

THey're short blurbs like this:

  There was another even shorter one that I can't find, but in both, she seems about the same if a little more smiley. She's calm, respectful, faithful, and it doesn't seem to fall on a political platform for her but a moral one.

And with that, I've also been watching a documentary series on the history of the U.S. from about WWII on. It's been good, though with bias at points. One thing, though, that has crossed my mind is just how much bad is forgotten about US policy and presidential choices. How many actions are hidden from public eye for a long time before coming to the light of day. And how easy it is to implement deplorable acts in the presidency....the power within that office. It may have a set of checks and balances, but this is one of those rare moments where the checks and balancing is fairly skewed. I've thought about group think and the mirror fest Trump has for his cabinet. I've thought of strong man syndrome. I've thought about vulnerable populations and how much of their plights and struggles go unseen and when seen are minimized. I thought of Gitmo and Torture. Is he likely to commit atrocities to the extent that Hitler did? No, I don't think so. The nation is currently not at a place that could allow it. His scape goating isn't an obvious vitriolic hatred....still racist, just not as potent or pointed. There are differences in the state of the nation, the strength of the democracy, etc. But that he may incur human rights disasters or that he may worsen the situation for the families of minority and vulnerable sectors isn't that far off nor without president in our past. That he has a personality and leadership style that on a good day is caustic and flippant and on a bad is punishing, oligarchic, and veering toward autocratic is a concern. He's showing some serious and disturbing pre-requisites to concerns that won't just effect the american people but the world. And he is in a seat of power that doesn't have an exact equivalent in said world. And there have, arguably, been abuses of power before in U.S. history, as a world power. Some of these are remembered, such as japanese concentration camps, and some are more distant from the American psyche or given more nobel intentions/justifications than warranted.

I think she could have worded it better. I've tried to stay away from h=Hitler analogies even though I do see some comparisons....not in who he became, but in the pre-req's and initial stances. But I think her point of a moral decision v. a political one does have standing. This isn't about a party, really. I don't hold similar ideals to much of the republican platform. But I've mentioned before, if it were Romney or McCain or someone of similar caliber I wouldn't be as worried. Not peached, but not filled with dread. I would expect them to follow most rules and do a decent job even if/when I disagreed with their approach. I can't say that with Trump. Though I may disagree with her approach, I can agree that the premise of it isn't about partisan allignment but moral standards. And to be neutral with that may be, in the long run, a poor decision. 

Which leads me to my last question in my head..if it's a moral stance, when is it too soon to speak up? When they're showing warning flags but haven't "done" anything serious yet? In historical retrospect the people who spoke out first on the right side of history are seen often as heroic, examples of following one's conscience even when it was unpopular or even life-threatening. We ignore the fact that at that time in that climate and in the social norms and beliefs these people probably looked crazy, dangerous, stupid, bull-headed, lacking temperance, etc. That at points, large parts of the population would have thought they were "too much." I think there are also those who take a stand that do so in ways that even in history are caustic and whose actions are questionable even if they have the "right" perspective. They may lean toward violence or polarizing messages or harm folks in the name of their cause. But that's not what I see from Chamberlin.

The short answer is I don't know when is too early to speak up. My guess is that answer would vary. I know moreso how to speak up that would be crossing moral lines, and Chamberlin hasn't crossed that line  to me. She's speaking loudly, but she's generally doing so with respect to those who see differently. But I have no strong reason to believe that this was a political statement for her, but a moral one. THis moral one happens to run through politics, but that is secondary. Similar to how concerns over abortions would be running secondary. That she holds a different standard of moral obligation to the Choir's decision also doesn't make a zero-sum game on moral stances where either she or the choir is wrong.

 

So though I may not have made the same exact choice, I don't have enough reason to cast shade into her decisions.

With luv,

BD  

 

I think of it like being a passenger in a car. The driver is lost, the front seat people decide which way to go and the back seat riders disagree. They voice it but stay on board (Jen isn't resigning from the Church over this) and perhaps later their opinion will be helpful as the car continues seeking the way.

I'm glad you can see this as a moral, nonpartisan decision, BD. More people need to recognise that as a real possibility, in this and in politics in general.

[why me]

51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In my opinion, if the choir sings, its identity and purpose should be independent of Trump himself, it should be to contribute the Spirit to the occasion, to contribute to betterment by encouraging the bad to good and the good to better.

What else could it be? However, the antimormons will be critical and disparage the lds church because of it. It is in their nature. This is the only problem that I can see. Most americans will understand it for what it is and they will enjoy the performance along with the black college in alabama who will have a marching band perform and a host of other groups throughout america. It is actually a celebration of the peaceful transition of power that defines the US.

[Meadowchik]

Just now, why me said:

What else could it be? However, the antimormons will be critical and disparage the lds church because of it. It is in their nature. This is the only problem that I can see. Most americans will understand it for what it is and they will enjoy the performance along with the black college in alabama who will have a marching band perform and a host of other groups throughout america. It is actually a celebration of the peaceful transition of power that defines the US.

We need the Spirit in this not because it's simple, but because politics are so complex.

 

[why me]

49 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

 

 

So though I may not have made the same exact choice, I don't have enough reason to cast shade into her decisions.

With luv,

BD  

 

It was her equating trump to hitler that was the problem. This made it political and beyond moral reasoning. Such a comparison is immature and reckless. And should have no place in her dialogue. This made it a political statement.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5266295895001/?playlist_id=937116503001#sp=show-clips

Imagine the blowback if the choir would have taken that position. But one person perhaps can get a free pass.

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me