The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[Tacenda]

2 hours 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. 

My FB page was loaded with Obama haters when he was elected.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, why me said:

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?

You are aware of the lawsuits brought against his companies for discrimination?

And if you were not aware of him being called sexist due to his treatment of those participating in the beauty pageants he ran, you might want to look into that now.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour 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.

I heard the other day that artists are afraid to play for Trump's inauguration for fear that they'll lose fans or something. I guess it's a big problem. Could that happen to the church or the Tabernacle Choir I wonder.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

I believe the Choir by approaching the event as business as usual, we are here to serve the country, is refusing to play the game.

Doesn't stop other people from trying to take advantage of them, but that would have happened no matter what choice they made.

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, why me said:

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.

Indeed this is the case. Playing the Hitler card reveals an ignorance of history or worse, a willful distortion. It destroys the credibility of the argument. Dragging the Church and the choir into a personal beef and intentionally making it international news was unfortunate and avoidable. Let's hope this ends well for everyone. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe the Choir by approaching the event as business as usual, we are here to serve the country, is refusing to play the game.

Doesn't stop other people from trying to take advantage of them, but that would have happened no matter what choice they made.

That depends on the spirit/Spirit they bring with them, right?

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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 think those who act as if the car has already been driven off the cliff aren't helping, but making it worse.  I think people should speak up and speak up fiercely in encouraging him to make the correct choices now.  It is not hopeful to see his cabinet, but the 'disaster has come upon us now' attitude when little has been actually done gives Trump no reason to try and persuade them as it appears they have made their minds up already, so why try to negotiate with them?

[why me]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are aware of the lawsuits brought against his companies for discrimination?

And if you were not aware of him being called sexist due to his treatment of those participating in the beauty pageants he ran, you might want to look into that now.

Most of this came out when he announced that he was running for president and when he became the republican candidate. And I don't remember him being convicted of discrimination or for his treatment of women. And I have no idea what happened to the lawsuits that women brought against him when he was the republican candidate. I have no idea what was political or real. And so, what should a person do? I cannot rush to judgement. However, in 1993 many performers performed for bill clinton and he was accused of being a sexual predator and he did pay off a lawsuit. But no one seemed to care in hollywood about this. We live in strange times and unfortunately, a lot is political. Here is obama talking about ted kennedy and we all know what he did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/29/AR2009082901085.html

I tend to be rather open minded about it all. I know what has been done in the past and how people reacted to bill and ted and others. And how hillary attacked the women who bill hurt. Why should trump be treated any differently from the names that I just mentioned? And trump has not been found guilty in a court, whether federal or civil.

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed this is the case. Playing the Hitler card reveals an ignorance of history or worse, a willful distortion. It destroys the credibility of the argument. Dragging the Church and the choir into a personal beef and intentionally making it international news was unfortunate and avoidable. Let's hope this ends well for everyone. 

It's not that simple. Are there parallels to pre-WWII that are concerning? Yes. Are they bad on their own? Yes. Then it is (or can be) more than a rhetorical "card" exploiting emotion.

The world is getting more complex, not less. And in some ways it is much easier for one person or a few to do terrible things than it was then.

[Rain]

I feel the choir singing is partisan. Not that the choir is partisan,  but just them singing there.  From what I understand they have been invited to every inauguration where Utah has voted in the president, whether Democrat or Republican for the last 50 years. You can correct me if I am wrong. That is partisan even if unintended by the choir. 

If the choir were to say no then it would make the choir partisan and not just the situation.

This makes the choir kind of stuck where politics matters. Because singing there cannot be not partisan at this point, then they need to make the choice based on something else.

On Monday, January 02, 2017 at 3:50 PM, bluebell said:

 

In my opinion, Trump isn't that dangerous.  The American public, who is so good at reacting on purely emotional levels with very little accurate information or knowledge and who immediately ramp every disagreement or fear to "Hitler" levels regardless of how baseless the comparison is, is dangerous.

With all the talk I have really wondered about the comparison. I do not know history enough to make a comparison. I find most people compare the whole of Hitler with what we know of Trump before he gets into office.  That is a really unfair comparison. I'm wondering if those who know history - what similarities and differences do the two men before Hitler came into office?  What similarities and differences are in the two countries where they were in power before they came into office? When we really look at the facts are they anymore similar than say Bill Clinton and Hitler? I know you said such comparisons are irresponsible, but now that they are out there and all over the place I'm curious to know if they have any substanstance. 

On Tuesday, January 03, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Duncan said:

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

This happens with every election.  With 300 million people there is always someone moving out or in because of conditions. 

 

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Or they may forever associate the choir with Trump's brand of profanity. The Motab has a very distinctive sound and appearance. Wouldn't it be sad if in the future people will be more likely to cynically think of Trump's conduct when they hear the hundreds of voices singing angelicly instead of Christ?  

Part of this is just because of Trump's use of the internet age. His is the first inauguration for which they'll sing in this age of smart phones, Twitter, and mass saturation news. He didn't distance himself from that 24hr-triviality fest, but overused it. Now his indiscreet demeanor is not something only his closest aides will write about in 20 years, it's on full display now. And now the gospel message as taught by the LDS Church will be associated with it.

This post actually decided my feelings on the matter.  Link the awful things said by Trump to the Spirit felt when the choir sings?  How wonderful! What a great place for the choir to be then because the differences would be obvious.  It would be exactly in keeping with their mission.  

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Rain

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think those who act as if the car has already been driven off the cliff aren't helping, but making it worse.  I think people should speak up and speak up fiercely in encouraging him to make the correct choices now.  It is not hopeful to see his cabinet, but the 'disaster has come upon us now' attitude when little has been actually done gives Trump no reason to try and persuade them as it appears they have made their minds up already, so why try to negotiate with them?

As long as they speak sincerely and objectively I think a wide range of dissent can help.

Multitasking!

[why me]

36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not that simple. Are there parallels to pre-WWII that are concerning? Yes. Are they bad on their own? Yes. Then it is (or can be) more than a rhetorical "card" exploiting emotion.

The world is getting more complex, not less. And in some ways it is much easier for one person or a few to do terrible things than it was then.

I see no parallels at all. Hitler was always expansionist in his speeches. He was also very anti jewish. I don't see this in trump. Just the opposite. Trump's foreign policy in non interventionist which is one reason why the neocons such as bill kristol were against him. Also, hitler had the brown shirts beat on people who disagreeed with the national socialists. These were the storm troopers. I believe that it was the democrats who were caught paying people to disrupt trump rallies. So, where are the parallets? America has a problem with its borders. It was hillary clinton who first called for physical barriers with Mexico. Trump only followed her lead. I posted her speech on this thread where she called for it and in an interview that she gave during the campaign. Those who know the history of the third reich would never equate trump to hitler. And by doing so, it may offend jewish people. In fact, the current government of isreal supports trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/247789-romney-campaign-tells-obama-to-rein-in-his-supporters-on-nazi-comments

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262157/every-republican-presidential-candidate-hitler-daniel-greenfield

deja vu.

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, why me said:

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.

Though, as I mentioned there are definite differences. I know that and even she has pointed out that she knows that and the comparisons are outlined. She's also not the first or close to it to find some parallels. Watch this video here: 

It's been seen almost 2 million times and is overwhelmingly "liked" on youtube. You can check the comment section to realize, though having the educational range of youtube commentary (ie. Lacking). This is a common sentiment. 

Again, the differences are obvious, including in the video. But there are also some obvious parallels that are concerning. And though it's holey it's not overtly reckless. Reckless to me is when there is little to no actual correlation and making little effort to explain why one is making the connection. To back me up, here's an article from the guy who coined the term "Godwin's Law" about hitler analogies to this election.

And it still doesn't make it political to make parallels in and of itself. If she finished the sentence with this is why we should have voted for Clinton, McMullin, Etc. Then, yes that makes it political. Currently she's talking about standing up for moral terms and not necessarily a specific policy or leader. 

 

Again, I believe her when she states this is a moral stand for her. She hasn't given me enough reason to question it. When she starts ranting about a specific policy or holding up one party as the right one from the public platform she currently has, then I'll change my answer.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

Why me, if I heard about it, then it was out there.  Federal lawsuits are not done on the qt.

And the pageant stuff...seriously, there was constant gossip from what I saw.  He wanted it that way.  This guy has used controversy for free advertising for as long as I can remember.  

The birther stuff got him blasted for being racist...

Edited January 4, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not that simple. Are there parallels to pre-WWII that are concerning? Yes. Are they bad on their own? Yes. Then it is (or can be) more than a rhetorical "card" exploiting emotion.

The world is getting more complex, not less. And in some ways it is much easier for one person or a few to do terrible things than it was then.

I guess I have a lot more faith in our constitutional protections and the good will of our people. I don't see any legitimate comparisons between Hitler's rise to power in post-WWI Germany and Trump's election in modern America, so I think fears about Trump being another Hitler are irrational and divisive. That said, the sister in question made a mistake to drag her beloved choir and the Church into what could have been a valid personal and private decision. Calling Trump Hitler destroyed her credibility. Unfortunately, the damage has spread and now has surpassed her ability to control.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

With a church full of friends like this, who needs enemies?

I continue to be baffled and discouraged by the treatment of this woman online by supposed faithful LDS members. Some people claim that church provides an unparalleled community of love and acceptance but I'm just not seeing it. People couldn't have turned on this woman any faster than they did.

[why me]

15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Though, as I mentioned there are definite differences. I know that and even she has pointed out that she knows that and the comparisons are outlined. She's also not the first or close to it to find some parallels. Watch this video here: 

It's been seen almost 2 million times and is overwhelmingly "liked" on youtube. You can check the comment section to realize, though having the educational range of youtube commentary (ie. Lacking). This is a common sentiment. 

Again, the differences are obvious, including in the video. But there are also some obvious parallels that are concerning. And though it's holey it's not overtly reckless. Reckless to me is when there is little to no actual correlation and making little effort to explain why one is making the connection. To back me up, here's an article from the guy who coined the term "Godwin's Law" about hitler analogies to this election.

And it still doesn't make it political to make parallels in and of itself. If she finished the sentence with this is why we should have voted for Clinton, McMullin, Etc. Then, yes that makes it political. Currently she's talking about standing up for moral terms and not necessarily a specific policy or leader. 

 

Again, I believe her when she states this is a moral stand for her. She hasn't given me enough reason to question it. When she starts ranting about a specific policy or holding up one party as the right one from the public platform she currently has, then I'll change my answer.

 

With luv,

BD

 

My problem is rather simple: most republican candidates have been compared to hitler by the democrats, even romney was compared to hitler and nikki haley was compared to hitler's girlfriend eva braun during the romney campaign. Enough is enough with the hitler comparisons which are mainly started by the democrats.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-democrats-who-cried-wolf/493928/

Unfortunately many fall for it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262157/every-republican-presidential-candidate-hitler-daniel-greenfield

Even ted cruz would now be compared to hitler if he was the candidate. It is unavoidable.

 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

With a church full of friends like this, who needs enemies?

I continue to be baffled and discouraged by the treatment of this woman online by supposed faithful LDS members. Some people claim that church provides an unparalleled community of love and acceptance but I'm just not seeing it. People couldn't have turned on this woman any faster than they did.

It's sad that we (humans) always seem to become adversarial when someone does something we don't agree with.  It's even worse when the person implies that those who disagree with them are behaving immorally.  We all need to do better.

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I guess I have a lot more faith in our constitutional protections and the good will of our people. I don't see any legitimate comparisons between Hitler's rise to power in post-WWI Germany and Trump's election in modern America, so I think fears about Trump being another Hitler are irrational and divisive. That said, the sister in question made a mistake to drag her beloved choir and the Church into what could have been a valid personal and private decision. Calling Trump Hitler destroyed her credibility. Unfortunately, the damage has spread and now has surpassed her ability to control.

I know WW1 really had an effect on Germany. Did they have anything set up similar to the constitution? Did that change with WW1? 

[why me]

This is an  interesting discussion about trump and hitler. However, let us turn the tables somewhat. We all know that on campuses across america, we have a problem with alternative points of view being discussed and debated. I can document this with a host of support by I chose not to. But here is one example:

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/05/24/american-college-students-frighteningly-stupid-says-producer-of-clip-showing-kids-on-portland-campus-donating-money-to-hamas-video/

The web is full of such reports about the lack of critical thinking skills and also the lack of diverse opinions. Can we call this the new fascism on american campuses? Where alternative thinking from the progressive norm is mocked and squashed on campuses. Comparing trump to hitler is just one example and the general feeling that trump is hitler on american campuses.

Who are the fascists and brown shirts?

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[BlueDreams]

16 minutes ago, why me said:

My problem is rather simple: most republican candidates have been compared to hitler by the democrats, even romney was compared to hitler and nikki haley was compared to hitler's girlfriend eva braun during the romney campaign. Enough is enough with the hitler comparisons which are mainly started by the democrats.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-democrats-who-cried-wolf/493928/

Unfortunately many fall for it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262157/every-republican-presidential-candidate-hitler-daniel-greenfield

Even ted cruz would now be compared to hitler if he was the candidate. It is unavoidable.

 

So have democrats. I have emails from my mom during the Obama/McCain election that was comparing abortion to the holocaust. And (later) general evil. And a dictator. And sinking this nation. And the end of america. And the worst president we've ever had. etc. But there was little thought behind it from those I'd hear this the most from. Mostly emotional reactivity, rumor, partisan disapproval/disagreement, and poor evidence that fell apart with minor prodding. As the article mentioned it's a common hole we fall in. Thus Godwin's Law. It doesn't mean that sometimes the referencing is completely a farse. With both, I've been skeptical of hyperbolic claims with little evidence for it or few parallels beyond emotions. And yet in just some of the articles referenced, I've seen perfectly valid and thought out arguments for why he could be considered a demagogue, proto-fascist, etc.  

 

With luv,

BD

 

[BlueDreams]

18 minutes ago, why me said:

This is an  interesting discussion about trump and hitler. However, let us turn the tables somewhat. We all know that on campuses across america, we have a problem with alternative points of view being discussed and debated. I can document this with a host of support by I chose not to. But here is one example:

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/05/24/american-college-students-frighteningly-stupid-says-producer-of-clip-showing-kids-on-portland-campus-donating-money-to-hamas-video/

The web is full of such reports about the lack of critical thinking skills and also the lack of diverse opinions. Can we call this the new fascism on american campuses? Where alternative thinking from the progressive norm is mocked and squashed on campuses. Comparing trump to hitler is just one example and the general feeling that trump is hitler on american campuses.

Who are the fascists and brown shirts?

No, By basic definition of the term. Look up fascism in wikipedia. Though the behavior is not mature, it doesn't in and of itself insist on facsism. Especially considering most of the behaviors were not attacking the person involved but the symbol of what is seen by many overtly hate-based, discriminatory, and backwards. (Warning, about to use extreme examples) It similar to graffiti on the berlin wall or the agitation that comes in reaction from a KKK rally...or the white nationalist groups that were protesting the removal of the confederat flag in SC. It wasn't entirely about the trump supporter, but the wall....a wall that many in the crowd would see as a direct threat to a multicultural society and greater safety for immigrants and the underprivileged. Is it a form of intolerance and improper reactions? Sure. Fascism? No. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

I know WW1 really had an effect on Germany. Did they have anything set up similar to the constitution? Did that change with WW1? 

Germany went under major governmental revisions between WWI and WW2. For a while it wasn't even called Germany anymore.  The country became the Weimar Republic.  Before WWI, it was an imperial power with an elected parliament, this started to fall a part during the war.  As the WR it became a parliamentary democracy (which never really managed to work).

What really allowed the Nazis (they were a socialist party) to gain power were the reparations Germany was ordered to pay under the treaty of versailles (which were exorbitant and also caused a huge swell of nationalism because of the humiliation they caused) and then the great depression hit an economically unstable Germany really hard.  Until that point, Hitler had not been able to seize control.  

In the early 1930s, everyone was very poor, very hungry, women greatly outnumbered men, there were no jobs, and everyone was suffering.  When the Nazis grew more vocal (after an earlier political defeat) and said they could not only fix it but prove to the world that Germans were better than everyone else, a lot of people jumped on the wagon out of desperation.  

After that the Nazis and Hitler consolidated power (by using a slim majority in the parliament to get a decree signed that basically made a dictatorship legally possible) in a way that allowed them to change the republic into a totalitarian regime.  

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I guess I have a lot more faith in our constitutional protections and the good will of our people. I don't see any legitimate comparisons between Hitler's rise to power in post-WWI Germany and Trump's election in modern America, so I think fears about Trump being another Hitler are irrational and divisive. That said, the sister in question made a mistake to drag her beloved choir and the Church into what could have been a valid personal and private decision. Calling Trump Hitler destroyed her credibility. Unfortunately, the damage has spread and now has surpassed her ability to control.

What damage? The choir was already catching plenty of flack for doing this with or without her resignation. 

I mean for the most part this is a blip on the log term newsfeed. In some ways, particularly for those who may feel out of step with the church her example could also be indicative of be faithful while maintaining a respectful stance in disagreement of a choice made within the structure of the church. 

She hasn't bad-mouth the hitch or its leaders. She hasn't insisted her choice is the only right one. And has insisted on respecting all decisions on the matter. In many ways that's very different than the rhetoric we usually get in polarizing choices in the church. Both people critical and in favor of a principle, decision, etc have a tendency to paint the worst intentions and perspectives of the other camp, till we become nothing but charicatures and stereotypes of faith and dissent, trust and concerns, liberal and conservative, etc.

she is not following said trap.

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited January 4, 2017 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

What damage? The choir was already catching plenty of flack for doing this with or without her resignation. 

I mean for the most part this is a blip on the log term newsfeed. In some ways, particularly for those who may feel out of step with the church her example could also be indicative of be faithful while maintaining a respectful stance in disagreement of a choice made within the structure of the church. 

 

With luv, 

BD

I think she might have intensified the flak by making it more visual.  For example, on my newsfeed, articles about the grumblings concerning the choir singing were listed way down on the page, like 15th or further down the list.  After her Facebook post, I had articles about her in my top 5 news articles, which are highlighted at the top of the page with bigger headlines and accompanying photos.