The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/3/2017 at 0:10 PM, Sky said:

The Mo Tab has sung in the inaugurations of all the presidents that have carried and won in Utah over the last 50 years or so.  

I will applaud the day when they sing in the inauguration of a Democratic president that didn't win in Utah.  Then I will believe their claim of being completely neutral and non-partisan.  

Seriously? You're blaming the Tabernacle Choir for not performing at events they've never been invited to?

[why me]

53 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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

 

Of course students are not beating on students. But they are closing down alternative ideas. There were many cases where trump supporters were kicked out of their meeting rooms on campus. This is left fascism. We see this all across the campuses these days. There is one way to think. The progressive hitler rhetoric was extreme in its form. Likewise for the scare mongoring. I see similiarities between left fascism and the storm troopers on campuses. We need to remember that the trump rally in chicago was closed down by left wing agitators, organized by the democratic committee. People were not allowed to hear trump speak. Now if his supporters did this, the call of nazism would be all over the papers.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, why me said:

. Enough is enough with the hitler comparisons which are mainly started by the democrats.

Yeah, the Republicans tend to go with Stalin or the AntiChrist from what I have seen.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, why me said:

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.

For the liberals in Hollywood, if a candidate supports abortion rights and partial birth abortion (outright infanticide) the blood of the innocent will wash away a multitude of that candidates sins. And it is for this same reason that many prominent feminists ignored the fact that Bill Clinton was accused of being a sexual predator, rapist and a "man" who would lie to destroy the reputation of a vulnerable White House intern in order to hide the fact that he had turned the people's Oval Office into his own personal bordello.

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, why me said:

This is left fascism...I see similiarities between left fascism and the storm troopers on campuses. 

Oh, look!  A Nazi parallel!

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, the Republicans tend to go with Stalin or the AntiChrist from what I have seen.

Antichrist is very popular.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

Are you suggesting the Choir members won't do their upmost to bring the Spirit?  Perhaps I am confused about the "them", but it seems like a given with the Choir being missionaries, that those called will generally work hard to do their work under the influence of the Spirit.

[Calm]

"Who are the fascists and brown shirts?"

So turnabout is fair play to you?  Do you realize that by doing the same thing, your condemnation of the Democrats becomes instantly hollow and looks purely partisan and not moral?  You might want to reconsider taking the route.

[Bobbieaware]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Oh, look!  A Nazi parallel!

In this case the term is actually justified. The Nazis used intimidation and strong arm tactics (remember Earnst Rohm and the Brown Shirts?) to silence any and all opposing voices in Germany. And today intimidation and threats are routinely used to silence the voices of advocates of conservatism at scores of college campuses throughout the country. Meanwhile, it's virtually unheard of to hear of conservative students and college administrators who attempt to shut down speeches given by advocates of liberalism. 

[why me]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Oh, look!  A Nazi parallel!

One that is often overlooked by those who accuse trump being hitler. Sometimes we need to look at other comparisons. Here is a gay conservative who is writing a book and the reaction from the progressives:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/04/simon-schuster-alt-right-hate-breitbart-milo-yiannopoulos

Who is preventing the book from being published?

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In this case the term is actually justified. 

Yeah, right.  And Jan Chamberlain is just as certain her use is justified.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

That would infer that media exposure equal damage. I do agree that it increased visual awareness, but I disagree that it was inherentlyndamaging to the church because of that. In the media interviews I saw if her she at no point heavily criticized the church, church leaders, or the choir nor insinuated that her way was the right way or that she was being forced to sing if she stayed. Any of which I would agree would be damaging and wrong. 

With luv,

BR

[Meadowchik]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting the Choir members won't do their upmost to bring the Spirit?  Perhaps I am confused about the "them", but it seems like a given with the Choir being missionaries, that those called will generally work hard to do their work under the influence of the Spirit.

I'm suggesting that it's not the end of the story just to, as you said, accept the invitation. It's not that easy...the Spirit has to be present...choir members are people, too, just like us.

[BlueDreams]

32 minutes ago, why me said:

One that is often overlooked by those who accuse trump being hitler. Sometimes we need to look at other comparisons. Here is a gay conservative who is writing a book and the reaction from the progressives:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/04/simon-schuster-alt-right-hate-breitbart-milo-yiannopoulos

Who is preventing the book from being published?

And my advanced high school English class had a book banned by a few conservative busybody mothers who didn't like the mention of brothel. What this is leading to is just an example, *** for tat, about who's repressive. I think most times, whether democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, or whatever other line you want to describe the extreme language describing one camp or another is often false. And if they don't have solid evidence, quotes, and trends to back it, there's a problem. I never said her analogy is perfect, but that it's not completely unfounded and isn't hinged solely on partisan lines or emotional reactivity.

If I described these mothers roles as rising fascists I would be wrong. More than that. It would be rash and stupid because I have no real evidence except for one decision they made that I disagree with and that took one of my favorite books off our reading list. If they went further and elected a ultra-conservative mayor who banned the sale of any books by the author and penalized all those who read her materials, I'd have something. And if they theorized to do so and promoted such activities as just I'd also have something. But one heated over bloated moment or sentiment can't fuel the analogy which is what usually happens.

with luv, 

BD

Edited January 4, 2017 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

That would infer that media exposure equal damage. I do agree that it increased visual awareness, but I disagree that it was inherentlyndamaging to the church because of that. In the media interviews I saw if her she at no point heavily criticized the church, church leaders, or the choir nor insinuated that her way was the right way or that she was being forced to sing if she stayed. Any of which I would agree would be damaging and wrong. 

With luv,

BR

That's true, it does infer that media exposure equals damage.  If you don't see it that way i can understand why you would view her media attention as neutrally beneficial or harmful to the church.

[Bobbieaware]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, right.  And Jan Chamberlain is just as certain her use is justified.

There's no doubt my claim is justified because it's an easily verifiable fact that the liberal mobs who shut down conservative speeches on college campuses proudly proclaim to all who will hear that they will not tolerate the expression of conservative voices. By very definition, this is intolerant fascistic behavior. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen if Trump will behave like a fascist because he hasn't even been sworn in yet. If after assuming office Trump attempts to intimidate and silence opposing voices, I will compliment Jan Chamberlain for her prescience.

[why me]

45 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

And my advanced high school English class had a book banned by a few conservative busybody mothers who didn't like the mention of brothel. What this is leading to is just an example, *** for tat, about who's repressive. I think most times, whether democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, or whatever other line you want to describe the extreme language describing one camp or another is often false. And if they don't have solid evidence, quotes, and trends to back it, there's a problem. I never said her analogy is perfect, but that it's not completely unfounded and isn't hinged solely on partisan lines or emotional reactivity.

If I described these mothers roles as rising fascists I would be wrong. More than that. It would be rash and stupid because I have no real evidence except for one decision they made that I disagree with and that took one of my favorite books off our reading list. If they went further and elected a ultra-conservative mayor who banned the sale of any books by the author and penalized all those who read her materials, I'd have something. And if they theorized to do so and promoted such activities as just I'd also have something. But one heated over bloated moment or sentiment can't fuel the analogy which is what usually happens.

with luv, 

BD

However, this gay conservative was prevented from speaking by college students. Protests.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/06/milo-yiannopoulos-breitbart-speaking-events-cancelled

It becomes rather foolish. But he is not the only conservative that was prevented from speaking by students who did not agree with their ideas. My point is simple: universities and colleges in the USA are becoming institutions where ideas are no longer freely discussed, debated and listened to. It is a huge problem for young people today that they are given one idea to latch on to. And it takes from what a university education is all about. The Guardian is not exactly friendly to Milo and so, they use words that I may not use to describe him. He is gay but a rather shock speaker too.

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

By very definition, this is..... fascistic behavior. 

No, no it is not.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, why me said:

However, this gay conservative was prevented from speaking by college students. Protests.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/06/milo-yiannopoulos-breitbart-speaking-events-cancelled

It becomes rather foolish. But he is not the only conservative that was prevented from speaking by students who did not agree with their ideas. My point is simple: universities and colleges in the USA are becoming institutions where ideas are no longer freely discussed, debated and listened to. It is a huge problem for young people today that they are given one idea to latch on to. And it takes from what a university education is all about. The Guardian is not exactly friendly to Milo and so, they use words that I may not use to describe him. He is gay but a rather shock speaker too.

*** for tat...still doesn't impress.  Inappropriate use of terminology is still inappropriate use no matter how many people use it...at least until the meaning of the word actually changes.

[bsjkki]

22 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

There's no doubt my claim is justified because it's an easily verifiable fact that the liberal mobs who shut down conservative speeches on college campuses proudly proclaim to all who will hear that they will not tolerate the expression of conservative voices. By very definition, this is intolerant fascistic behavior. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen if Trump will behave like a fascist because he hasn't even been sworn in yet. If after assuming office Trump attempts to intimidate and silence opposing voices, I will compliment Jan Chamberlain for her prescience.

Verified by google--college campuses fascism --About 495,000 results  (0.39 seconds). 

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

And my advanced high school English class had a book banned by a few conservative busybody mothers who didn't like the mention of brothel. What this is leading to is just an example, *** for tat, about who's repressive. I think most times, whether democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, or whatever other line you want to describe the extreme language describing one camp or another is often false. And if they don't have solid evidence, quotes, and trends to back it, there's a problem. I never said her analogy is perfect, but that it's not completely unfounded and isn't hinged solely on partisan lines or emotional reactivity.

If I described these mothers roles as rising fascists I would be wrong. More than that. It would be rash and stupid because I have no real evidence except for one decision they made that I disagree with and that took one of my favorite books off our reading list. If they went further and elected a ultra-conservative mayor who banned the sale of any books by the author and penalized all those who read her materials, I'd have something. And if they theorized to do so and promoted such activities as just I'd also have something. But one heated over bloated moment or sentiment can't fuel the analogy which is what usually happens.

with luv, 

BD

Even the liberals concede there is a problem on college campuses. From protesting speakers they don't agree with to an overwhelming ratio of liberal to conservative professors, college campuses are no longer a place with a love for the free flowing of ideas. This is not a case of "one heated over bloated moment." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberal-but-not-tolerant-on-the-nations-college-campuses/2016/02/11/0f79e8e8-d101-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?utm_term=.4dc01bfb9e4d  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

But, what does this have to do Jan Chamberlin? Why is she getting so much press? Does this press help or hurt the choir and their role as missionaries. In my opinion, she politicized the choir because she wanted to do "more." She felt it was her duty and presumes the choir should spend more time helping refugees and fighting human trafficking. She seems to be the narcissist here.  And from the Tribune article,  

The impetus for her resignation, she said, was a "nasty" Facebook post from a fellow choir member, dubbing those who declined to participate as "unpatriotic" or not "faithful to the faith," and suggesting they quit."That rattled me," Chamberlin said, and launched an internal struggle and a ton of praying. Ultimately, she decided she needed to do more.The choir's performance, she argued, would send the wrong message to outsiders in the United States and abroad — that the famed Mormon singing group supported Trump's behavior and positions.On that score, one line in the soprano's resignation letter drew some harsh criticism."I could never 'throw roses to Hitler,' " Chamberlin wrote. "And I certainly could never sing for him."She defended that statement Tuesday, seeing "striking and frightening similarities" between the two men.Both were narcissists who desired "power and wealth," she said. Both promised prosperity and economic security by creating scapegoats to blame. For Hitler, it was the Jews; for Trump, it is refugees and immigrants.The Nazis set up a national Jewish registry; Trump talked of making Muslims register, Chamberlin said. Neither respected anyone who opposed him. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4777584-155/video-moral-issue-not-politics-led?fullpage=1

Talk about hyperbolic discourse.

[why me]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, no it is not.

What about this?

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/01/04/change-org-launches-petition-prevent-tennessee-band-playing-trumps-inauguration-parade/

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/01/04/sjws-crybully-college-dance-troupe-inauguration-show/

It seems fascistic to me.

[HappyJackWagon]

56 minutes ago, why me said:

What about this?

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/01/04/change-org-launches-petition-prevent-tennessee-band-playing-trumps-inauguration-parade/

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/01/04/sjws-crybully-college-dance-troupe-inauguration-show/

It seems fascistic to me.

For those who are confused about fascism.

Quote

Fascism- a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

The thing that really separates fascism from other dictatorships is the regimentation of industry. Fascism is also characterized generally as a very right wing system of government.

I don't see how Jan Chamberlin can be considered A- a dictator, B- right wing, or C- in the act of forcible suppressing opposition or regimenting industry.

Accusing her of being fascistic is just absurd and reflects a gross misunderstanding of the word.

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[why me]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For those who are confused about fascism.

The thing that really separates fascism from other dictatorships is the regimentation of industry. Fascism is also characterized generally as a very right wing system of government.

I don't see how Jan Chamberlin can be considered A- a dictator, B- right wing, or C- in the act of forcible suppressing opposition or regimenting industry.

Accusing her of being fascistic is just absurd and reflects a gross misunderstanding of the word.

 

I never accused her of fascism. I did say that her equating trump to hitler was wrong. However, forces on the left are acting fascistic with their attempts to squash those who are attending trump's inauguration. Why the pressure? What is the left afraid of that they must be so determined to undermine trump's inauguration ceremony? And who is funding the left organization in their attempts? George Soros?

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by why me

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Verified by google--college campuses fascism --About 495,000 results  (0.39 seconds). 

Even the liberals concede there is a problem on college campuses. From protesting speakers they don't agree with to an overwhelming ratio of liberal to conservative professors, college campuses are no longer a place with a love for the free flowing of ideas. This is not a case of "one heated over bloated moment." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberal-but-not-tolerant-on-the-nations-college-campuses/2016/02/11/0f79e8e8-d101-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?utm_term=.4dc01bfb9e4d  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

I didn't say this isn't a problem. I've said clearly that this is improper means to show disapproval or disagreement or concern. I'm saying that it's not within the definition of fascism. Intolerance, sure, Fascism no. It's hamstringing the word. 

Quote

But, what does this have to do Jan Chamberlin? Why is she getting so much press? Does this press help or hurt the choir and their role as missionaries. In my opinion, she politicized the choir because she wanted to do "more." She felt it was her duty and presumes the choir should spend more time helping refugees and fighting human trafficking. She seems to be the narcissist here.  And from the Tribune article,  

The impetus for her resignation, she said, was a "nasty" Facebook post from a fellow choir member, dubbing those who declined to participate as "unpatriotic" or not "faithful to the faith," and suggesting they quit."That rattled me," Chamberlin said, and launched an internal struggle and a ton of praying. Ultimately, she decided she needed to do more.The choir's performance, she argued, would send the wrong message to outsiders in the United States and abroad — that the famed Mormon singing group supported Trump's behavior and positions.On that score, one line in the soprano's resignation letter drew some harsh criticism."I could never 'throw roses to Hitler,' " Chamberlin wrote. "And I certainly could never sing for him."She defended that statement Tuesday, seeing "striking and frightening similarities" between the two men.Both were narcissists who desired "power and wealth," she said. Both promised prosperity and economic security by creating scapegoats to blame. For Hitler, it was the Jews; for Trump, it is refugees and immigrants.The Nazis set up a national Jewish registry; Trump talked of making Muslims register, Chamberlin said. Neither respected anyone who opposed him. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4777584-155/video-moral-issue-not-politics-led?fullpage=1

Talk about hyperbolic discourse.

And I disagree that this fits the definition of hyperbolic discourse. As i've already mentioned my position on her statements - and done so fairly clearly - please look back. I've responded in the last page or two. And no, she doesn't present as a narcissist and from the little I've seen exhibits several traits that run contradictory...or at the very least there is too little information to assume such. By that use, anybody who felt a moral obligation to take a public stand would be considered a narcissist. That's not how that works. Trump, by the clinical term, very much can fit the bill. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Bobbieaware]

 

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Bobbieaware