Southern Baptist Convention – Publically & Formally Repudiating the Alt-Right Movement

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The people on the right have no problem with immigration- they are called "libertarians".  Put me on that list.

The prime directive of libertarians, I would think, would be to get to the country nearest to your personal beliefs ASAP and stay there forever.  That would be me if I was born anywhere else.

There was one of them old guys that said "Give me liberty or give me death".  THAT is what "people on the right" think.  Stay out of my business and I will be happy.  That includes my neighbor as long as the Mariachi music is not too loud.

Then you have "Republicans".   Meh.  Compromise.

 

There is a lot of libertarianism in conservatism. The maon difference between Conservatives and pure Libertarians! I think, is when there is a moral issue behind an argument. Loke marriage or abortion, Conservatives are willing to allow governmental interference. Other than that, keep government out of people's business.

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's kind of the point. There are some who disagree and cite LDS Canon to support their claims, so a statement from the top could help put that issue to rest. The Mormon Mommy Blog / Alt-right blogger. http://www.sltrib.com/home/5116879-155/mormon-blogger-trumpets-alt-right-racial-views

So in an organization with a racially charged past, and scriptures that are used to support that racism, it would seem to be wise to speak out on the issue and not let it fester, IMO.

I think it's pretty clear she lost her LDS creds. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Darren10

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, mnn727 said:

I don't explain it away, but I do disagree with it....but that's on me.

Then I am afraid you must prepare for the fires of hell!!!!! See you there. Hopefully it is like a hot tub and is uncomfortable at first but then you eventually get used to it.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The people on the right have no problem with immigration- they are called "libertarians".  Put me on that list.

The prime directive of libertarians, I would think, would be to get to the country nearest to your personal beliefs ASAP and stay there forever.  That would be me if I was born anywhere else.

There was one of them old guys that said "Give me liberty or give me death".  THAT is what "people on the right" think.  Stay out of my business and I will be happy.  That includes my neighbor as long as the Mariachi music is not too loud.

Then you have "Republicans".   Meh.  Compromise.

 

If everyone lived on a private island I would probably be a libertarian. I am not yet rich enough to own a private island.  

Maybe I can inherit the one my uncle owns one day.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

There is a lot of libertarianism in conservatism. The maon difference between Conservatives and pure Libertarians! I think, is when there is a moral issue behind an argument. Loke marriage or abortion, Conservatives are willing to allow governmental interference. Other than that, keep government out of people's business.

Think there's a bit more diversity than that. You have Burkean conservatives, Kirk conservatives, libertarians, neo-conservatives mainly focused on foreign policy but often willing to embrace more liberal policies on social matters, and paleo-conservatives who tend to embrace realism in international relations and Kirk style moralism. Then there are those who favor small government for more utilitarian reasons but are skeptical of the extremes of libertarianism as well as their metaphysical commitments on rights and individualism.

One thing I dislike about the right/left dichotomy is how much it obscures a lot of diversity on both sides.

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

The Nehor is a fun read and I've no doubt does great things in life for others, but I've long relegated him as one who condescends those who disagree with him and as one whose solution to dissent is to control others via governmental force. That has never ended well throughout human history. In fact, it's the core reason America's Founding Fathers divided government as much as they did. Bicameral legislation and three branches co-equal and independent of each other.

I find it ironic that the people who most decry the "nanny state" almost invariably most need a nanny.

I dislike government force. We have had weak governments in the past and other forces always rush in to fill the void (a church, business interests, a strong political faction, strong-arming thugs, etc.) Hence I want a government with enough power to control the other bullies around but not enough to crush everyone. Those who believe in a virtually powerless government are either naive or want to be one of the other kinds of oppressors.

[Okrahomer]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If they do it was meant to be.

 

I grew up with a boatload of Southern Baptists—if not outwardly decrying—there would certainly be a lot of head-scratching over this famous Calvinist’s recent tweet:

Sexy stones..?     So, does this mean God..."raises up"..."Racist stones" too? 

Edit to add:  fixed the link

Edited June 16, 2017 by Okrahomer

[Darren10]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I find it ironic that the people who most decry the "nanny state" almost invariably most need a nanny.

I dislike government force. We have had weak governments in the past and other forces always rush in to fill the void (a church, business interests, a strong political faction, strong-arming thugs, etc.) Hence I want a government with enough power to control the other bullies around but not enough to crush everyone. Those who believe in a virtually powerless government are either naive or want to be one of the other kinds of oppressors.

I need a nanny.

Church *should* fill in government voids. States should fill in *national* government voids.

"I want a government with enough power to control..."

http://jeremyvarner.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ThatIsWhyYouFail-2.jpg

[Guest]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Give me a break

Who would not condemn White Supremacy?  This is news?

I need a headline someone!   "Bukowski Repudiates White Supremacy"

Did anyone think that Southern Baptists were in favor of White Supremacy?

The news is that it is another feel-good labels that people want to reject, even though they did not believe it, nor teach it. When people reject something they are not a part of, or never believed, it makes them appear to care. 

[Five Solas]

47 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The news is that it is another feel-good labels that people want to reject, even though they did not believe it, nor teach it. When people reject something they are not a part of, or never believed, it makes them appear to care. 

The news is that mfbukowski, after multiple posts on this thread, has yet to engage the actual topic (the alt-right movement).  He wishes I'd written about something else (white supremacy in a more generic sense) and chooses to engage as though I had.

Ah, who am I kidding?  That ain't news--that's just another day on the MDDB.

;0)

--Erik

PS.  Sorry, couldn't resist.  Please forgive!

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I need a nanny.

Church *should* fill in government voids. States should fill in *national* government voids.

"I want a government with enough power to control..."

http://jeremyvarner.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ThatIsWhyYouFail-2.jpg

States have more often been the dictators the federal government had to slap down then the opposite.

If you want a government that is weak enough to be ignored with ease I highly recommend Somalia:

 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

States have more often been the dictators the federal government had to slap down then the opposite.

If you want a government that is weak enough to be ignored with ease I highly recommend Somalia:

 

If I Googled "teabaggers" what would I get? And Israel is a Confederacy and by far the freest nation in their part of the world.

You're way off as states being "dictators" needing to be slapped down by the federal government. All states have adopted a constitution remarkably similar to the US Constitution. So, logically, if a state becomes a dictator, wouldn't the federal government also become one? Especially if you empower it to overrun individual states?

If a slap down is needed, vote, speak, demonstrate, protest, write letters, make You Tube videos, show how other states doing the same thing fail whereas states which don't succeed, etc. Don't force it down by the federal government. you're just shifting one bad to another with the latter be far harder to eradicate using the freedoms you have than if an individual state goes bad.

[Damien the Leper]

15 hours ago, USU78 said:

Will they be decrying ultra orthodox Calvinists next?

Teehee.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The news is that it is another feel-good labels that people want to reject, even though they did not believe it, nor teach it. When people reject something they are not a part of, or never believed, it makes them appear to care. 

Yes exactly.

And Cinco Solas ( a much better name) now wants us to believe that white supremacy is not a major portion if the article, while simultaneously not defining what the alternative right even is.

Well I reject everything about life which not fair or nice and I will stomp my feet til everyone talks about what I want to talk about. So there!

[thesometimesaint]

42 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

If I Googled "teabaggers" what would I get? And Israel is a Confederacy and by far the freest nation in their part of the world.

You're way off as states being "dictators" needing to be slapped down by the federal government. All states have adopted a constitution remarkably similar to the US Constitution. So, logically, if a state becomes a dictator, wouldn't the federal government also become one? Especially if you empower it to overrun individual states?

If a slap down is needed, vote, speak, demonstrate, protest, write letters, make You Tube videos, show how other states doing the same thing fail whereas states which don't succeed, etc. Don't force it down by the federal government. you're just shifting one bad to another with the latter be far harder to eradicate using the freedoms you have than if an individual state goes bad.

You have to ask the Israeli Palestinians about that.

The US is not  a Confederation of strong states with a weak central government.. We tried that under our Articles of Confederation. It didn't work out well.

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

You have to ask the Israeli Palestinians about that.

The US is not  a Confederation of strong states with a weak central government.. We tried that under our Articles of Confederation. It didn't work out well.

Correct, the Articles of Confederation were a messy failure for the US. It is a Constutional Republic based on federalism. Thst means that the states are sovereign to the federal government. The Constitution explicitly declares thst powers not given to the federal government default to the states. That's where the bulk of the legislative procedures which affect our lives rest. We were absolutely a nation of a weak central government and strong states under the US Constitution. The main difference is that certsin powers are granted to the federal government such as creating a military and printing money. The Articles of Confederation gave no such thing to the central government.

As for freedom in Israel. Thry have freedom of religion equally for Judaism and Islam. They have Palestinian legislators ekected. They have Palestinian judges and their courts frequently rule in Palestinian favor. Could you point me to the Arabis nation which offer the same freedoms to Jews? Nehor brought up international precedent so I pointed to Israel as a pervect example of how a confederation can and does work. 

[Gray]

On 6/15/2017 at 0:44 AM, Storm Rider said:

Hello Five, for me this is confusing due to the fact that I don't even know what the alt-right is or how is it defined with any degree of uniformity and self-acceptance by the "alt-right" itself.  Assuming that the label has no real meaning - except it represents the boogieman du jour, if someone wants to decree it as being evil....does it mean anything?

The alt-right has become a catch-all label.  In such circumstances I don't know its value.  

Essentially it's white supremacists who use catch phrases like "cuck" and "globalists" and are obsessed with cartoon frogs.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Good luck with that!  It would be nigh impossible to find even one subject where we are all on the same page.

It is not just the essays though.  On top of the essay, you have a published "official statement" from the church "unequivocally" condemning racism, and you have the president of the church doing the same in a conference talk.  It is not as simple as you would think to get everybody on board.  

Where is the official statement unequivocally condemning racism? Maybe I've seen it before but have forgotten. In that case it sounds like the church did the same thing as the SBC and I wouldn't see a need for another one.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Where is the official statement unequivocally condemning racism? Maybe I've seen it before but have forgotten. In that case it sounds like the church did the same thing as the SBC and I wouldn't see a need for another one.

It was in the first link I posted.  It can be found here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

It was in the first link I posted.  It can be found here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

Thanks. That's great.

I wonder how many people repudiate racism yet don't recognize it in themselves. I suspect a lot, myself included.

"Racism" is one of those emotionally charged words (like homophobia) that elicits an emotional reaction. No one wants to be considered a racist even if they hold some racist ideas. I wonder if it would be helpful to unpack what the church means by "racism" it is repudiating so that we all can recognize it in ourselves.

For example, my father would readily repudiate racism, yet will also hold firm to his scriptural understanding that black skin was a curse from God based on unvaliant behavior in the premortal life. He wouldn't see that "theory" or teaching as racist, so he could hold both ideas at the same time.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Darren10 said:

If I Googled "teabaggers" what would I get? And Israel is a Confederacy and by far the freest nation in their part of the world.

You're way off as states being "dictators" needing to be slapped down by the federal government. All states have adopted a constitution remarkably similar to the US Constitution. So, logically, if a state becomes a dictator, wouldn't the federal government also become one? Especially if you empower it to overrun individual states?

If a slap down is needed, vote, speak, demonstrate, protest, write letters, make You Tube videos, show how other states doing the same thing fail whereas states which don't succeed, etc. Don't force it down by the federal government. you're just shifting one bad to another with the latter be far harder to eradicate using the freedoms you have than if an individual state goes bad.

Being the freest nation in the Middle East is like winning the Special Olympics.

Remember the whole Civil War thing? And then Federal troops having to force states to stop illegal racial discrimination?

[Vance]

On 6/15/2017 at 10:43 PM, The Nehor said:

States have more often been the dictators the federal government had to slap down then the opposite.

If you want a government that is weak enough to be ignored with ease I highly recommend Somalia:

 

And if you want a government that is strong enough to not be ignored at all, I highly recommend Venezuela

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Vance

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Being the freest nation in the Middle East is like winning the Special Olympics.

Remember the whole Civil War thing? And then Federal troops having to force states to stop illegal racial discrimination?

Except the winner is exceptional at creating and maintaining a free nation.

[Guest]

On June 15, 2017 at 2:01 AM, mfbukowski said:

Give me a break

Who would not condemn White Supremacy?  This is news?

I need a headline someone!   "Bukowski Repudiates White Supremacy"

Did anyone think that Southern Baptists were in favor of White Supremacy?

BTW, what I did not make clear before, I grew up as a Southern Baptist, where racism was the order of the day. Of course I was born in 1957 (in Georgua), so no surprise. When I entered the Army in 1976, I was reminded to not list Baptist as my religion, but Southern Baptist (which was changed to "LDS/Mormon, since I joined while in the Army living in Germany). There is a reason that people still insist on calling themselves "Southern Baptists". I remember a Sunday when a black gentleman (new to the area) showed up at our small Church. Two Deacons got up and (this needs to be said) "very gently" told him that he could not attend, and gave him the addresses of Black Churches, again they were very polite about it. Despite their being polite, my mother got so angry that he was asked to leave, so she insisted that our entire family leave. So we did leave, but returned the following Sunday. I was only eight or nine, so I did not get a vote. So I understand how many groups want to distance themselves from the past, concerning matters of race, including our own. But why do "Southern Baptists" what to hang on to, the Southern part is clear. Until I became LDS, I had never attended a Church meeting with anyone of another race. To this day when I go to Southern Baptist Chuches because something good is happening via family or friends, it is still only whites in attendance. However I am hopeful it is now only cultural, as (I hope) certainly they would not ask someone to leave, but I do know members would probably go elsewhere. Unlike Mormons people are not assigned as we are by Ward boundaries. and our Ward here in Georgia (certainly the South) has a number of members of a numbers of different races. More importantly we have had two African Americans members baptized just this last Saturday. Thankfully, we as a Faith now ordain members of all races, instead of just giving lip service to the issue. A few years ago, a long time friend who is African American served as Bishop in our Stake. I am thankful that I found the Church in 1979, because I fear that if the "Priesthood Ban" were still in effect, I might have never even listened, you see I have my Mother's heart, for which I give thanks. One of my many cousins served a Baptist mission in Jamacia  (I spelled that right) and married a Black woman, and ended up in the "Church of God" because of the reception he received in the Church he grew up in for his entire life. When he married her, all of my Grandma's children gathered around her to tell her. Her only question was "well, she is Christian isn't she.", when they told her "yes", there was nothing more to be said. Such is the stature and respect of the "Southern  Matriarch", a near godlike being you dare not oppose. 

[Guest]

On June 15, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Five Solas said:

The news is that mfbukowski, after multiple posts on this thread, has yet to engage the actual topic (the alt-right movement).  He wishes I'd written about something else (white supremacy in a more generic sense) and chooses to engage as though I had.

Ah, who am I kidding?  That ain't news--that's just another day on the MDDB.

;0)

--Erik

PS.  Sorry, couldn't resist.  Please forgive!

Be kind, what is the point of singling out other posters and the website...it only drives wedges. But I do forgive you, I always try to forgive quickly, as I am without sin, and wish to be forgiven quickly as well. We are all brothers and sisters, thus family. As such being unkind or lashing out only drives us apart, and shuts down all discussion. Anyway, love ya anyway, love you brother. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee