Blacks and the Priesthood redux, ala David O. Mckay

[woot]

Originally Posted by K-dog

First Seattle Schmuck, it isn't my folktale. As previously stated, I don't believe it. Unfortunately for you, it seems you didn't understand the argument I presented. The argument must be taken in vacuum. You must agree with and believe certain things. Once those are believed and agreed to, the argument does make a perverse form of sense and is in fact not racist. The crux of the argument is that the individual is being punished for actions previously committed. Therefore, you must assume a preexistence, you must assume that acts in that existence can effect this existence, you must assume a lot of things. If the individual is being punished for previously done acts, then withholding priesthood as punishment isn't racist because it is based on the previously done acts. To illustrate I will give the following example.

There are 200 people in society, 100 of those people came home late and were to be punished the next day. They were told to wear orange jumpsuits to the town square the next day where they would be punished. They wore their jumpsuits and were punished. The point is, they were not punished for wearing the jumpsuits, the jumpsuits were identification of coming home late.

As I've acknowledged, this argument requires a person to suspend belief and actually understand the mind set of those who make the argument but if you agree with them on everything else, it is understandable why they think it isn't racist. Personally, as stated before, I think refusing to allow black men to hold the priesthood was a racially motivated act. It had nothing to do with the preexistence. In fact, I believe this particular series of arguments were applied to the facts ex post facto in an effort to rationalize away the racial motivations. But my belief doesn't preclude my ability to understand their position and recognize the logic of it. Like you, I just don't agree with the assumptions they based their logic on.

In reference to your legal citation, I think you missed the point of the quote you cited. US jurisprudence is such that all actions that result in a statistically demonstrated racial bias against a disadvantaged group (as defined in said cases) should be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny." It doesn't mean they are inappropriate, just that they just be viewed with utmost scrutiny to determine if they are inappropriate. I think you are correct in your statement that the arguments previously addressed don't stand up to the scrutiny but that doesn't mean their logic isn't sound. It just means that their arguments, taken in context, don't carry sufficient weight.

But this is exactly what he was just saying. As long as the justification isn't based in empirical evidence, it is no justification at all. A group of black people could make up a story about white folks only being white because they were naughty in the pre-existence, and use it to justify lynchings, but that wouldn't make them any less racist.

You claim that it isn't racist if you are willing to assume that blacks were wicked in the pre-existence, but I say that the very belief that blacks were wicked in the pre-existence is, in itself, racist, and that any thoughts or actions based on that belief would also be racist.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by woot

But this is exactly what he was just saying. As long as the justification isn't based in empirical evidence, it is no justification at all. A group of black people could make up a story about white folks only being white because they were naughty in the pre-existence, and use it to justify lynchings, but that wouldn't make them any less racist.

You claim that it isn't racist if you are willing to assume that blacks were wicked in the pre-existence, but I say that the very belief that blacks were wicked in the pre-existence is, in itself, racist, and that any thoughts or actions based on that belief would also be racist.

If you were the person to make up the tale you would be racist. OTOH, if you are a person who believes the required suppositions, then bad acts, not race is the reason for the action. Race is little more than a place mark to the true believer in that case.

[woot]

Originally Posted by K-dog

If you were the person to make up the tale you would be racist. OTOH, if you are a person who believes the required suppositions, then bad acts, not race is the reason for the action. Race is little more than a place mark to the true believer in that case.

So creativity in making up a tale to justify racism is bad, but gullibility in believing an obviously false tale that somebody else made up to justify racism is good. Got it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

K-Dog is wrong for three distinct reasons.

...

Excellent post, SU.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by woot

So creativity in making up a tale to justify racism is bad, but gullibility in believing an obviously false tale that somebody else made up to justify racism is good. Got it.

No, K-Dog is saying that being spectacularly ill-bred and undeducated, being ignorant, is a defense to a charge of racism.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I rest my case. Like I said, sophistry. Mental masturbation. Who cares?

K-Dog presumes that English words like "racism" can mean something in a "vacuum," outside educated society's common understandings and expectations. They can't. This is why the dictionary needs to be constantly revised.

The priesthood ban is a perfect, crystal clear example of unadulterated racism, as that word is understood in our enlightened society. No amount of sophistry can obscure that fact among enlightened people.

It isn't sophistry, I'm not arguing for it. What it is, is an effort to try to understand the logic or lack thereof presented by the other side of a question. Your inability to suspend your personal beliefs in order to understand the opposing position is telling. You speak of an enlightened society, you reference an enlightened people but your approach to this question shows an idealogue without an interest in true enlightenment. The mental exercise of taking the argument in a vacuum is a way to determine whether the argument is fallacious or the underlying assumptions are wrong. You can use math instead but that is much less interesting. This is a common technique taught in philosophy courses throughout the US so it may be mental masturbation but it is sure better than mental celibacy. It results in something that resembles offspring while mental celibacy results in nothing.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by woot

So creativity in making up a tale to justify racism is bad, but gullibility in believing an obviously false tale that somebody else made up to justify racism is good. Got it.

Not assigning bad or good to any of it. Just pointing out that from a logical standpoint there is a difference.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

I would argue this point, but a more pertinent question arises: why do you care? It's not like you'd come crawling back if the church granted you every concession you've got. You have no dog in the fight.

AA, since you are the one who generally plays the peacemaker role, I am a little surprised by this response. SU has as much right to find interest in and explore this topic as we do. He was raised LDS and most of his family is LDS. It is very much a part of his culture and heritage.

[woot]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No, K-Dog is saying that being spectacularly ill-bred and undeducated, being ignorant, is a defense to a charge of racism.

Ah I get it now. Thanks for the clarification.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No, K-Dog is saying that being spectacularly ill-bred and undeducated, being ignorant, is a defense to a charge of racism.

I think you're too emotionally involved in this. AA was wrong about you not having a dog in this fight. It seems you can't think when you are this aroused.