Racial double-speak

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Yep - you are blissfully unaware of your bad B.O.

No, actually that one is on my list.

[Tex]

Ah, Cougarguard .... so different from the negativity of Cougarboard!

Refreshing.

[Indy Coug]

Here's a summary of my racist life:

1. My first best friend in school was a recent immigrant from Mexico
2. I remember my mom crying for joy in 1978 when the priesthood was made available to all worthy males. That certainly shaped my racist views.
3. My best friend in 6th and 7th grade was black.
4. I went on a mission to England and taught primarily Africans and West Indians. They were much finer people on average than the native population that somehow managed to produce the bulk of the early Church membership.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Here's a summary of my racist life:

1. My first best friend in school was a recent immigrant from Mexico
2. I remember my mom crying for joy in 1978 when the priesthood was made available to all worthy males. That certainly shaped my racist views.
3. My best friend in 6th and 7th grade was black.
4. I went on a mission to England and taught primarily Africans and West Indians. They were much finer people on average than the native population that somehow managed to produce the bulk of the early Church membership.

It doesn't matter what you say, bro. As soon as the thoughtless crowd starts chanting, it's hard to keep them away from the Kool-Aid.

But at least Cougarguard is a place where people are respectful to one another.

[myboynoah]

This name-calling is unbecoming and cheapens the term. I prefer to reserve it for truly egregious behavior.

From what I can tell, our friends who so vigorously argue against the prevailing opinion here happily rejoice in the 1978 changes. I think they even agree that the policy was racist in its application by human standards. They just don't agree that the policy came about soley due to human frailty, but hold out the possibility (perhaps to some it is much more than a possibility) that it was part of a larger divine plan. I see that as fairly tenuous, but allow for it as a possibility.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

1. My first best friend in school was a recent immigrant from Mexico

Napoleon?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

This name-calling is unbecoming and cheapens the term. I prefer to reserve it for truly egregious behavior.

From what I can tell, our friends who so vigorously argue against the prevailing opinion here happily rejoice in the 1978 changes. I think they even agree that the policy was racist in its application by human standards. They just don't agree that the policy came about soley due to human frailty, but hold out the possibility (perhaps to some it is much more than a possibility) that it was part of a larger divine plan. I see that as fairly tenuous, but allow for it as a possibility.

I'm sorry but I don't think defense of the priesthood ban on any level is worthy of debate. Nor do the opinions of those who defend it deserve consideration. Everyone with a Mormon legacy should simply condemn it for what it clearly was, not deign to reason with people who defend it. It was wrong. What else is wrong is the absense of explanation and acknowledgement of wrongdoing in part because of these types of tormented discussions that continue to go on. Only a moral reckoning and acknowledgement of what the priesthood ban was will consign it to the past.

If someone uses the Old Testament as authority for rationalizing the priesthood ban as has been done here he's a racist in my book. That's what he is. There aren't any places in our country anymore outside LDS affiliated groups you could even carry on that discussion without making yourself a pariah.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm sorry but I don't think defense of the priesthood ban on any level is worthy of debate. Nor do the opinions of those who defend it deserve consideration. Everyone with a Mormon legacy should simply condemn it for what it clearly was, not deign to reason with people who defend it. It was wrong. What else is wrong is the absense of explanation and acknowledgement of wrongdoing in part because of these types of tormented discussions that continue to go on. Only a moral reckoning and acknowledgement of what the priesthood ban was will consign it to the past.

If someone uses the Old Testament as authority for rationalizing the priesthood ban as has been done here he's a racist in my book. That's what he is. There aren't any places in our country anymore outside LDS affiliated groups you could even carry on that discussion without making yourself a pariah.

If they admit to being racist, will you admit to being bigoted towards religion in general?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

If they admit to being racist, will you admit to being bigoted towards religion in general?

Why? Because I condemn racism by a religion? As I've told you, sport, it's not bigotry to criticize a religion's bad acts. Hardly. There's a glorious history of it for thousands of years, and many paid with their lives to do it. It's hygienic for any civilization and one of the primary functions of the first amendment. Criticism is why the LDS Church lifted the priesthood ban.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why? Because I condemn racism by a religion? As I've told you, sport, it's not bigotry to criticize a religion's bad acts. Hardly. There's a glorious history of it for thousands of years, and many paid with their lives to do it. It's hygienic for any civilization and one of the primary functions of the first amendment. Criticism is why the LDS Church lifted the priesthood ban.

No, because you display bigotry towards all religion in general.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I'm not specifying your thoughts on the LDS priesthood ban. I'm talking about how you view all religion in general. Did you not say that religion is inherently evil?