Elders Quorum Dropout-- Yes, perhaps that's the difference between you and I. I don't imbue a piece of cloth with sanctity. It's no different from imbuing a cross with sanctity, or a temple recommend. It's whatever you make of it, big, medium, or small. It gets scary when you assume that people are 'entitled' or 'spoiled' because they don't imbue it, a symbol, with the exact same meaning that you do. It's a fascist impulse, and a Mormon one as well.

You're free to imbue it with sanctity and basic decency. But assuming anyone who doesn't is a spoiled jerk? Totalitarian regimes would love to recruit you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 12:52AM by woodsmoke.

Black and Brown Americans of a certain economic stratum like the idea of freedom, but just are not accorded it in the same way Whites are. This makes us a bit bitter. And when you do a little reading, and see America without it's make-up on, she's a harridan.

I try to ignore politics, which makes it easier to preserve my hopes for America's future. And I have a sincere belief that America will be better than her past. But this is when I've had enough beer to put my cynicism to sleep.

It's like how we love to rag on mormonism, but most of would reflexively go to the aid of two missionaries being beat up by four JWs. I love America, but boy, does she have some growing up to do.

I agree, Elder OD, the US has a ton of growing up to do. After all, it's extremely young. I personally believe it's more mature than other countries that have been around for thousands of years. I do think that should give it some credit. ;)

I'll let you have the last word, my friend. Enjoy your Thursday night. :)

The flag is something that you hold dear. Others have just as deeply moral, fiercely held reasons for not doing so.
MLK faced the exact same complaints that BLM and other protesters are facing now.

Uh, no. MLK was fighting for integration and equal protection under the law.

BLM is fighting for segregation and special privilege.


MLK is rolling in his grave...

You couldn't be more wrong.

“too often what I see is wonderful activism that highlights a problem, but then people feel so passionately and are so invested in the purity of their position that they never take that next step and say, ‘How do I sit down and try to actually get something done?”' BHO

I'm not so sure that Kolobian is wrong about BLM. I think there is a distinct problem and I'm not real sure what the solution is. But I do know that many of the solutions that have been offered have been very segregationist. I think this is one of the reasons that they have failed to gain broad support. The underlining contempt is evident.

You can pick apart any movement by citing individuals who are troublemakers. That was also done to MLK. It's the OVERALL effect that we should be discussing.

And if BLM has failed to gain critical mass of support, could that not be due to all the idiots obfuscating the issue by screaming, "ALL LIVES MATTER"?

We have Black people literally saying, "Stop killing us," and people like you responding, "Yes, but..."

Charming.

The person I quoted is someone who I mostly respect, and I think you might respect this person as well.

I am a very strong believer in yes but. Without it I think we would be even more of a society of extremes.

It's not picking apart individual actions.

Segregation is a key component of the BLM platform.

Less policing of inner cities (where police are needed most, and where black people are killing each other at rates significantly higher than any demographic in the US)

and

Safe Spaces on college campuses where non-blacks aren't allowed to go. The very definition of segregation.

Then you do not understand BLM and have not read their policies.

They are fighting for the right not to be disproportionately murdered by cops. Nowhere do they fight for "special rights." Name one.

Every single complaint you listed about them, people had about MLK and SNCC. Every single one. Exact same rhetoric. Exact same misrepresentation of policies. People said they were fighting for special rights, too. You're on the wrong side of history.

You're also incorrect about sites of crime: Drug use and dealing are equal across racial and economic lines. White men kill cops disproportionately; I notice you didn't include that in your false claim about "where police are needed" (your own opinion and not proven by any statistical measure). I don't see anyone protesting the threat of white men to police. They have no reason to be killing blacks disproportionately. An armed white man is less likely to be killed by a cop than an unarmed black one. Sorry, just statistics.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 01:02PM by woodsmoke.

woodsmoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then you do not understand BLM and have not read
> their policies.
>
> They are fighting for the right not to be
> disproportionately murdered by cops. Nowhere do
> they fight for "special rights." Name one.
>
> Every single complaint you listed about them,
> people had about MLK and SNCC. Every single one.
> Exact same rhetoric. Exact same misrepresentation
> of policies. People said they were fighting for
> special rights, too. You're on the wrong side of
> history.
>
> You're also incorrect about sites of crime: Drug
> use and dealing are equal across racial and
> economic lines. White men kill cops
> disproportionately; I notice you didn't include
> that in your false claim about "where police are
> needed" (your own opinion and not proven by any
> statistical measure). They have no reason to be
> killing blacks disproportionately. An armed white
> man is less likely to be killed by a cop than an
> unarmed black one. Sorry, just statistics.


Thank you Woodsmoke, for speaking the truth.

Has BLM not demanded less police presence in inner cities? And are they not demanding "safe spaces" on college campuses for black kids?

What did I say that was a misrepresentation? Is the answer to either of the questions above a solid "no?"

1. That is not a special right, that is a lessening of blatant discrimination rooted in the history of the criminalization of communities of color. As I stated, drug use and dealing are equal across racial and economic lines, yet impoverished communities of color are disproportionately targeted by police. Moreover, as I also stated, white men disproportionately threaten, attack, and kill cops, yet black men are disproportionately killed BY cops, which suggests a disparity in police brutality rather than direct threat that should result in use of force.

If you are uninformed about this topic, I would suggest reading Alice Goffman's On the Run or Michelle Alexander's work on the War on Drugs and the history of disparities in sentencing and criminalization (crack vs cocaine, for example). There have also been great reports from the DOJ and the ACLU on racial disparities in criminalization and sentencing for the same crimes, and on the particular targeting of communities of color for a particular amount of police intrusion. There's also no way to prove that there actually *is* more crime in inner cities, as that's WHERE THE POLICE ARE MAKING ARRESTS.


2. A solid no. Those are isolated student unions, not BLM. I know there's one at UCLA. The 76 demand lists are at TheDemands.org. Black Lives Matter is tangentionally mentioned in only 4 of the 76, twice to ask for an apology FROM BLM organizers due to a campus rift, once to ask a university president to state that black lives matter (but not to align with the movement), and once to reference a BLM group on campus that is not part of the (mixed-race) student collective writing the demands. So, no.

But way to equate BLM with 'all black people protesting anything/any black college student.' Also, they are asking for those IN RESPONSE to a host of racial incidents by white supremacist groups on their campuses, including racial slur graffiti, death threats and antiblack demonstrations, nooses left outside the offices of black student unions and professors, and 'blackface' parties. They are in fear. It's not a 'special right' to live without fear. But regardless, again, no, not BLM.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 01:48PM by woodsmoke.

Specific to their platform is to create a "more representative" government influence. It is a fairly noble goal that I believe to be important. But.

They want areas that are predominately Black to have Black police forces. I understand why, and I'll bet I would feel the same way. However this is what Obama was talking about in that quote above. Why not lobby in those areas to have more Blacks join the police force? Why just be upset that there are no Black police officers?

They want more political influence in the various stages of government. Specifically they want Black people to represent Black people. Great idea. Start voting. Start lobbying for gerrymandered districts that will make this happen. Don't just get mad that you don't feel represented.

Last but. Specific to their platform is reparations. Because Black people have been suppressed for so long they just haven't had the same opportunity as others. They are fairly pragmatic about this request. All they want is for social programs to address their specific needs. Pretty benign if you ask me. But, since they feel that in the past social programs have concentrated on the needs of others over their own needs they want to flip the script. Specifically they want those who have benefited from the social programs at their expense to now fell the same pain they have felt in the past.


There is a legitimate problem, I don't think there have been many legitimate solutions. But that is just me.

Your first two points: They already do all that. I've never met a BLM organizer who didn't. Just a false assumption on your part.

As to your last point, the "same pain?" They'll be murdered, raped, and enslaved for centuries, then have 2/3 of their men in prison for the next century? Um...doubt it. Affirmative action and reparations are not anywhere close to that.

I have contempt for unjustified disproportionate murder, yes. Have you actually read BLM's list of policies? Or do you just make assumptions based on ill founded characterizations of the movement, a direct descendant of MLK's equally radical movement?

"Stop killing us"? You have got to be kidding.Blacks kill other blacks all the time. The leading cause of death of young black males is being murdered ,over 90 percent of the time by another black male.Do black lives matter to black people?Does not seem to be the case act all.This is not to say that blacks are treated the same as whites by the police .Blacks are much more likely to be mistreated by the police .

White people are also most often the murderers of other white people, and white people kill cops most of the time. Never see those stats mentioned when people want to complain about 'black on black crime.' Every community has their own issues. White men are likelier to be pedophiles, statistically; Latino men, rapists and sexual harassers. Police maltreatment is unrelated to all of them.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 12:51PM by saucie.

helamonster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You couldn't be more wrong.


I know... where does he get his info from , the KKK?

I stand during the National Anthem. I do it to pay symbolic
respect to my country. I do it because I choose to, of my own
free will.

If we start punishing people who don't stand, either legally,
financially, career-wise, or socially etc. then it lessens what
I do. If there is extra coercion to stand, then my act of
standing is cheapened.

If someone wants to not stand, that's fine. No skin off my nose
one way or the other.

This is the exact argument that I was taught for the separation of church and state growing up indoctrinated as a Cold Warrior! And I still believe this.

I was taught that religion--as a matter of the heart--would be corrupted if mass-enforced, like by a majority-led government. Same thing with all 1st Amendment matters, like patriotism. Democracy depends on minority views' not being forceabley supressed. Minorities can be right. Truth isn't in numbers. Vietnam taught us Boomers that. It was a Bright and Shining Lie from the beginning, but there was strict social punishment applied to those who said it first.

This is John Dehlin's point when he criticizes TSCC's treatment of dissent. People who were punished for criticizing TSCC's position on blacks in the priesthood, for example, get no apology when forty years later TSCC repudiates its earlier position.

If I stand for the singing of the Anthem, I'm standing up for the very American right of someone else to sit down. That's the point.

America's warriors sign up for many reasons, but a blood-covered flag changes eveything, even the warrior.

The warriors make it possible for those who wish to "disrepect" the symbolism of the flag to do so. Protesters to societal and political injustices help to make the US a place worth fighting for. Neither group can ever rest. Evil abounds, and must be brought into sharp relief, so that all may see it for what it is.

As I would ask our warriors to die for those who sit, I would ask those who sit to honor our warriors.

I might protest, but salute our warriors.


So says a person both abused by evil, and ultimately rescued by a warrior.

For Which It Stands Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I would ask our warriors to die for those who
> sit, I would ask those who sit to honor our
> warriors.

Well said.
And that honor doesn't have to come in the form of saluting a symbol like a flag.

Soldiers don't fight for the flag, they fight for their families, their towns, their way of life, the freedom that we have, their children and the future, as well as the future of the children in the places where they fight.

A flag is a symbol, not the reality.

Black, white, latino, Native American, gay, straight, bi, trans--we have soldiers of every background who fight for our country. When they come back home, ALL of their lives should be valued--not some more than others. All of their lives and the lives of citizens in the communities they come from should be respected equally.

And I am speaking here of the FACT that black and other minority lives have been disproportionately taken whether by poor vetting, training, supervision or racism in some/many police departments.

We have repeatedly seen heartbreaking examples of how badly we, as a country, are doing. Yet things do not change. If someone calls attention to it, they are doing their duty as a citizen and will probably pay a price for speaking out.

The flag has always been a symbol of fighting for rights--it still is!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 01:31PM by bordergirl.

I thought they fought for the bankers, at least historically. Nowadays there's a lot of corporate welfare involved, but it's still kind of the same thing. If I'd have stayed in, I might be happily playing cat and mouse with desert brown people. Probably not making ear necklaces though.

bordergirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Soldiers don't fight for the flag, they fight for
> their families, their towns, their way of life,
> the freedom that we have, their children and the
> future, as well as the future of the children in
> the places where they fight.
>
> A flag is a symbol, not the reality.
>
>
> The flag has always been a symbol of fighting for
> rights--it still is!


I didn't write that warriors fought for the flag. I wrote that seeing one covered in blood changes everything. Imagine, if you will, how that might happen, and the effect it would have. Imagine the effect on loved ones, who only see a brand new flag, and know that inside, there wasn't enough left for a viewing. That brand new flag is all that they can view, and that changes the nature of the flag. It is handed to them, goes home in place of their lost loved one.

Then they, and the warrior, see a sitter, and are asked to align the nature of the sit with the nature of the flag.

Then we have this child raised in ignorance of all of this, and to her, she is obeying her parents, and is chastised. Look how we adults bicker over this, how far out the issues spoked from the hub. How is she, or other children, supposed to learn from our example, if our example is to anger easily, condemn quickly?

If a warrior asks me to stand, I will stand, not because I have to, but because I have respect and gratitude for him. I will not forget his past sacrifices, because there are new sacrifices. Later, I may sit, but it will an extension of the warrior's fight for freedom and justice. The warrior fights for his (her) own reasons, but he fights for all of us, and I can forego "my battle" for a brief moment, to honor his. To say thank you for making mine possible.

And many veterans are sitting themselves, and affected by police brutality, which renders the "we should stand for veterans" argument completely moot.

What you said about protesters is so true. I owe them my life as much as I owe any military service member.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 10:21AM by woodsmoke.

I'm in favor of the freedom to pledge or not according to one's conscience.

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”


I owe my allegiance to no one, partially to an inanimate object. I give my allegiance to some, and in certain cases a nice rare piece of steak will get me to stand and put my hand over my heart.

The rest is fluff.

We owe it to everyone around us to act within the confines of our society. But don't make me pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth.

Yep! Exactly.

Lots of good information and interesting points.

I still am of the mind, however, that students should stand up when others say the Pledge of Allegiance in a classroom. Don't say it if you don't want to. Don't put your hand over your heart. But stand up.

That is my personal opinion and I realize that it is not popular within the RfM forum. I'm fine with being in disagreement with a large portion of the posters.

The Supreme Court ruled many years ago that that was unconstitutional. It's not really an opinion, it's federal law.

It's my opinion that the student should still stand, regardless of federal law. It's what is "right" and "good" and "moral," in my book.

Children entered the room in a line. Put their belongings by their feet and recited the words before they took their seats. Often, I would have one or two JW children who did not participate. They just gazed at the ceiling or out the window for a minute. No problem.

I only let them explain two or three times why they didn't pledge. After that I told them we had heard their reasons and needed to get on with our day. If I hadn't curbed them, they would have announced the whys every day of the year and we were busy learning to read and add with no time for repeated JW commercials.

I feel the opposite is right, good, and moral. I also feel others exercising their rights to stand or not is what is good and moral. But I'm not really concerned about that as it's irrelevant: What concerns me is the word "should," which implies there can be consequences to exercising a basic right, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

It only implies a point of view from an individual.

That's what I'm trying to clarify.

I'm not saying there should be consequences for not standing up, other than people (like me) will think she's a disrespectful and unpatriotic person. Other people might think she's a heroic and free-thinking individual, based on her not standing. Everyone has their opinion.

This accusation of implied punishment reminds me of a poster who used to rant about laws and courts if I ventured an opinion as if suggesting something meant I wanted laws passed and courts upholding my suggestions. Nope. We have rights to our opinions with not hint of mean spirited consequences or state enforced regulations and laws.

"I still am of the mind, however, that students should stand up when others say the Pledge of Allegiance in a classroom. Don't say it if you don't want to. Don't put your hand over your heart. But stand up."

I agree.

and...if you are playing a professional sport in Canada, England, Russia, or Iran...you should also stand when they play their Natl Anthems.

You can be "of that mind."

Others don't have to be.

Me, I don't see that you're being especially freedom-loving or generous by "allowing" people to not say a pledge or not put their hand over their heart, but *requiring* them to stand. In fact, it seems just as heavy-handed and against freedom of thought to require they stand as it does to require they recite a pledge.

It's OK for people to think differently from you. It's also OK for them to behave differently. Them not standing doesn't harm you in any way, other than offend some personal idea of "patriotism" and maybe "respect" that you have, and they don't share. They're free to not share your ideas.

And not sharing your ideas doesn't make them "unpatriotic," or "un-American," or "disrespectful." Just different, and free to be so.

As I child I resented very much being forced to pledge my allegiance to the flag of a republic under God that I knew full well was NOT a republic under God, but a republic under a right to worship or not as one saw fit according to the dictates of one's own conscience. Even as a 10-year-old I hated having to stand up and voice hypocritical pieties to please nameless authorities. I dissented as much as I dared: leaving my hand at my side, refusing to say the words. It was a charade and I shouldn't have been forced through it in an American public school. An Islamist school in an Islamist country under Sharia law? Maybe.

Made to stand.

But allowed to lower their zippers.

Ok here goes...I usually get flamed for stuff like this...

Re: Kapernick and his choice to kneel during the Natl Anthem..

Do I think it is disrespectful??
Yes..

Would I ever do that??
No

Does the rights guaranteed to him by those who fought for the flag, give him the right to protest or bring awareness to whatever social issues he wants to bring awareness to?
Yes

So I support his -right- to kneel during the Natl Anthem, but do not agree personally with how he is bringing this awareness to the NFL viewing public.

I also support the -RIGHT- of the consuming public to boycott whatever product and services Kapernick endorses.

Kapernick does have a right to protest in whatever manner he chooses...BUT he is NOT exempt from the consequences of his choices..

to add to this...

To see/hear a professional athlete whose ink (tattoos) which displays his personal stories, thoughts, or feelings for all to see, which probably costs more than I make in a year, complain that people like him are oppressed, is hypocrisy.

Due to his athleitc gifts, talents, he has gotten more opportunities than my kids will ever get.

So to piss and moan about being oppressed, it's not "fair".

My 6ft tall white kids should ALSO get the chance for a free education and play sports for a NCAA school...(sarcasm)

He didn't say he was oppressed.

He said he was kneeling for those who were.

I wonder if he helps the oppressed in any way monetarily.

Yes, he is donating a million dollars to fight police brutality from the sale of his jerseys.

http://www.etonline.com/news/197162_colin_kaepernick_to_donate_1_million_after_kneeling_protest_of_the_national_anthem/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 02:37PM by woodsmoke.

Nice! Not just an empty gesture then.

His conscience is not your conscience. Kapernick standing would be like you sustaining Joseph Smith as prophet seer and revelator.

Huh? How is that the same at all?

Are you saying that when Barack Obama pledges alliegance to the flag it's the same as you sustaining Joseph Smith as a prophet, seer and revelator?

Really?

His meaning was clear.

Barack Obama believes in the symbolism of the flag. Kaepernick does not. His moral stance is just as passionate and justifiable as another's. Forcing him to stand for that would be like forcing a nonbeliever to worship God or saying that it is inherently morally wrong not to pray.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 07:06PM by woodsmoke.

My point was respect..plain and simple.

Eaxample:
If you are living/or working in Iran (very repressive islamic country) and they are paying you to perform for them (as an athlete/for your talent), then you better stand for their anthem too.

Gee, I hope not. I think old Joe was anything but a prophet. That would make Obama very unpatriotic.

Gotcha. Totally misinterpreted what you said but get it now and agree.

This is exactly how I feel.

Symbols are used to represent something important.

When a symbol becomes more important than what it represents, what it represents is diminished or even lost.

For example, the USA flag represents, in part, freedom, for this example the freedom of speech.

If you ban using the symbol as a tool to express what a person has to say by banning flag burning, you have denied the freedom of speech. The right the flag represents, freedom of speech, freedom of speech is lost.