Mormon Tabernacle Choir singer quits because she claims Trump represents tyranny and fascism

[mrmarklin]

In the Japanese system, the Emporer is a figurehead only.  No power at all.

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Probably because Hirohito was viewed as a weak man and, in essence, a puppet of the Japanese generals and admirals, unwilling and/or unable to make any decisions beyond ratifying what the brass wanted.

From what I gather, Hirohito was actually very much aware and involved.  But it served American political ends as well as Japanese egos to keep him on the throne and present him as having been the more-or-less innocent victim of a cabal of conniving general, so MacArthur papered over his sins and gave him a pass.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From what I gather, Hirohito was actually very much aware and involved.  But it served American political ends as well as Japanese egos to keep him on the throne and present him as having been the more-or-less innocent victim of a cabal of conniving general, so MacArthur papered over his sins and gave him a pass.

Very possible. I'm no historian. I was just giving my impression of how he was viewed, not the reality of the Japanese power structure, about which I have no idea.

[NeuroTypical]

Ok folks.  We are greying, and nobody remembers Hitler firsthand.  It's important to remind/educate everyone about what happened, and where this "roses before Hitler" statement came from.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25 percent inflation and 25 percent bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.

My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.’

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933.” she recalls. “We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.

Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group – Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone in Germany was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.

Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

“We were overjoyed,” remembers Kitty, “and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

Go read the rest of the article - it relates, in a firsthand account, what happened after that.  It's not a pleasant read.  It's important to know what happened though, so we can have a good basis to compare against this MoTab person's comments.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks NeuroTypical, I had no idea that Austria voted for Hitler. That was a fascinating and eye opening read.

[yjacket]

A couple of comments on the Japanese Emperor.  He was viewed by the Japanese as the embodiment of God, i.e. he was a deity.  That is why he remained in power after WWII, to remove him would most likely have provided fodder for the Japanese to fight a guerrilla war long after the official war ended. By keeping him in power and having the country surrender under him provided the social binding to allow for a defeated country.  And the Japanese were absolutely brutal fighters-much, much worse than the Germans.

For all our current societies moaning about racism-in the vast majority of cases there were really good reasons why people ended up being racists. Anyone who fought in the Pacific came back with an absolute hatred for the Japanese-they did horrific things in war.

And WWII and Hitler is a very interesting study-there is a very good reason why he came to power; he was the reaction to the stupidity of the end of WWI. The Germans were utterly humiliated and blamed for in a war where there were no "good" guys.  They were forced to suffer under tremendous physiological, political and economical strains. The French took over the demilitarized Rhein and mined the iron from that area stripping the Germans of a major industrial area (it was legally German territory). The areas that Hitler initially took control of were traditional German speaking areas that had been stripped away after WWI (i.e. Germany had been carved up).  Poland was an Allied creation after WWI (the eastern portion of it was traditional German), it was created out of 3 former powers (the western portion was Russian). So it was extremely logical for Germany and Russia to invade Poland to basically reclaim the portions of land that the allies took away after WWI.

In addition, the Jews were already a hated race (prior to the Holocaust, much of the world really HATED jews-even in the US). It's one of the reasons why Hilter felt he could get away with the laws he passed, he figured the rest of the world powers would simply just agree. One of the reasons why the Jews were hated so much was financial.  Jews were in general in control of many of the major banks.  Rightly or wrongly the Jews were blamed in Germany for the horrific hyperinflation of the 20s. The German people had suffered through so much, humiliation, defeat, hyperinflation, depression, etc. and here comes a man who says he will restore Germany Greatness.  His rise makes perfect sense and it makes perfect sense that the Austria Germans and the Poland Germans wanted to become part of Germany.

Unfortunately, the US didn't learn the right lesson of WWI-had we stayed out of it a more amendable peace treaty would have been signed and WWII would have never happened. Our stupidity in getting involved in a war we should have never been involved in b/c of warmongering leaders (provoking Germany to attack the US-we are really good at getting other countries to attack us to we can be in the "right").

Edited January 1, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

A couple of comments on the Japanese Emperor.  He was viewed by the Japanese as the embodiment of God, i.e. he was a deity.  That is why he remained in power after WWII, to remove him would most likely have provided fodder for the Japanese to fight a guerrilla war long after the official war ended. By keeping him in power and having the country surrender under him provided the social binding to allow for a defeated country.  And the Japanese were absolutely brutal fighters-much, much worse than the Germans.

For all our current societies moaning about racism-in the vast majority of cases there were really good reasons why people ended up being racists. Anyone who fought in the Pacific came back with an absolute hatred for the Japanese-they did horrific things in war.

When my dad was stationed in Okinawa, we learned stories of Japanese soldiers using Okinawans (not the same as Japanese, as they are quick to remind people) as human shields against the invading Allies.  They were the kinds of stories that would have today's college students demanding safe spaces, and I was hearing them at the age of 10. A lot of it boiled down to a culture that viewed suicide as an honorable alternative to surrender, even if that meant forcing others into the same "honorable" fate.  My mom and I took the "Battle of Okinawa Tour" and saw firsthand the caves where many Japanese soldiers took their lives along with the lives of the civilians they were sharing caves with. 

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

In addition, the Jews were already a hated race (prior to the Holocaust, much of the world really HATED jews-even in the US). It's one of the reasons why Hilter felt he could get away with the laws he passed, he figured the rest of the world powers would simply just agree. One of the reasons why the Jews were hated so much was financial.  Jews were in general in control of many of the major banks.  Rightly or wrongly the Jews were blamed in Germany for the horrific hyperinflation of the 20s. The German people had suffered through so much, humiliation, defeat, hyperinflation, depression, etc. and here comes a man who says he will restore Germany Greatness.  His rise makes perfect sense and it makes perfect sense that the Austria Germans and the Poland Germans wanted to become part of Germany.

Unfortunately, the US didn't learn the right lesson of WWI-had we stayed out of it a more amendable peace treaty would have been signed and WWII would have never happened. Our stupidity in getting involved in a war we should have never been involved in b/c of warmongering leaders (provoking Germany to attack the US-we are really good at getting other countries to attack us to we can be in the "right").

Replace Jews with Muslims and the incoming administration has already set a dangerous precedent in rhetoric. 

[yjacket]

54 minutes ago, Godless said:

Replace Jews with Muslims and the incoming administration has already set a dangerous precedent in rhetoric. 

Well you know when pretty much every terror attack is caused by some foreigner (or foreign-born) who is magically Muslim and is just magically from a foreign war-torn country, you'd have to be stupid not to see the correlation.  

And quite frankly there is nothing wrong with wanting one's own country to be relatively homogeneous.  The VAST majority of countries are like that, and for really good reason.  Having homogeneity actually promotes peace and social cohesion. That's actually how countries became countries . . .Diversity is a big huge lie that has been sold to the American people.

HUGE difference between identifying a problem of muslim terrorists from war-torn countries and saying as a country we won't accept immigrants from countries like Somalia, Iraq, Syria, etc. vs. the Nurremburg laws (I don't seem to recall any of the Jews killing 20 people in suicide missions in Germany)-please read up on history before making idiotic comparisons.

Edited January 1, 2017 by yjacket

[yjacket]

57 minutes ago, Godless said:

 A lot of it boiled down to a culture that viewed suicide as an honorable alternative to surrender, even if that meant forcing others into the same "honorable" fate.  

Not quite; when you are beheading soldiers, cutting off their genitals and sewing them in the beheaded mouths-that ain't about suicide.  The Japs were pretty brutal-at the time very much like today's muslim fighters.

Which is actually amazing how in the span of 70 years they went from an intensely warrior-like brutal culture to today's Japanese culture. So there is hope for the Muslim culture.

Edited January 1, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest]

1941 called. It wants its slur back.

[Guest Godless]

58 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Well you know when pretty much every terror attack is caused by some foreigner (or foreign-born) who is magically Muslim and is just magically from a foreign war-torn country, you'd have to be stupid not to see the correlation.  

Yes, I see the correlation. I've stated multiple times on this forum that the Obama administration has been too reluctant to acknowledge the link between religious extremism and recent terrorist activity. On the other side of the coin, you have Trump (and Cruz, while we're at it), who seems far too eager to make all Muslims the enemy in the eyes of the American people.  There's a balance between honest recognition of the enemy and dangerous stereotyping/profiling that has yet to be reached in public discourse. 

58 minutes ago, yjacket said:

And quite frankly there is nothing wrong with wanting one's own country to be relatively homogeneous.  The VAST majority of countries are like that, and for really good reason.  Having homogeneity actually promotes peace and social cohesion. That's actually how countries became countries . . .Diversity is a big huge lie that has been sold to the American people.

Diversity isn't a lie, it's the American way. If we were truly champions of homogeneity, the native race that preceded us would still have a significant place in our culture. No other nation in the world has transformed its native demographic (for better or worse) to the drastic degree that the United States has. We're a nation built by immigrants. We don't have a cultural identity the way that other countries do, and that's what makes us extraordinary. Sure, it causes social tension from time to time, but the path to greatness is never an easy one. We don't give up on our national identity of diversity just because the road gets hard sometimes.  

58 minutes ago, yjacket said:

HUGE difference between identifying a problem of muslim terrorists from war-torn countries and saying as a country we won't accept immigrants from countries like Somalia, Iraq, Syria, etc. vs. the Nurremburg laws (I don't seem to recall any of the Jews killing 20 people in suicide missions in Germany)-please read up on history before making idiotic comparisons.

I'm not necessarily against placing restrictions on immigration from conflict nations (though I don't think it should be banned outright either). The problem with Trump's rhetoric is that he has talked of banning immigration of ALL Muslims and creating a registry for those who we do allow in. That's where the concern is. He painted with too broad of a brush while addressing a voter base that is already littered with xenophobes. Talk like that puts Muslim American citizens in danger. Where Obama was too careful not to step on any Muslim toes, Trump has been too reckless in making an enemy of an entire religion.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'm not necessarily against placing restrictions on immigration from conflict nations (though I don't think it should be banned outright either). The problem with Trump's rhetoric is that he has talked of banning immigration of ALL Muslims and creating a registry for those who we do allow in. That's where the concern is. He painted with too broad of a brush while addressing a voter base that is already littered with xenophobes. Talk like that puts Muslim American citizens in danger. Where Obama was too careful not to step on any Muslim toes, Trump has been too reckless in making an enemy of an entire religion.

That's the defining issue of the present day. What is the balance between sensible open borders and letting in people who want to kill us. 

Liberal or conservative I'm fairly certain no one wants to let in people who want to kill us or our children. 

[Guest]

On 12/30/2016 at 10:09 PM, Carborendum said:

No one mentioned Hirohito.  I went through the WWII Museum in NOLA.  I really have to wonder why people gave him a free pass and put all of history's hatred onto Hitler.  The Japanese caused genocide/democide is estimated at around 6 million civilians throughout WWII.  Wide estimates are 3.5 mil to 10 mil.

While I don't know if Hirohito was Hitler-level evil or not, I have done some reading on the guy, and it looks like his history has been . . . sanitized, to say the least.  He personally apparently authorized a number of atrocities, including the program which led to human experimentation on American POWs in World War II, among countless others (the notorious Unit 731).  A horrible man who should have been tried as a war criminal.

I am just thankful the good people of Japan (some of whom married into my family) were able to break away from following such a horrible person.  Gives me hope for North Korea.

Edited January 1, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[ldsister]

Part of activism is taking a public stand. Imagine if MLK had quietly kept his feelings to himself and not made waves. 

I understand why the church is holding firm on its position of political neutrality and singing at any inauguration they're invited to. I also understand why someone would feel that there was no way in the world they could celebrate someone like Mr. Trump AND would want to make their opposition publicly known. 

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, ldsister said:

Part of activism is taking a public stand. Imagine if MLK had quietly kept his feelings to himself and not made waves. 

I understand why the church is holding firm on its position of political neutrality and singing at any inauguration they're invited to. I also understand why someone would feel that there was no way in the world they could celebrate someone like Mr. Trump AND would want to make their opposition publicly known. 

I love this response. Very well said. 

[prisonchaplain]

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 4:20 PM, Vort said:

None of us disagree with her right to quit if she doesn't like the venue. What many of us object to is the public way she has done it. Just like the vomitous SL Tribulation likes.

If she were an individual, invited to sing a solo at the inauguration, her public refusal would be fine. Many will assume that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is reticent to do this, and that this lady represents the views of many.

[ldsister]

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If she were an individual, invited to sing a solo at the inauguration, her public refusal would be fine. Many will assume that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is reticent to do this, and that this lady represents the views of many.

And I appreciate that she's sending that message, since it is accurate. Many members of the church ARE reticent about MoTab performing for Trump. Her protest speaks for thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Mormons. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by ldsister

[Vort]

42 minutes ago, ldsister said:

Part of activism is taking a public stand. Imagine if MLK had quietly kept his feelings to himself and not made waves. 

I understand why the church is holding firm on its position of political neutrality and singing at any inauguration they're invited to. I also understand why someone would feel that there was no way in the world they could celebrate someone like Mr. Trump AND would want to make their opposition publicly known. 

Would you have been singing this song had Obama asked the choir to sing at his inauguration, and some guy in the choir quit in protest and said that he would never sing at the inauguration of such a person? You would have been just fine with that, and singing praises for his bravery, too, right?

Uh-huh.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Would you have been singing this song had Obama asked the choir to sing at his inauguration, and some guy in the choir quit in protest and said that he would never sing at the inauguration of such a person? You would have been just fine with that, and singing praises for his bravery, too, right?

Uh-huh.

She might have been. How can you tell? Can you read her mind? 

[ldsister]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Would you have been singing this song had Obama asked the choir to sing at his inauguration, and some guy in the choir quit in protest and said that he would never sing at the inauguration of such a person? You would have been just fine with that, and singing praises for his bravery, too, right?

Uh-huh.

If I understood his grounds for finding Obama a vile, repugnant person (even if I didn't agree with his grounds), then yes, I would have. 

[prisonchaplain]

27 minutes ago, ldsister said:

And I appreciate that she's sending that message, since it is accurate. Many members of the church ARE reticent about MoTab performing for Trump. Her protest speaks for thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Mormons. 

Except, the message to non-LDS may appear that the choir itself is hesitant. In a church with roughly 7 million U.S. members, it would not surprise me at all if 10Ks of LDS opposed the choir's performance.  Does that give a voluntary choir member the authority to piggy-back on the official church group's notoriety to broadcast a political perspective?  Maybe it does...others here can answer better than I.

[Just_A_Guy]

20 hours ago, Godless said:

Diversity isn't a lie, it's the American way. If we were truly champions of homogeneity, the native race that preceded us would still have a significant place in our culture. No other nation in the world has transformed its native demographic (for better or worse) to the drastic degree that the United States has. We're a nation built by immigrants. We don't have a cultural identity the way that other countries do, and that's what makes us extraordinary. Sure, it causes social tension from time to time, but the path to greatness is never an easy one. We don't give up on our national identity of diversity just because the road gets hard sometimes.  

Well, diversity within limits is the "American way".  Certainly America was envisioned as a place that English, Scots, French, Dutch, and Germans; Quakers and Congregationalists and Anabaptists and Anglicans (and Jews, to a limited extent), could freely mingle and participate in American civic life on an equal footing (or, if they so chose, establish autonomous homogenous communities in pursuit of common ideological or religious aims; on the understanding that the larger federal government would not treat them preferentially or impose those aims elsewhere).  Thankfully, later generations expanded this paradigm to include other races.  It also accepted other religions to the extent that those religions were willing to be governed by Judeo-Christian moral codes and accept Enlightenment-type principles.  (Unfortunately, IMHO, the individual right to self-segregate into like-minded communities was eventually eroded.)

I don't think the American ideal of "diversity" ever suggested that you should be able to toss any two kids in a sandbox and force them to play nice in perpetuity.  Not one of the framers would have suggested that the Barbary Pirates--whose idea of "diversity" was that a Christian woman was just as rapeable as a Jew--should be allowed to establish a colony on Nantucket.  It would strike me as remarkably cavalier to suggest that America has no foundational cultural elements worth preserving and that tolerant liberal democracies will and must work wherever they are tried.

The fate of the so-called "Native Americans" doesn't strike me as having direct bearing here, except insofar as it was our Enlightenment commitment to diversity (or hitherto-unprecedented Judeo-Christian mercy) that led us to, for the first time in recorded history, control the baser instincts of human nature enough to stop the Native American genocide before it was complete; and to make it a point of preserving the memory of our victims in something approaching a sympathetic way.  I am convinced that given such overwhelming numerical and technological superiority and given the opportunity to take so many richly desireable lands, similar genocides in America would have been perpetrated under the leadership of such luminaries as Montezuma, Sitting Bull, or Crazy Horse--and none of them would have seen a moral need to interfere with such extermination efforts until they were over.  That's what makes Massasoit and Powhatan so extraordinary.

Quote

I'm not necessarily against placing restrictions on immigration from conflict nations (though I don't think it should be banned outright either). The problem with Trump's rhetoric is that he has talked of banning immigration of ALL Muslims and creating a registry for those who we do allow in. That's where the concern is. He painted with too broad of a brush while addressing a voter base that is already littered with xenophobes. Talk like that puts Muslim American citizens in danger. 

Amen.  Bush was also quite careful in this regard, IIRC.

[ldsister]

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Except, the message to non-LDS may appear that the choir itself is hesitant. In a church with roughly 7 million U.S. members, it would not surprise me at all if 10Ks of LDS opposed the choir's performance.  Does that give a voluntary choir member the authority to piggy-back on the official church group's notoriety to broadcast a political perspective?  Maybe it does...others here can answer better than I.

She didn't piggy-back anything. She had a social opinion, she acted on it, and she expressed it to others. Unless I see evidence of her trying to capitalize on this in an unworthy way, then what she's doing is activism, not self-interested pandering. Imagine if Lincoln had been like, "I don't want to give the impression that all Kentuckians are opposed to slavery, so I'm going to quietly not own slaves myself, but I'm not going to make a big announcement about it." If you have an opinion about morality, you stand up for it. 

Now, if she starts selling t-shirts, we can talk again.  

[prisonchaplain]

6 minutes ago, ldsister said:

She didn't piggy-back anything. ... Now, if she starts selling t-shirts, we can talk again.  

I've got no stake in this controversy. Church culture may allow for members of the official choir to abstain from performances based on vocal social/political stances.  Members of the church may not feel that doing so unfairly hijacks the popularity of the group for an individual agenda.  I think if my church had an official music group, and members started refusing performances I would be troubled.  However, that's just my speculation.

[ldsister]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

I've got no stake in this controversy. Church culture may allow for members of the official choir to abstain from performances based on vocal social/political stances.  Members of the church may not feel that doing so unfairly hijacks the popularity of the group for an individual agenda.  I think if my church had an official music group, and members started refusing performances I would be troubled.  However, that's just my speculation.

I'm sure some were troubled, but that's okay. I was troubled when they openly voiced their support for Trump, but their right to do so without being accused of grandstanding remained intact, just as the singer's right to quit and openly announce why without being accused of underhanded motives should also remain intact.