Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
K-Dog is wrong for three distinct reasons.
First, the Mormon folk tale cited by K-Dog itself perfectly satisfies the very definition of racism quoted by K-Dog. According to the story, blacks were "fence sitters" or "less valiant" in the pre-existence and therefore God cursed them with black skin. Cain was their ring leader and earthly father. Thus, "the mark of Cain" is black skin, and Cain propagated this sign of God's curse through his posterity. In other words, this folk tale holds that God created the black race as a marker, to telegraph to the world that they are inferior and unworthy to hold his priesthood.
Now, K-Dog, how is this not "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." It certainly is. It's the very essence of racism.
Second, K-Dog's "logic" is medieval logic. In our modern, liberal society empirical truth is the predicate for an exercise in logic. One does not begin reasoning or applying logic using as a predicate a stated religious belief. I venture there must be many white supremacist crack pots running around in northern Idaho who can give you an "explanation" for why it is just or a product of natural law that blacks are inferior or Jews are dirty and wicked. This does not mean that they are not racists or bigots. Their explanation is itself the very essence of racism. A modern society whose values are grounded primarily on empricism regards such an explanation as mere rataionalization for racism.
Not to mention the fact that the Mormon folk tale cited by K-Dog is belied by empirical evidence. The world is not 6,000 years old. The Biblical Adam and Eve were not the first humans; there was not a wayward son of Adam and Eve who begat them black grandchildren. This is a fairy tale, and any moderatey educated person in our society should recognize it as such. Modern science has explained that the cause of differing skin colors is the earthly, physical environment, and the factthat humans evolve.
Third, because in our Western, liberal society we have learned from hard experience that the source and substance of human characteristics is elusive, and thoroughly mysterious, and the product of millions of years of collective human experience and evolution that originated in a single life form, as well as an individual's personal experience, racism is commonly understood and recognized as meaning making distinctions and judgments based upon race for any reason at all. Our societal norms are defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as much as any of our institutions. Here is what the Court has said on this issue (ironically as it upheld the relocation of Japanese imigrants during WWII) in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944):
"[A]ll legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can."
K-Dog, your Mormon folk tale would not pass muster. In our society an explanation such as that is on its face immediately regarded as racist, regardless of the sincerity of the declarant, or his alleged special relationship with God.
Note: I do not agree with sophistry distinguishing policy and doctrine as making a material difference on this issue. Rather, I've seen that these eventually get to the bottom of it that there is no such thing as "Mormon doctrine." We recently received an important lesson in this when the LDS church finally disavowed any belief that Western aborigines are "Lamanites" (though the admisison was handled in a thoroughly craven, round-about manner).
|
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.