Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Trump's Inauguration

[Katzpur]

Yes.

Well, at least you're consistent. I thought at first that it was specifically because the President-elect was Trump that you objected.

No, it wouldn't. I don't want churches participating in government at all.

I fail to see how a musical performance can be thought of as "participating in government."

If a singing group made up of Mormons wanted to perform at the inauguration, fine... but I see it as crossing a line when the church itself inserts itself into the ceremony... just as I saw it as crossing a line when the church inserted itself into the debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Well, for starters, the Church didn't "insert itself" into the ceremony. It did not ask or even offer to perform. And their singing at the inauguration could not conceivably have a negative impact on one single solitary individual who hears them. That's where I see the difference, and it is HUGE.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know, I am 100% in favor of the separation of Church and State, but I apparently see that in a completely different way than you do. I don't believe the Church should get involved in political debates and the decision-making process, but I think you are taking this to a ridiculous extreme. Are churches themselves not to involve themselves in any aspect of life outside the circle of their own congregations?

To see things my way: imagine a performance at the Trump inauguration was prominently sponsored by Coca-Cola or an oil company; would this create any concerns for you?

I'm just as concerned with undue influence by and for churches as by and for any other corporation.

 

[Scott C.]

Do you want me to list off all the things that are wrong with your analogy?

I knew you wouldn't like it, but you should be able to catch my drift anyway.

 

[Katzpur]

To see things my way: imagine a performance at the Trump inauguration was prominently sponsored by Coca-Cola or an oil company; would this create any concerns for you?

In all honesty, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. You apparently see a performance at the inauguration as currying favor. I don't. I see it as good entertainment. The Church is not going to benefit in any way by performing. As a matter of fact, because so many people apparently feel the way you do, their performance could conceivably turn people against them. That ought to make you happy!

I'm just as concerned with undue influence by and for churches as by and for any other corporation.[/QUOTE]I asked one other question you failed to answer, and I'm really interested in knowing what you think... Are churches themselves not to involve themselves in any aspect of life outside the circle of their own congregations?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know if Scott does or not, but I do.

The three big ones that come to mind:

First: the preparation needed to get ready for a performance like this, even for a group as professional as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, is considerable. Comparing that to something as automatic and easy as shaking an outstretched hand is a bit dismissive of the hard work of the choir.

I did some thinking about what's actually involved here: 360 people (plus support staff) doing a few rehearsals a week for a few weeks, plus flying them all from Salt Lake City to DC, plus feeding and accommodating them all in DC. The expense and effort is probably much more than, say, that of a contractor building someone a luxury house. If Scott thinks that kind of outlay is no bigger a deal than shaking someone's hand, I'll pick out a nice parcel of land right now.

Second: it's not like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was just hanging out on a street corner doing nothing when Trump bumped into it and put out his hand. I would think that it's a bit of an event management coup to book the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in the short span of time from the election to the inauguration. I'd bet good money that they're one of those groups that normally gets booked years in advance.

Third: Scott acted like the Choir couldn't say "no", but I'm fairly sure that they say "no" to more gigs than they say "yes" to.

And for a group like the Choir, a "no" doesn't mean "we'd rather snub you and stay home doing nothing than be seen in public with you"; it would just mean "we're a popular group that gets many requests for performances, and our volunteer members can't do all of them."

Question for those who might know: did the Choir have to cancel or reschedule any performances to make room for Trump?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I knew you wouldn't like it, but you should be able to catch my drift anyway.

As I touched on in my reply to Katzpur, I think a better analogy than an outstretched hand for a handshake would be a request ("can you build me a house by next month... and reschedule your other jobs to make it happen?"). Even if you've done this in the past for other people, nobody would think less of you for saying "sorry - I can't."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I asked one other question you failed to answer, and I'm really interested in knowing what you think... Are churches themselves not to involve themselves in any aspect of life outside the circle of their own congregations?

I think they should stay out of government affairs. I don't think churches should participate in official government events (e.g. inauguration ceremonies), and I look forward to the day when governments no longer have to contract with religious organizations to provide government services (e.g. polling places in churches, or government grants for religious hospitals) because there are better secular alternatives.

... but there are plenty of ways that churches can (and do) participate in society without directly participating in government.

 

[Katzpur]

I think they should stay out of government affairs. I don't think churches should participate in official government events (e.g. inauguration ceremonies), and I look forward to the day when governments no longer have to contract with religious organizations to provide government services (e.g. polling places in churches, or government grants for religious hospitals) because there are better secular alternatives.

... but there are plenty of ways that churches can (and do) participate in society without directly participating in government.

Yes, churches can do as the LDS Church consistently does and provide humanitarian aid around the world -- with no strings attached and without being asked to help. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans a decade ago, the Church sent 14 semi-trailer loads of food, sleeping bags, tents and other supplies to that area. They were headed to Louisiana before the storm even made landfall. No, they weren't participating in any government efforts to aid the people of that part of the country, but their aid significantly reduced the amount of government assistance that was needed. So where do you draw the line? Would it have had to be just a bunch of random Mormons who put this tremendous relief effort in place, or was it okay that it was sanctioned and initiated by the LDS Church as a religious entity?

You know, the more I think about your take on this whole issue, the more I am convinced that, if you were a religious person, we could label your zeal as fanaticism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, churches can do as the LDS Church consistently does and provide humanitarian aid around the world -- with no strings attached and without being asked to help. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans a decade ago, the Church sent 14 semi-trailer loads of food, sleeping bags, tents and other supplies to that area. They were headed to Louisiana before the storm even made landfall. No, they weren't participating in any government efforts to aid the people of that part of the country, but their aid significantly reduced the amount of government assistance that was needed. So where do you draw the line? Would it have had to be just a bunch of random Mormons who put this tremendous relief effort in place, or was it okay that it was sanctioned and initiated by the LDS Church as a religious entity?

I don't have an issue with a church responding in its own name to an emergency.

I have concerns with a church agency responding in the name of the government, but if the government doesn't have the resources to do the job itself, then the church stepping in is probably the best option available... though with an eye to a future where the government's own capabilities are enough that it doesn't have to hand its responsibility off to churches.

You know, the more I think about your take on this whole issue, the more I am convinced that, if you were a religious person, we could label your zeal as fanaticism.

There are worse things to be zealous for than secularism, religious equality, and freedom of belief.

History has shown that when churches get a foothold in government, the results can be horrific. Some of the most heinous human rights abuses in the West of the last century happened when Christian churches - all with many good, kind people among their members - were given access to governmental power. Yes, the road from performing in an official government ceremony to the Magdalene Laundries or the Canadian Indigenous Residential Schools is a long one, but I don't want to start on that road at all.

Also, after seeing how the LDS Church behaved on the same-sex marriage issue, I have no trust whatsoever that it wouldn't use whatever influence it gained with the state to promote its stance on issues... even if real people are hurt by this.

 

[Watchmen]

I don't have an issue with a church responding in its own name to an emergency.

I have concerns with a church agency responding in the name of the government, but if the government doesn't have the resources to do the job itself, then the church stepping in is probably the best option available... though with an eye to a future where the government's own capabilities are enough that it doesn't have to hand its responsibility off to churches.


There are worse things to be zealous for than secularism, religious equality, and freedom of belief.

History has shown that when churches get a foothold in government, the results can be horrific. Some of the most heinous human rights abuses in the West of the last century happened when Christian churches - all with many good, kind people among their members - were given access to governmental power. Yes, the road from performing in an official government ceremony to the Magdalene Laundries or the Canadian Indigenous Residential Schools is a long one, but I don't want to start on that road at all.

Also, after seeing how the LDS Church behaved on the same-sex marriage issue, I have no trust whatsoever that it wouldn't use whatever influence it gained with the state to promote its stance on issues... even if real people are hurt by this.

I'm beginning to think you're viewing the LDS Church through same-sex tinged glasses as you keep bringing that up. It seems to define your opinion about everything the Church does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm beginning to think you're viewing the LDS Church through same-sex tinged glasses as you keep bringing that up. It seems to define your opinion about everything the Church does.

The Prop 8 episode certainly eroded any trust or benefit of the doubt that I might've had for the LDS Church as an organization, but my opinion isn't based just on that issue.

When even liberal, gay-friendly denominations get access to governmental power, bad things happen:

The Apologies

I'm against any church having access to governmental power, even the ones I think are generally pretty tolerant and filled mostly with very nice people (like the United Church of Canada).

Edit: but you're right that I keep bringing it up. I don't easily forget being lied to, and I don't easily forget when someone tries to hurt people I care about.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't know if you saw the statement the Church issued on the subject, but here it is:

“The choir’s participation continues its long tradition of performing for U.S. presidents of both parties at inaugurations and in other settings, and is not an implied support of party affiliations or politics. It is a demonstration of our support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power.”

I suspect that whichever candidate had won the election, had he/she asked the Choir to perform, the invitation would have been accepted. I definitely don't think the Choir's acceptance of the invitation means, "We love you, Donald! Almost as much as you love yourself!" I was personally very, very disappointed that Trump won, whereas I would have only been very disappointed had Clinton won. I can't stand either of them, but I love good music.

It is a red letter day, we are in complete agreement.

 

[Watchmen]

The Prop 8 episode certainly eroded any trust or benefit of the doubt that I might've had for the LDS Church as an organization, but my opinion isn't based just on that issue.

When even liberal, gay-friendly denominations get access to governmental power, bad things happen:

The Apologies

I'm against any church having access to governmental power, even the ones I think are generally pretty tolerant and filled mostly with very nice people (like the United Church of Canada).

Edit: but you're right that I keep bringing it up. I don't easily forget being lied to, and I don't easily forget when someone tries to hurt people I care about.

Well, everyone makes mistakes. And I do think Prop 8 was a mistake. I'm no longer a practicing Mormon, and in fact, I don't believe in its teachings, but I can still recognize the good it can do, and I think that includes supporting the office of president (not the individual).

 

[Watchmen]

Sounds like at least one choir member has quit. It's interesting to me how people can't separate support for the office from support for the person. To each his (or her) own.