Mormons are racist

1. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   1863. Lets think about this. America was embroiled in a war and one of the main reasons was that some people felt they had a right to own Africans. The American Constitution didn't count a black person as more than 3/5 of a person. It wasn't until the 60's that we began to legally force people to allow for racial equality.
   
   All in all, sounds like the Mormons were no different than anyone else during that time.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The 3/5th clause doe not count a person... it tallies whole populations.
      
      Please read the clause itself and think about what would have happened had all the blacks in a given state been fully counted. Those slave holding states would have had a very large majority in the Govt and we would still have slavery.
      
      The 3/5ths clause is one of the most mis-understood and lied about parts of the Constitution. I would expect you would look for the facts before slandering the document, Emile.
      
      Fredrick Douglas himself was under the same false impression as yourself, Emile. Untill he read the document. Then he loved the Constitution and what it embodied.
      
      It is worth a read.
      
      A black man in a free state was counted as a whole person... a slave population in a slave state was counted as 3/5ths of the total for representation reasons.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I do understand that putting words in the mouth's of others and thougts in the heart's of others is one of the cornerstones of the Christian philosophy; however, in an environment where our words are there for everyone to see, it would be best to not lie about someone.  It is so easily refuted.  I clearly stated the following:
         No. It was fear on the part of the North. They didn't want to count blacks as whole people because it would equate to a higher percentage of representation in the House for the South.
         
         Lies do not become us Mr. Mason.  Well, those of us with morals, at the least.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Emile said.... "1863. Lets think about this. America was embroiled in a war and one of the main reasons was that some people felt they had a right to own Africans. The American Constitution didn't count a black person as more than 3/5 of a person. It wasn't until the 60's that we began to legally force people to allow for racial equality.
            
            All in all, sounds like the Mormons were no different than anyone else during that time."
            
            There is the post i responded to Emile... no where do i see that in there.
            
            And to call me a liar becuase i responded to what I read is just sad, Emile.
            
            If I got the wrong impression based on your words in that post I quoted... then I am sorry. But it says what I addressed, and that is not a lie.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Interesting. You had full access to a conversation that happened two days ago and you chose to not view it in its entirety, but to pick and choose what part to address.
               
               I feel oddly honored. You treated my conversation in the same manner you do the Bible. I forgive you.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually no.
                  
                  I read the thread and did not see the post you are referencing... simple as that. I read the one which said what I replied to and had no clue you had another post up there.
                  
                  I know you all are perfectionists and never miss anything... but us mere mortals somethimes read right past something. And today is the first time I have seen this thread. It was on the front page this morning.
                  
                  You have called me a liar and stated that I put words in your mouth on multiple occassions today... and that is just BS. you can feel however you want, but the fact is you seem to want to argue with me and insult me... so have at it.
                  
                  I stated a reply honestly to what I read of your posts. Nothing more, nor less... you do not like it... oh well.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Now, now Mr. Mason. I apologized to you in the other thread for thinking your post in reply to mine was actually a reply to me. Goodness. If you go out of your way to muddy the waters and then can't accept an apology graciously, is that my fault?
                     
                     And I have already said I forgive you for ignoring part of the conversation on this thread and jumping to conclusions. I have no idea what more you expect of me.
                     
                     Perhaps, if you spent less time reading my posts and attempting to find fault? Or, if you are going to read them, more time reading before you jump to conclusions? I don't know. There appear to be multiple options at your disposal.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh nice spin, Emile.
                        
                        I knew there was something I liked about you.
                        
                        As I said your the one who keeps accussing me of putting words in your mouth, and lying.
                        
                        I stated I read only that post of yours I commented on, I did not see any other. That is as simple as it gets.
                        
                        I also accepted your apology... then you went and said the same exact thing again.
                        
                        So?... am I just suppossed to ignore your repetition of it because you apologized once.
                        
                        I do not put words in your, nor anyone elses, mouth.
                        
                        So you keep accussing me of putting words in your mouth and I will keep telling you to show me where.
                        
                        Where?...
                        
                        Anyways... have a nice day.

                        replyreport
2. 60

   Jonathan Jancoposted 12 years ago

   And exactly how did they come up with 3/5?
   Is that a commodity assessment?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No. It was fear on the part of the North. They didn't want to count blacks as whole people because it would equate to a higher percentage of representation in the House for the South.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jonathan Jancoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I understand. I was just wondering they came up with that particular figure. Cant help but think a bunch of 'experts' sitting around a table saying, 'how bout half?', 'eh, cant be down with half, how bout three quarters?', 'Three quarters?! No way! Far too human for me to support'.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know but I guess it was a coup for the South. It was over 50%. It's pathetic to think we fought for freedom just to turn around and haggle over the worth of a human life. Dark times in history, I guess.

            replyreport
3. 58

   Jeramiposted 12 years ago

   Mormons are racist
   
   
   
      and PEOPLE ARE "b" HeADS   
   
   
       soOOOO  its  UIME TO DO SOMTIN.

   replyreport
4. 76

   MissEposted 12 years ago

   You are painting with a very broad brush my friend.......always dangerous ground.  I AM a Mormon.  I am NOT racist.  Period.

   replyreport