Mormon Church ventures in politics again, supports immigration reform

[Jolly Rogerer]

I think it takes a heck of a lot of nerve for unions to be opposed to those who want them to be effectively powerless, or even completely eliminated, for quite obvious political reasons.

Take away a union's government mandated monopoly to supply labor to a given entity in perpetuity and they can lobby all they want. But that government imposed monopoly has to go.

 

[Cutlass]

Take away a union's government mandated monopoly to supply labor to a given entity in perpetuity and they can lobby all they want. But that government imposed monopoly has to go.

Considering that only 7% of the private sector workers in the US can join a union, there certainly isn't any government imposed monopoly.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Considering that only 7% of the private sector workers in the US can join a union, there certainly isn't any government imposed monopoly.

Monopolies dominate individual markets and need not dominate aggregate market share. Thus if the shop I own is a union shop, I'm 100% stuck with a "partner" I never wanted and can't replace supplying most of my labor. The government mandate comes when some of your employees voted to unionize. From that point on you are stuck with the union, which the government mandated that your company must use exclusively in perpetuity.

Imagine if this were done for other commodities. I produce a newspaper and the shareholders of the company the provides my newsprint suddenly votes to make themselves the sole provider of newsprint to my company in perpetuity. And the government backs them and enforces it. I end up paying more for newsprint because there is little incentive for the "union" to make any concessions short of those that keep me barely in business.

The situation is even more egregious in the public sector, where temporary managers (aka elected officials) can make massive commitments of public funds over time in order to gain short term political advantage in the form of labor peace, political muscle or cash. This corrupts both the political system as well as the civil service. FDR was against public unions for very good reason.

 

[Cutlass]

Monopolies dominate individual markets and need not dominate aggregate market share. Thus if the shop I own is a union shop, I'm 100% stuck with a "partner" I never wanted and can't replace supplying most of my labor. The government mandate comes when some of your employees voted to unionize. From that point on you are stuck with the union, which the government mandated that your company must use exclusively in perpetuity.

Imagine if this were done for other commodities. I produce a newspaper and the shareholders of the company the provides my newsprint suddenly votes to make themselves the sole provider of newsprint to my company in perpetuity. And the government backs them and enforces it. I end up paying more for newsprint because there is little incentive for the "union" to make any concessions short of those that keep me barely in business.

The situation is even more egregious in the public sector, where temporary managers (aka elected officials) can make massive commitments of public funds over time in order to gain short term political advantage in the form of labor peace, political muscle or cash. This corrupts both the political system as well as the civil service. FDR was against public unions for very good reason.

Wow. You have no knowledge of unions at all. Unions are extremely weak in the US. And pretty much every business has found a way to circumvent them. Not that it is in their interest to do so. The government is pretty heavily anti union in the US. As such unions have trivial power. But is insanely prob business. And that makes business extremely powerful. The power relationship between business and labor is so extremely

That weakness of unions lowers the living standard of the middle class as a whole. It lowers productivity growth. And it lowers the growth of the US economy.

You want something that makes literally everyone poorer.

 

[JollyRoger]

From that point on you are stuck with the union, which the government mandated that your company must use exclusively in perpetuity.

Actually, if you were willing to give up the government protection of your indivdual liability, you could give up your state-entity charter and bust the union.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Actually, if you were willing to give up the government protection of your indivdual liability, you could give up your state-entity charter and bust the union.

Discorporate? I've always wanted to...

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Wow. You have no knowledge of unions at all. Unions are extremely weak in the US. And pretty much every business has found a way to circumvent them. Not that it is in their interest to do so. The government is pretty heavily anti union in the US. As such unions have trivial power. But is insanely prob business. And that makes business extremely powerful. The power relationship between business and labor is so extremely

That weakness of unions lowers the living standard of the middle class as a whole. It lowers productivity growth. And it lowers the growth of the US economy.

You want something that makes literally everyone poorer.

Please, feel free to respond by either negating with argumentation some of the things you disagree with that I've said, or supporting some of your bald assertions.

For instance I'd like to know how unions raise productivity, or rather their lack lowers productivity growth. I note that the U.S. despite having the lowest level of Unionization in the G-7 nonetheless was the only country in the G-7 which registered productivity gains every year from 1990-2005. I also find it interesting that China which has had massive productivity increases for years now and has almost certainly been the medium term growth champion effectively has no trade unions.

You seem to think that it is not in a business' interest to avoid becoming unionized? I can't help but recall growing up in the rust belt as one unionized industry after another collapsed. With the added advantage of being unionized, how could these industries fail? They had market share, brand recognition, scale, and the helping hand of the union to offer suggestions on how to maximize payrolls and avoid adopting technical innovations that reduced labor costs.

Even Hollywood, which is the last of the giant American unionized industries produces more and more overseas where the main advantage (and probably the sole net advantage) is escaping its own unions.

You accuse me of wanting something that makes everyone poorer. But a union paycheck is only an advantage over a non-union paycheck where it actually exists (ie where it hasn't been driven out of business by competition), and even then it's advantage is largely in the hands of the union member. Workers in other industries have to pay the higher prices for union produced goods with their smaller paychecks, exacerbating the inequalities between the upper and lower middle classes.

We'd be much better off with a stronger social safety net (publicly provided health care) and tax reforms that get rid of every tax that hits incomes, production, employment. This would allow American business to hire with the most minimal costs, which would allow them to pay higher wages and create more jobs. Of course we'd want to eliminate illegal immigration (easily done when politicians put their mind to it) in order to protect our own underclass, even as we carefully allowed high wage potential people from around the world to immigrate legally.

We not only don't need unions to improve our standards of living, it is easier without them. No unions simplify decision making and lower costs. If government policies insure safe and fair work rules, decent health care for all Americans. and allows employers to maximize workers and workers to maximize incomes we could both compete internationally and make good wages throughout our economy.

 

[RedRalph]

I never said blacks reverends should be kept out of politics, every time you say this you are committing a bald faced lie. I in fact said the exact opposite, quoted it for you when you lied the first time, and THAT is what everyone in this thread has read.

To be clear, you are the one advocating the banning of religous figures from politics, I simply stated generally I would prefer they not involve themselves but understand fully why they do and should be allowed to.



You are inconsistant because when you encountered my statment asking someone else to be logically consistant with your above statment, you were unable to apply it US black civil rights leaders who are primarily agents of religious organizations.

You are a hypocrite, unless you would like to answer the question instead of suspiciously dodging it like you did the first time.



I have several times, RTFT.

Please afirm that you think the involvment of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King, and Jeremiah Wright in American politics as overt representatives or relgious organizations was immoral and improper.



Downtown already did, you ignored him.



You inability to apply your sweeping statment to specific examples.

King was not an individual reverend, he was the ecclesiactical leader of a vast alliance of hundreds if not thousands of black religious congregations drawing his power primarily through those organizations. Did you never wonder why so many civil rights leaders are reverends? The cynical would note that gaining that title was a necessary requirement to marshal support and was done under false pretenses, the not so cynical would just accept that religious affiliation was a natural result of serving a community very much defined by religious groupings.

Either way, Martin Luther King is a prime example of religion being leveraged into politics. Please repudiate him now.

I do not repudiate him; I repudiate religious organisations being involved in politics. As I keep telling you, individual priests/whatever, fine, organisations not fine. You are such an intelligent guy I know I'll only have to post than another ten or so times before you can understand it.

MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.
MLK himself being in politics: fine. MLK's church: not fine.

Now point out the 'logical inconsistecy' there for me. By all means if anyone else wishes to chime in and point it out to me then go ahead.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ParkCungHee]

You can support human rights without getting political. I don't know much about the details of what happened in the examples you cite to really comment on that.

What about in Poland?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Speaking with compassion about political issues is a good thing, but as soon as religious leaders start getting their hate on about women or minority groups and being all exclusionist, then they should shut up.

This is pretty easy.

That doesn't seem all that exclusive to religious leaders.

 

[Arwon]

Indeed!

 

[LucyDuke]

Play by Play:
Ralph says "I think churches should keep their crackpot noses out of politics ... Individual priests are of course entitled ot their political views."

Pat snarks that that ought to apply, if you're going to apply it, to "the religious aristocracy what dominates black politics in the US". His opinion on the matter is that "there is nothing wrong with religious organizations having a position on anything just as any organization."

Ralph says "wtf?"

Pat says he doesn't want the black-church guys involved, but that they shouldn't be prevented, because that would be authoritarian.

Ralph snarks.

Pat says he thinks black-church guys should be treated like the LDS organization by suggesting that if one were to be forced out, the other should too.

Ralph thinks Pat means he wants black-church guys to shut up if the Mormons have to.

(Pat doesn't like that they participate, but doesn't want them to be forced out. He's doing a dance.)

Pat thinks Ralph wants the two treated differently.

Ralph wants the two treated differently because in one case, there is a church, and in the other case, there are individual priests. He didn't say that specifically though because he doesn't understand what you mean by the black-church guys.

Pat rants about logic.

Ralph is confused.

Pat misrepresents what Ralph is saying: "you are the one advocating the banning of religous figures from politics", even though Ralph wants religious figures qua church leaders to keep their noses out, but does not object to religious figures as individuals involving themselves. Pat rants about Ralph being confused. Pat alleges that MLK's work was done in his capacity as a church leader. Pat says you can't separate the man's stance from the church's stance.

Ralph says it's okay for MLK to involve in politics because MLK is not a church.

On the record:
Pat: "There is nothing wrong with religious organizations having a position on anything just as any organization."
Pat: "I don't want them to be involved. I don't, however, think they should not be able to."
Ralph: "I think churches should keep their crackpot noses out of politics ... Individual priests are of course entitled ot their political views."

Where they stand:
Should religious organizations be able to be political?
Pat: Yea. (I think.)
Ralph: Yea.

Should religious organizations choose to be political?
Pat: Nay.
Ralph: Nay.

Should individual church leaders be able to be political?
Pat: Yea.
Ralph: Yea.

Can you separate a church leader from his church?
Pat: Nay.
Ralph: Yea.

Should individual church leaders, separate from their church, choose to be political?
Pat: You cannot separate them.
Ralph: Yea.

In conclusion:
Ralph doesn't mind MLK politicking because MLK is not a church. Pat thinks that any time MLK speaks, it is as representative of the church.

Now I have a headache. Both of you, shake hands limply and make up.

 

[Cutlass]

Please, feel free to respond by either negating with argumentation some of the things you disagree with that I've said, or supporting some of your bald assertions.

For instance I'd like to know how unions raise productivity, or rather their lack lowers productivity growth. I note that the U.S. despite having the lowest level of Unionization in the G-7 nonetheless was the only country in the G-7 which registered productivity gains every year from 1990-2005. I also find it interesting that China which has had massive productivity increases for years now and has almost certainly been the medium term growth champion effectively has no trade unions.

You seem to think that it is not in a business' interest to avoid becoming unionized? I can't help but recall growing up in the rust belt as one unionized industry after another collapsed. With the added advantage of being unionized, how could these industries fail? They had market share, brand recognition, scale, and the helping hand of the union to offer suggestions on how to maximize payrolls and avoid adopting technical innovations that reduced labor costs.

Even Hollywood, which is the last of the giant American unionized industries produces more and more overseas where the main advantage (and probably the sole net advantage) is escaping its own unions.

You accuse me of wanting something that makes everyone poorer. But a union paycheck is only an advantage over a non-union paycheck where it actually exists (ie where it hasn't been driven out of business by competition), and even then it's advantage is largely in the hands of the union member. Workers in other industries have to pay the higher prices for union produced goods with their smaller paychecks, exacerbating the inequalities between the upper and lower middle classes.

We'd be much better off with a stronger social safety net (publicly provided health care) and tax reforms that get rid of every tax that hits incomes, production, employment. This would allow American business to hire with the most minimal costs, which would allow them to pay higher wages and create more jobs. Of course we'd want to eliminate illegal immigration (easily done when politicians put their mind to it) in order to protect our own underclass, even as we carefully allowed high wage potential people from around the world to immigrate legally.

We not only don't need unions to improve our standards of living, it is easier without them. No unions simplify decision making and lower costs. If government policies insure safe and fair work rules, decent health care for all Americans. and allows employers to maximize workers and workers to maximize incomes we could both compete internationally and make good wages throughout our economy.

Wages don't go up without strong unions. Not in the US anyways. Without rising wages, business investment is weak. When business investment is weak, growth of the economy is weak, creation of new wealth is weak, productivity growth is less than it could be. US wages haven't gone up since Ford was president. Why? In part because unions are very weak. If unions are so weak that they haven't been able to raise wages in 35 years, why are they so strong that they need to be singled out for exclusion from politics? They are already excluded, and have been for decades. And because of that, the US is a poorer and weaker country.

 

[timtofly]

@Lucy

The only problem is said minister statistically has more opportunity to address political issues from the pulpit equal to that of the amount of influence and emotional attachment to said issues.

It would be like Red and Pat coming here and never mentioning politics one iota.

When Red thinks the church should not get involved, does he mean every believer on earth should never vote given the opportunity, or does he mean King as a representitive of the church should not become an elected official and have the position to sway public policy?

Because the original issue seems to deal with neither. The issue is should the leader of a church tell his congregation how to vote. The more charismatic a leader is the more influence he has over peoples vote, whether he tells them how to vote or not.

 

[LucyDuke]

The original issue is whether the Mormon Church ought to participate in politics. It's just derailed into people shouting past each other rather than discussing whether a church representative can distance his own politics from his church enough for it to be appropriate for him to speak out in public on politics.

I think Ralph means the church as an institution should stay mum on politics, that it would be okay for King to go into politics as a so-to-speak "civilian" but not on behalf of his church.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think you can separate a personal opinion from a church opinion. That said, just because you say it from the pulpit doesn't mean the whole church said it. I know our Pastor has said things from the Pulpit that some people at our church disagree with, and I'm sure this holds true nearly everywhere.

 

[RedRalph]

The original issue is whether the Mormon Church ought to participate in politics. It's just derailed into people shouting past each other rather than discussing whether a church representative can distance his own politics from his church enough for it to be appropriate for him to speak out in public on politics.

I think Ralph means the church as an institution should stay mum on politics, that it would be okay for King to go into politics as a so-to-speak "civilian" but not on behalf of his church.

Bingo

 

[classical_hero]

I would say that when MLK Jr spoke on the issues, he knew full well people would know that he was a religious person and that those views were because he was religious and that they formed because he was part of a religious institution. Basically if RR is correct, then you would have to say that the Pope is only speaking on his behalf and not as the spokesman of the Catholic Church.

 

[LucyDuke]

Er, no.

First, it doesn't matter if MLK was a religious person and his views were influenced by his participation in church. His views are still his views, not necessarily those of the church.

Second, what are you even trying to say about your pope? I'm sure it's wrong, I just don't know exactly what it is you're saying.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Never mind that the Pope is acknowledged as the mouthpiece of the RCC, isn't he? He can't state an opinion without it being God's in many's view.

Unlike King, who could state a view and people would believe it was his.

It doesn't matter if the Pope has his own views or not; a lot of people treat it as if he's just a puppet with God as the puppet master.