Fire at black North Carolina church is ruled arson

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

That was my second thought, intentionally set to either claim insurance money or to make it *seem* as if it were race-related.

Certainly would be a grant time to do it, considering recent events, yet considering those same events that's why I think the odds are that it was race-related (by a white person).

Hope I'm proved wrong.

a reply to: Liquesence

I'm glad no-one was hurt.

I hope they catch the person(s) involved.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Liquesence

Hate is already out of control. Look at how we treat our prisoners and the mentally ill and homeless, look at the police vs citizens dynamic

Touche.

I suppose I should have been clearer in that by out of control I meant where the hate results in *action,* much like during the Civil Rights era and white-on-black hate crimes.

Everyone's buttons are being pushed, both black and white.

a reply to: macenroe82

The author of that article is certain in the minority (no pun intended).

That said, it doesn't matter what it was "intended" to represent; the fact remains that to MANY southern blacks it DOES represent hatred and racism, and white people HAVE used it for the same reasons (see Roof).

originally posted by: notmyrealname
I wish that I was there so I could organize an all white group of logical people to help re-build the church -or- find some white people to donate a church or something to put this type of racial hype down where it belongs.

Heck, I don't even agree with religion and I would help on this initiative just to stick it to the inflammatory elements trying (and succeeding in race baiting). We all know there are some people that are racist in society (all parts of the world, mind you). There are also people that believe in Unicorns as well as pixie dust. There are also people that are just plain stupid in every society so let's focus on the macro which is that the vast majority of people do not care about race in this country and the vast majority will suffer if we let the baiter's win.

The only thing that I would say different is that I would rebuild the church (as an atheist) out of compassion for my fellow man, not out of spite for the race-baiters. Getting an all-white group of people to do something (meaning that you would have to shun all other races wanting to help) would be...well...segregation in order to fight race-baiting, and I'm not so sure one is more morally sound than the other.

a reply to: maybee

At least it was in the middle of the night, and not DURING service like the 1963 Birmingham Church Bombing.

I know people in Charlotte and have no doubt they will help out.

a reply to: Liquesence

Surprised? I am not.

Expected.

armstrongeconomics.com...

“We have been warning that 2014 is the beginning of a new cycle that will see a highly unusual convergence between our domestic (civil unrest & revolution) and international war model – for the first time since…the US and French Revolutions and the fall of monarchy.”


The civil unrest will develop first outside the USA and turn up more aggressively in the USA after 2015. Nonetheless, it still begins in 2014 for the USA as well.

“All governments had better open their eyes for we are on the brink of a major convergence between both the Cycle of Civil Unrest, Civil War & Revolution and International War.”

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree completely with everything you have stated. It sometimes gets a little tedious to try and write a statement that provides all the disclaimers possible and still maintain readability….

a reply to: Answer

Some of them will, yes. I see the confederate flag flown all the time down here. Most of those who do fly it, I honestly think, do so because they are proud of their "southern-ness."

That said, with the revolt against the flag, I wouldn't be surprised if it's display becomes more of an "in your face" ordeal than it previously was.

Hell, I saw a house today that was flying both the US flag AND the GA state flag—but not the current flag, only the one flown from 1956-2001, which has the confederate battle flag on it.

Otherwise, yes, attention *is* focused on white-on-black crime versus others. As far as agenda, who knows...

One thing I know: white folk gettin' angry. lol

a reply to: Liquesence

And thats also what im getting at. The flag was never intended to represent any of that. Its people that perverted and twisted it into a new meaning.
Why let the few win? The needs of many outweigh the needs of a few.

Thats just my look on it.
Thats also why i said to ban fire. A few use it for malicious means. Does that mean we should ban that as well because some start to associate flame with a burning church?

I dont know im trying to look at the big picture.

a reply to: Macenroe82

I'm trying to look at the bigger picture too.

Its people that perverted and twisted it into a new meaning.

Its people? Who perverted it? Whites by flying it with intent to intimidate or blacks by it simply being flown when it represented a time when they were oppressed?

Regardless of what people have perverted it into and what was intended, the fact remains it WAS the battle flag of the confederacy, the confederacy DID have slaves, and that *one* of the points of the confederacy was the right to keep and own slaves, the majority of whom were black.

And *that's* what it represents to a lot of southern blacks.

So, it's not necessarily a "new" meaning, but it's *A* meaning with which a segment of the population strongly disagrees.

a reply to: Liquesence


Heres a quick copy and paste just to clear up a few things that might be constricting a few peoples views on the confederate flag subject.

MYTH - Only Southerners owned slaves.

FACT - Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.

Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.

U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."

Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!

Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!

a reply to: Liquesence


Could very well be a false flag if anyone hasn't said it yet.

My first thought was insurance scam. Not racism. Not hate.

a reply to: beezzer

I'll second that.

Why are we talking about the flag in this thread? There's 500 other flag threads.

On topic. I agree with some about insurance.

If this were another act of terrorism, wouldn't it have to be known? To create fear?

Or it could be. But I don't think we should jump to conclusions without having all the facts.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Macenroe82

Its people? Who perverted it? Whites by flying it with intent to intimidate or blacks by it simply being flown when it represented a time when they were oppressed?

Regardless of what people have perverted it into and what was intended, the fact remains it WAS the battle flag of the confederacy, the confederacy DID have slaves, and that *one* of the points of the confederacy was the right to keep and own slaves, the majority of whom were black.

And *that's* what it represents to a lot of southern blacks.

So, it's not necessarily a "new" meaning, but it's *A* meaning with which a segment of the population strongly disagrees.

First, not one black person alive today was enslaved in the South during the times when slavery was legal. In fact, the vast majority of black people are three generations or more removed from the times of slavery.

If the flag represents slavery to them, maybe it's time to focus on the fact that slavery has been constitutionally dead since the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 18, 1865. If I know simple math, it has been 150 years (rounded up) since slavery was ignored and allowed to exist by the U.S. government. There needs to be a new mentality by now--stop seeing yourself as victims and start staring at that flag and say, "You tried to beat my ancestors, but we won, and America is better for it."

Hell, that should be a catalyst for pride at this stage in the life of America, but instead, many look at it and say, "Your battle was 150 years ago, but you still offend me and hurt my feelings, so I don't like you. Daddy Government, do something! Get rid of that! Waaaaaahhhhh...."

I don't understand that way of thinking, and I don't condone it. I think it is a cancer on our nation and our citizens, and disappointingly, it's becoming ever more prevalent each and every time we let this whiney political correctness dictate something that we officially do at a state or federal level.

ETA: Sorry to bite onto talking about the flag in this thread, but I'm just about sick of hearing all of this the-flag-creates-victims crap. I'll cease further off-topic discussion about it here.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The flag represents, in the 1960's, the protest against the Civil Rights movement - that is it's most recent history related to racism and the institutionalization of racism in American Politics.

The history of slavery and racism casts a very long shadow in America - and the shadow is still there.

I will stop here as I don't want to derail the thread...

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The flag represents, in the 1960's, the protest against the Civil Rights movement - that is it's most recent history related to racism and the institutionalization of racism in American Politics.

The history of slavery and racism casts a very long shadow in America - and the shadow is still there.

I will stop here as I don't want to derail the thread...

Actually, it was hoisted above the capital (officially, anyhow) because of the centennial anniversary of the Civil War, but granted, many people interpreted it as an affront to the civil-rights movement. By individuals, though, I fully understand what you're saying. But I also know a few black people who proudly display the flag at their house, and they're not racist against their own people, I promise.

originally posted by: Liquesence
It was only a matter of time before....

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Investigators with the Charlotte Fire Department say a fire at a predominantly black church is a case of arson.

The church's congregation is predominantly black, and there are about 100 members. Investigators are not sure if the fire was racially motivated.

LINK

They don't know if it's racially motivated, but I wonder: what are the odds?

It seems suspect that A) it's in the south, B) it's a black church, C) it comes on the heels of the Charleston massacre and the flag debate/uproar, so I would say it probably IS racially motivated.

Hopefully these things won't continue to happen, and that the hate won't get out of control.

Or it could be a case of manufacturing an outrage to keep the wind in their sails. I don't know, I'm not saying it is, but we have to wait for the facts.

originally posted by: maybee
This sucks. Why in the world burn down a church? But I feel there will be enough good people in Charlotte that will help the church members rebuild and to continue services in a temporary place until they have their building back. That is my prayer anyways.

why?....because there are white racist pigs out there, and they hate black people...geez.....I don't know why nobody can believe the obvious?