Obama's Church: Not Your Average Christian Church, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 8-2-2007 @ 10:44 AM by thelibra
Originally posted by shooterbrody
I can not find any teaching in which Christ favored one race over another. I think, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Christ taught people to look out for each other. You know the whole "love thy neighbor as thyself" thing. I don't think it was love thy neighbor as long as they are black,red,yellow,blue,purple...ect.


Well, for that matter, I don't recall Christ telling people to burn books, discriminate against homosexuals, or turn Muslims into second-class citizens, but there sure does seem to be a lot it going around by his followers.

You need to realize that "Christian" really means jack squat when it comes to politics. That's not to say that "Religion" doesn't play a major role in a lot of politicians lives, but rather the word "Christian" is almost as broad a term as a race. They range the gamut from far far left to far far right, and everything in between, and any one of them can find some justification for their actions in the Bible or from their minister's interpretation of the Bible.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
Secondly, if any presidential candidate was affiliated with in any way with racial discrimination it is important to know.


See, there's the thing. I don't consider it discrimination. Now if their mission statement read something like "Kill Whitey, Kill all the white people!" or to advocate harm or negativity towards another race, I'd have a different opinion. However, it doesn't do that. It strives for the advancement of black people. I have no problem with that. Since when did someone trying to improve their brothers and sisters become a hate crime?



Originally posted by shooterbrody
Imho especially if it is under the guise of a church. Just because the church chooses to uplift one specific race instead of discrediting it makes it no less discriminatory.


A rather dubious claim. Christian churches promote Christians. They actively do so across the entire world. They seek to evangelize and spread "the good word" to anyone and everyone, and inject their belief system into politics as an unabashed way of delivering the country into Christ's hands.

Well, that's fine. Everyone's got an agenda. Just be honest about it. You can't tell me that a Church that specifically focuses on the advancement of Black people is any more bigoted than a Church that focuses on the advancement of Christians, that's a ridiculous claim to make. Using your logic, all Christian churches must completely do away with their overt favoritism to christians and christian values and instead work to advance ALL religions.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
I think it is great a church would seek to uplift people; I think it is disgusting that a church would openly preach to uplift a person based only on the color of their skin.


But it's okay to preach to uplift a person solely based on their religion? What kind of double-standard are you advocating?


Originally posted by shooterbrody
Way to sidestep the issue! It is not "people of color"; it is ONLY black people.


Meh. (shrug) I stand by what I said. It's still an organization that promotes the advancement of people of color, they're just a bit more specific as to which color. Not that it matters though. Using your logic so far, "people of color" should be just as offensive a term.


Originally posted by shooterbrody

If such a congregation has managed to produce an honest, up-front, black Presidential candidate who actually has a shot at winning, then I'd say that church is doing a damned fine job of accomplishing their task, and that they're a pretty successful model for other minority organizations to try and emulate.


Wow surprised to see you openly advicate organized discrimination.


I do not advocate organized discrimination.

What I DO advocate is a self-help program, and I happen to know enough about the real world to know that there is strength in brotherhood, and that you can't save everyone. So the idea of a group that only focuses their efforts on advancing black people is fine by me, and I consider it a rather wise and efficient use of their available resources. And it apparently has worked pretty well.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
That is a pretty progressive stance...seems to work really well for the KKK. Those people have "churches" too you know. Only when those "churches" work to promote their agenda they are villified.


I can see your grasp of the KKK is about as strong as your grasp of what constitutes discrimination. The KKK aren't a church, they're a political organization. They're also not about the advancement of white people, but rather about keeping the other races down. They actively promote denigration, harm towards, and segregation of other races. Were their message solely "to help white people get a leg up," they would not be villified, though they might get teased a lot, since whitey really doesn't need that much help.

Obama's church, conversely, seeks to promote the black community. If you can't see the difference between promoting one people, and actively trying to bring down all the others, then I'm afraid you're in for a pretty stressful life. Sometimes you just gotta let people do their own thing. Isn't that what the whole point of this country is? Letting people do their own thing?




Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by jsobecky
This seems to conflict with Obama's message of oneness and inclusion when he makes his speeches in front of the public.


Interesting... I don't care what kind of church he attends but it does seem to fly in the face of his inclusive message to the public in his speeches. I guess the challenge is to truly keep his religious affiliations separate from his public service role.


JFK was a Catholic. A religion really well known for protecting and advancing it's own self-interests, especially back in the 1950's. He's now one of the most revered presidents in our history. I think he managed a nice compromise, and I'm sure Obama is capable of the same.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
thelibra I'm no Republican and I don't really get that jsobecky was trying to paint Obama as a bigot, so much as a hypocrite. And I must agree.


I understand, however, using the same logic, let's put this another way...

An openly Christian Politician calls for unity and friendship and understanding among religions. Yet his church, as is the case with the vast majority of Christian Churches, has a mission statement that only mentions the advancement of the Christian religion, or even more specifically, of Baptists, or even more specific than that, Fundamentalist Baptists... And the congregation has many programs and activities dedicated to evangelizing fundamental baptism, and outreach programs, and assistance programs to their poorer Fundamental Baptists overseas...

Does that make that politician a hypocrite?

Is a politician no incapable of conveying any message of friendship or unity between religions unless he or she is a member of the Ba'hai, or some similar World Unity Faith?

No. Of course not. Why impose that kind of standard on one man, when you allow a double-standard of all the rest?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Slightly off-topic... This thread brings to light something I've been noticing and thinking on lately. Something I call "The New Racism".


Yep. It's cyclical and understandable. I don't like it, but I understand it. Put like this: if "your people" are in charge, you have no room to bitch about the state of things. Once whitey is no longer the vast majority source of power in the world, and say it becomes...Latinos... then the New Racism would be against Latinos and suddenly anything someone said bad about whitey would be racist.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If a white politician had a church that professed to be "unashamedly white"... If you replaced the word "black" with the word "white" in the above list of concept... Oooohhh! Lordy!


Ah, there are such churches, though they're a tad more subtle in their approach. People have the right to do such a thing, and as long as they were honest about it, and didn't have an anti-someone else agenda, they didn't really get much press or protest. People helping people isn't news, and isn't really anything to get worked up about. It's when people try to take down other people that others really sit up and take notice.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System" Oh My God!!! He'd be run out of the country on a rail! By whites and blacks alike!


Oh, he'd certainly not stand a chance at the Presidency. But I think, because of the New Racism, people just kind of assume whitey is always looking out for whitey, that it doesn't really need saying, it's just understood. So if someone actively starts professing something like that, then there's some sort of sinister motive behind it.

The same assumption, however, is not made about black people nearly as often, largely to to gangs of black people killing each other in the streets over the color of a stupid "flag", or the unimaginable genocide going on in Africa over some damned diamonds.


(more in the next reply)


reply posted on 8-2-2007 @ 10:44 AM by thelibra
Originally posted by Togetic
I am not a conservative Republican and find grave problems with this church.


By all means, share them. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.


Originally posted by Togetic
It's a complicated question because there are good reasons for someone doing what they think is right versus deferring to the electorate.


I agree, but the President also needs to realize his boss is the American people. We elect him (or her) because we think he (or she, you get the point) best reflects (of the available candidates) our desires for the direction of the country, and we trust his judgment in HOW to achieve those goals. If, however, the American people want to go in a totally seperate direction, it is NOT the President's perogative to say "No, no, we're gonna do it my way". It is, instead, his perogative to figure out the best way to achieve what the American people have told him to do.

At least, that's the way it -should- be. Obviously that's certainly not the case with Bush.


Originally posted by Togetic

As a mission for a church congregation, there are far worse things than being dedicated towards the advancement of people of color in a world controlled by the white man.

Agreed. But isn't this beyond the pale? Working for the advancement of their community members is one thing. But the plain reading of this shows that they pursue that goal to the wholesale exclusion of others. That is the problem here.


I didn't read that into it at all. What I read was, rather than some lip service about trying to save the entire world, which no one organization can do, they concentrated their resources and chose one particular people to focus their efforts on. That's fine by me.

By now I'm sure you read my religious analogy above about Christians promoting solely Christian interests... How about Charities now? Should we now require that all charitable organizations cease focusing their funds and attention to just one cause? Is Jerry's Kids now considered by you to be a dubious and exclusionary organization because it's mission statement only talks about kids with muscular dystrophy? What about adults? What about cancer? What about poverty? How about starving kids in Africa? Shouldn't they stop being so exclusionary and divide their attention and money between ALL causes, everywhere?

No. Because you CAN'T save everyone. Sometimes you have to pick a cause, pick a people, and do what you can to help them first, and hope that someone else picks up the banner for the other groups. That's not racism or bigotry to me, it's just an acceptance of reality.



reply posted on 8-2-2007 @ 11:53 AM by 2l82sk8
Originally posted by Togetic
Let me make some edits...

*type**type**type*


1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Community
3. Commitment to the Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all leadership who espouse and embrace the Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Value System.

When you put it that way, I like it. What I can't figure out is why a Christian church would advocate for this semi-apartheid?


I agree, with your edits, this is a standard worth striving for.

Back to the original point-this certainly isn't a typical Christian church when even it's covenants are mortally based on being black and only supporting black efforts, as if the morals and work ethics of whites are beneath theirs-what does that have to do with God?

It much more resembles the idea of some organization that uses God and religion to justify their bigotry like the KKK or something...all they need next is to start saying how whites, and all other colors and races and groups of people should be treated, disrespected, disregarded, and done away with, until then, it's just considered black pride though, but I don't see how it can try to be seen as a typical Christian church.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by 2l82sk8]


reply posted on 8-2-2007 @ 12:20 PM by 2l82sk8
Originally posted by DJMessiah
If the Church is in a black community, why not make their goal to help the black community? Go to a Korean Church and they've made it their goal to help their Korean community. Go to China town and find a church, and they do the same. Go to a town of any strong cultural or ethnic population and you will see that they all want to help each other.


I would think there is a difference between wanting and encouraging to support those of your particular faith, or originating culture, and wanting a religious creed written as if you covenant with God, and those you worship with, to prioritize that over all else as a religious belief, not as cultural community responsibility.

Originally posted by DJMessiah If the Church was located in the middle of Idaho, then yes, I would find it strange that they want only support of the Black community, but since it's in an area surrounded by a large black population, why not advocate bettering their community and raising awareness of their culture?


Actually I would think the opposite more true. If living in Idaho and feeling out numbered, and wanting to preserve their african heritage, then they'd be more likely, or it would seem more probable they'd need or desire to speak of supporting their local black community.

However, in an area surrounded by a large black population, where they can more easily be surrounded by fellow african Americans and share that pride and cultural responsibility, why would it need to be "set in stone" as it were, in a Christian church such as this one, like some creed as if it were a must to act, believe, and think in certain exclusively black ways?


reply posted on 8-2-2007 @ 12:26 PM by thelibra
Originally posted by Togetic
They are embracing things like a "black work ethic." How does that have anything to do with concentrating resources? That shows to me a more insular and exclusive philosophy based not on helping people but on drawing a distinction between them and the surrounding community, a distinction that we have agreed is wrong and that we have worked hard to change. This church is looking backwards.


I believe what they meant by a "black work ethic" is "to have one".

Let's get our hands dirty a little, in the interest of shedding light on this issue. Blacks are stereotyped as being lazy, incompetent workers, and unable to handle white-collar tasks. Now where I work, that sentiment certainly wouldn't fly, because the management is predominantly black, prosperous, and frankly, most could probably be accused by their more ignorant bretheren of being whiter than me, and I look pretty white.

How did they get into those positions? By denying the stereotype that bigotry attempted to imprint upon them. By denying the rappers who say that for a brother-man to get ahead, he either has to have a wicked jump shot, or sling the crack rock. By denying the stereotype that their place was in the shadows of the menial-labor workforce. By denying that the only way they could get or keep a job was through affirmative action. Basically, by denying ignorance.

Let's be frank, whites don't suffer those same stereotypes, and as such, there's no real need for talk of a "white work ethic". Few people talk about "the lazy whites who never want to work and only want a handout," because it's just not a commonly held myth. However, ask who has the smallest male genitalia, and guess what ethnicity gets stereotyped with it.

Both stereotypes are, frankly, untrue and humiliating to members of that ethnicity, but both have largely come to believe it about themselves, or at least pay lip service to it on behalf of their race.

So if you want my honest opinion, without even setting foot in the Church or asking what they mean by "a black work ethic", my guess is that they mean "We, the Black People, ARE willing to work hard for a living, and ARE willing to earn an honest wage, and ARE just as capable of excelling at our job as anyone else."

And what have white people done to combat their myth? Check your inbox. There's more pills and surgeries available than you can shake a pointed stick at.



Originally posted by Scrub
Thelibra how silly of you to state that the KKK isn't for White advancement


I stand by what I said. The KKK is about keeping other people down. They don't think the whites need advancement because, in their opinion, whites have always been and always will be at the top, unless one of the other races gains the ability to compete on a fair playing field. The critical difference is in what they stand for.

Originally posted by Scrub
FF said it best if obama was white and his church was the same you wouldn't be defending that church.You'd be calling them racist


On the contrary. I wouldn't have a problem with a church with that motto unless they were ALSO spewing forth garbage about keeping the other races down. You forget, Scrub, we STILL live in America, and people STILL have the right to help their own, if they so choose. They do NOT have the right to attack other races, but they damn sure have the right to help their own.



Originally posted by centurion1211
No, it's the old "two wrongs don't make it right" issue. How does adopting racism help the blacks forget their "victimness" and move forward?


And how does trying to help their own community constitute racism?


Originally posted by centurion1211
Look at it this way. Any psychologist would tell and help a patient suffering from feelings of being victimized to find a way to get over it and move forward. They wouldn't advocate becoming an oppressor to effect the cure.


Again, I ask, how does helping their own community make them racist?

Originally posted by centurion1211
And isn't the ultimate goal to become "colorblind". If not, shouldn't it be? How does this church's philosophy help achieve that goal?


No, of course not!

Who the hell wants to be colorblind? That's the cry of a racist who doesn't want others to think he is, cause if everyone was the same color, he wouldn't have to worry about anyone being different than himself.

God forbid we ever live in a society that dull. I dread the day we're all the same color, culture, language, and so forth. Frankly, I rejoice in the fact that women are different from men, blacks different than whites, and jews different from christians, and so forth forth. It is these differences that are the STRENGTH of the human race. Once you homogenize humanity you breed weakness in our species. I hope to god we never achieve the racist dream of colorblindness, but rather instead learn to accept each other's differences and embrace them.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland
  Posted 19 days ago with 8 member flags
Russian cops mistake nationalist rally for gay pride parade
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Republicans in Arizona plan to nearly wipe out public unions
  Posted 10 days ago with 4 member flags
Tennessee threatens suit against man building boat with his son.
  Posted 1 days ago with 4 member flags
The CULT of Ron Paul
  Posted 14 days ago with 1 member flags