It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by centurion1211
No, it's because it's another example of an elected official who says they're one thing, but their actions show them to be something else.
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.
Originally posted by shooterbrody
Secondly, if any presidential candidate was affiliated with in any way with racial discrimination it is important to know.
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.
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.
Originally posted by shooterbrody
Way to sidestep the issue! It is not "people of color"; it is ONLY black people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
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!
Originally posted by Togetic
I am not a conservative Republican and find grave problems with this church.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Stop agreeing with me! I have a reputation, ya know!
Originally posted by Togetic
This is not a matter of them working to improve their community. This is an essential purpose of a church. But this doctrine doesn't even entertain integration with the larger community. That is what is offensive.
I am not casting aspersions on Obama or insinuating anything about his character. I am saying that the church's philosophy is bad, and that is what needs to be condemned.
Originally posted by spines
Originally posted by Togetic
This is not a matter of them working to improve their community. This is an essential purpose of a church. But this doctrine doesn't even entertain integration with the larger community. That is what is offensive.
Does that make it his personal ideal?
I am sure he went to the church that his parents chose...and just because the church he went to shared one ideal does not mean that he holds that same ideal to be true.
This should not be an issue...
Originally posted by thelibra
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.
Originally posted by thelibra
I think it's fair to say Obama's religious affiliation is no more of a risk than any other candidates
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?
Originally posted by forestlady
But the point is, the very same people that complain about blacks being into their "victimness", are the very same people here who are condemning a church because it's trying to better their own black community, and not be Victims. Hmm, who's the hypocrite here, I wonder? Not that there's any racism on this board, of course...
Originally posted by 2l82sk8shows he has a "black agenda."
Originally posted by Scrub
Originally posted by 2l82sk8shows he has a "black agenda."
And why dear god why is that alright to you and others here. He should have a "american people agenda" I can't stand it. If we just elect this guy can we then get rid of the "black agenda" without being called racist then will you guys see it as blacks are equal and they don't need all these advancement groups?
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by Scrub
Thelibra how silly of you to state that the KKK isn't for White advancement
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
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?
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.
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?