Obama's Church: Not Your Average Christian Church

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

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.


Stop agreeing with me! I have a reputation, ya know!


Yeah, I don't really care that this church exists (I've been to 'black churches' and absolutely LOVED it!) or that Obama attends this particular church. It just seems to be at odds with his poitical message to the country, IMO.

"Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership" ??? What happened to we are all one nation?




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

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)



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Stop agreeing with me! I have a reputation, ya know!



Yes, I always suspected that finding some common ground with you would be inevitable.


Also, wouldn't it serve us all (and the country, too!) to turn from the right vs. left thing and start hounding all of these politicos on the truth issue?

Trouble is that it's just like attempting unilateral disarmament. If only one side does it, the other side automatically wins.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

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...



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

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...
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.

[edit on 2/8/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

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.

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.

[edit on 2/8/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Thelibra how silly of you to state that the KKK isn't for White advancement


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



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

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


I will just use that snipet to say I am inclined to agree with thelibra here.

I believe it's not even a matter of a candidates religious affiliation, or racial sympathy. Certainly, it wouldn't bother the black community much, and of course it's going to alarm the white community when pointed out like this, as I think this does paint him as a bigot, and shows he has a "black agenda." But what is newthere, agenda-wise, in politics?

Every candidate has a personal and professional agenda beyond just serving the public's best interest in general. They are all human. They have often been groomed for politics, nurtured by their supporters and puppeteers, and hand fed their agenda if not naturally born in them, until it is like mother's milk to them-they need to embrace it, consume it, to survive their pursuit in politics.

What someone like him might do with his feelings, beliefs, religion and agenda...who knows? But who is to say, though alarming to whites, his agenda is any different than any other politician's agendas?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
TheLibra, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I would also add this:

Lately, it's been the "in" thing to tell Blacks to get over their victimhood, already, and get on with life. OK, so here you have a black church, in a black community that is advocating blacks to better themselves and their lives. It says nothing about how anyone feels about whites. It sounds to me as if they are trying to empower the black community. I don't know what the Black Work Ethic is, but I bet you they're trying to reframe the WASP ethic, with some changes to make it work better for them. For example, maybe they believe that spending some time with their families is better than working yourself to death to try to get "ahead". I'm just guessing here and thinking outside the box.

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...



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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...


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?

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.

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?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I wouldn't worry. Once the parishioners complete #4, all the rest just don't have any relevance.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
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.

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?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

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?


I know it will never happen even after the congress is 50/50 black and white I'd bet they still have the "Black Agenda"



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
So by what your saying DJMessiah a church in a white community should be just for the advancement of whites then right. No..... but that's the community they live in



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Why don't you guys just say it? You think blacks can be a racist as they want to us whites because you think we should pay for the past. Someone always says that isn't what they mean but how else is it alright for a man running for president to have a "Black Agenda"



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

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.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join