Obama's Church: Not Your Average Christian Church

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scrub
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


If they all shared the same culture, ancestry, and beliefs, then why not celebrate Irish, Germanic, Nord, or English culture and support the community?

Ever been to a Renaissance Festival? If so, how many blacks did you see working there?

[edit on 8-2-2007 by DJMessiah]




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:27 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.


He should have an American People agenda you are correct. I couldn't agree more. We ALL should if we are Americans -and more so if we are politicians. However, I am a realist.

I don't think I said his "black agenda" was okay, I just conveyed, or tried to, that it really is no different than any other politician having a personal agenda or being a puppet for a certain agenda that serves only a certain group.

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



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership" ??? What happened to we are all one nation?


It went out the window with THIS quote from the church when they blatently state that they aren't really Americans -

We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.


Originally posted by thelibra
The KKK aren't a church, they're a political organization.

The more I look at Obama's 'church', the more I see a political/social organization that has worship of God as a sidenote.


JFK was a Catholic. A religion really well known for protecting and advancing it's own self-interests, especially back in the 1950's.


JFK said that he was an American first. He also made it very clear that the pope would not be able to tell him what to do and that the pope wouldn't be running the country. Kennedy never said that he'd be 'true to Rome' whereas this group says that they are true to AFRICA .. not America.

An American president is supposed to be true to AMERICA first and only ... not a continent on the other side of the planet.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Go to a town of any strong cultural or ethnic population and you will see that they all want to help each other.


Our church has a large Italian-heritage ethnic population. Blue collar. Not much money. It is in the city. The surrounding neighborhoods are lower middle class to poor. There are people of all races and backgrounds in the area. Our church doesn't say 'help the italians' ... it helps everyone. Stop by the food kitchen and free dining hall .... faces of all colors. We (the congregation) managed to get together enough donations to send four poor children to the parish school for free. Those four children happened to be black - not whites of Italian heritage.

Oh .. and no one in the church, in the parish school, or in the area vow to be true and/or faithful to the "real homeland of Italy". They are Americans and say the Pledge in school and have the American flag in the parish school and church.

Italian and Spanish both are offered as languages in the school.

EXCLUSION based on race has NOT been my experience in this church, or any other church that I have attended.


Originally posted by DJMessiah
Ever been to a Renaissance Festival? If so, how many blacks did you see working there?


YES. I love Ren Faires. As far as how many black people were there, I don't know. Race isn't something that I pay attention to unless someone asks me to (like here)



[edit on 2/8/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by thelibra
JFK was a Catholic. A religion really well known for protecting and advancing it's own self-interests, especially back in the 1950's.


JFK said that he was an American first. He also made it very clear that the pope would not be able to tell him what to do and that the pope wouldn't be running the country. Kennedy never said that he'd be 'true to Rome' whereas this group says that they are true to AFRICA .. not America.

An American president is supposed to be true to AMERICA first and only ... not a continent on the other side of the planet.



Well, I guess the next question then is has Obama said that he's going to remain true to this church, or has he said that he's an American first?

Remember our most recent Pope's background? Ratzinger? The ex-Nazi? I'm sure he's not still advocating the Nazi agenda.

You are basically condemning a man for a view that he has not expressed, for having attended a church that probably seeks nothing more than a little positive empowerment for black people, with a poorly worded mission statement. You are claiming he has an inability to be an American first, and suggest he will turn the country over to Africa. And you're basing all of this off of a rather biased news story from one of the most hardcore neocons on the board.

Now I gotta ask, do you really, honestly think he would try that? Do you think he has any capacity to even attempt it? And if he did, do you think he would stand even a remote chance of being elected?

Or, let's be completely honest with ourselves, are you condemning a black man because he's black, and has ties to a strong black community, and you're searching for any possible excuse to avoid the country having its first black president? Cause the only time I've ever heard the argument that a black candidate will "turn the USA over to Africa" is usually from racists, and usually for the thinnest of reasons.

Of course not, right? You're not a racist.... Or are you? Are you sure there's not some organization you were associated with in the past? Are you certain that no friends of yours, no congregation you belonged to, no organization you held membership in, didn't at one time or another, profess the advancement of a particular people or religion, and fail to include all the others in their mission statement? Are you really really sure?

I was. I was in Scouts. Yep. Boy Scouts. An organization that unabashedly teaches Christian values. Does that make me a Christian? Does that mean I've got a Christian agenda now? Does it mean that I will stamp my jolly boots of doom down upon the fingers of any non-Christian? Please...

So far what I'm seeing is a lot of grasping at straws by a lot of people who simply can't admit their own racism to themselves. And if you think that statement is unfair, I invite you to reconsider the accusations y'all've made against Obama.

[edit on 2/8/2007 by thelibra]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scrub
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"


Are you feor real? Boy you are really scared aren't you?

Hmmmm...why don't we say it? Maybe because we don't think it or feel it?

I can't speak for everyone, but thats certainly not how I feel. I am white. I don't appologize for being white, and I don't think I owe anything to anyone just for them being black.

Nope, even if my geaneology records shows my bloodline down south had slaves. Even if my family rationalizes that they are buried in the family cemetary proving they were like family, treated well, basically given lives in gentle servitude as an option over lives of fear and pain in abusive slavery-my ancestors were "slave owners." ( Bet you think thats kind of cool huh?) But I can't do anything about it, nor do I personally feel responsible, guilty, or a need to try to pay for that past. it's just a tragic part of our past history.

Just get over it. I do not think black's have any more right than whites or anyone else to be racist or prejudiced. Now, just because we are not prejudiced or fearful here in this thread as you are, doesn't mean we are all bleeding heart black supporters at all costs, including a President with a "black agenda." I don't like the man for other reasons.

My point is, a personal agenda is a personal agenda...just like a candidate is a candidate...I rarely if ever have had wholehearted faith in a politician or President. Yet I vote. I try to choose the lesser of two evils.

I mean think about it...you're all worried about a "black agenda?" ...How about a President with a "communist agenda" or one with a "global war" agenda...or one with an "oil and power" agenda...

I don't think I need know the color of your skin to know your true colors. They'e showing. So is your fear. Funny how fear seems to be at the core of prejudice. Don't worry, the big black man isn't going to hurt you Scrub. I'm more worried about someone's character, secret motivation, and policies than their obvious little agendas, and I think your fear might be better spent there too. JMHO

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



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Again, I ask, how does helping their own community make them racist?


It doesn't. Not at all. I'm ALL FOR that. I'm all for anything they want to do with the black community. I totally support that.

It's the "Pledge allegiance to all Black Leaders who espouse and embrace the Black Value System" statements that have me feeling a little... oh... "insecure"


Why must the leadership that they follow have a certain skin pigment?
What is the Black Value System? Do all blacks have these values? Do any whites have these values? None? It's just confusing and divisive to me.

And ultimately, I don't care that much. If Obama wants to follow only black leaders, that's fine with me. As someone said, he just won't get elected President.


Originally posted by thelibra
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 ... Fundamentalist Baptists...

Does that make that politician a hypocrite?


Only if his church calls for a "Pledge of allegiance to ALL Fundamentalist Baptist leaders who embrace the Fundamentalist Baptist Value System."


That's crashing and burning the line between religion and state for one thing. But in the case of Obama's church, it's just hypocritical.



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.


Very well put. I agree 100%




Ah, there are such churches, though they're a tad more subtle in their approach.


Yes, and the subtlety makes all the more dangerous. But their members aren't running for President.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Ok, so far all I have heard about candidates from the democrats is the old same old of doing them away by Rpublicans.

Now, Obama is too black, and Hillary is a socialist. . .

Next please . . .


This type of rhetoric make me laugh all the time and they are to get worst as the time for elections comes closer.

The next thing is to make Obama a distant relative of Osama.


[edit on 8-2-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
thelibra I keep trying to get through one of your postings but you keep saying the KKK isn't for white advancement and when I read that I can't stop laughing yes they want the others out but to say they aren't also pushing for the advancement of "the white man" is funny.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scrub

Originally posted by c3hamby
Our society is set up around and caters to 'white European muttness'


Man am I sick of hearing/reading that kind of crap. Yeah it WAS like that but I nor any family member of mine have never been given any free ride pal!
[edit on 8-2-2007 by Scrub]

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Scrub]


Scrub, you assumed too much about what I said.

I never said anything about getting a free ride. Everybody in the world has to work for what they get. I didn't spell that out for you because I was assuming you had a reasonable opinion of the way the world works.

If you don't think we live in a white mutt world, then I would invite you to go into your local Black church and see what it feels like to be in the minority. Those people aren't getting a free ride either, all I'm saying, and nothing more is that people like to associate with their own kind.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

The next thing is to make Obama a distant relative of Osama.


Since you brought that up, marge.

Well, according to both CNN and Ted Kennedy ... they are the very same person! That would make them pretty closely related.


CNN: obama, osama, como se llama ...

and this ...


Ted Kennedy on the future of the democrat party ...


KENNEDY: There you go.

Why don't we just ask Osama bin -- Osama Obama -- Obama what -- since he won by such a big amount. Seriously, Senator Obama is really unique and special.


As Kennedy said, there you go ...



[edit on 2/8/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by thelibra
Again, I ask, how does helping their own community make them racist?


It doesn't. Not at all. I'm ALL FOR that. I'm all for anything they want to do with the black community. I totally support that.

It's the "Pledge allegiance to all Black Leaders who espouse and embrace the Black Value System" statements that have me feeling a little... oh... "insecure"


Why must the leadership that they follow have a certain skin pigment?


Ok, BenevolentHeretic I'm just jumping in on your covo with thelibra, but I just want to point out that I don't believe when they say ALL, they are saying ALL-EACH AND EVERY BLACK leaders must be followed.

It isn't about skin pigment...well not exclusively. But they'd be hard pressed to find a white person as gung ho to promote their black agenda, right? But likewsie, they want to point out the fact that just because a person is black, and in a leadership position...doesn't mean he has their-the black community's-or their organizations-best interest at heart.

So, to me, that statement is about securing their position by supporting all black leaders who do have allegiance to the black people, or their organizations values and ideas.

I would simply take this as saying "Support all the black leaders that share our commmon goals [the black value system or the values of this organization]" As in, don't support all black leaders at all cost, but instead...support the black leaders you can trust to represent your feelings and beliefs as a black person.

Make sense?

Now, that would bother me more as a black person, or one in that church, because I don't like to be told who to support by anyone! For any reason!
But being on the outside looking in, it makes logical sense that they qualify their stand with "Pledge allegiance to all Black Leaders who espouse and embrace the Black Value System' or in other words...

"Reject ALL black leaders who do not espouse and embrace the Black Value System"

The Black Value Sysytem...that's something I'd like to learn more about. However, being while....really really white...lily white... I don't think I'd be welcomed in their church for some reason.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scrub
thelibra I keep trying to get through one of your postings but you keep saying the KKK isn't for white advancement and when I read that I can't stop laughing yes they want the others out but to say they aren't also pushing for the advancement of "the white man" is funny.


semantics and misperceptions.

The KKK is for oppression Scrub.

I am white, and they have done nothing for my advancement in this country or world I assure you.

It is like an athiest who has to bash a person for their religious beliefs, to prove he's right. To self assure him of his supremecy.

Or a religeous zealot who does the same to prove he/she is right.

There is much difference between oppression and promotion (or advancement)...but also, much similar. Thats why it seems funny. People have a tendancy to see things in black and white they way they've been presented to them.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
The Black Value Sysytem... that's something I'd like to learn more about.


Me, too. I'd like to know what it means... What are black values?



I don't think I'd be welcomed in their church for some reason.


And does that concern you?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
All Hillary Clinton and the Right wingers have to do is show what his church values are. And no more star Obama.

Can't wait



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I would imagine that "black values" afre probably a set of moral standards that are designed to help black youths, and other blacks, to overcome situations that have always plagued their communities. They have too many damn liquor stores for one thing, and way too many kids hanging around them. They have way too many dopers and dope dealers, etc. I would imagine its a way to get black youths away from the idea that they are second class citizens and unable to make a decent living in the stereotypical "white man's world". I think most blacks tend to do things as a group, I think they have had that mentality since the slave days, so the church isnt designed to target blacks as individuals, but as a group which I think helps, but doesnt solve the problem. Blacks also need way better role models. The crap thats on TV that idolizes "gangsters" and other criminal activity doesnt help them. They need to be aware that there are black doctors, teachers, politicians, whatever and they can aspire and succeed in being those things with hard work.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I would imagine that "black values" afre probably a set of moral standards that are designed to help black youths, and other blacks, to overcome situations that have always plagued their communities. They have too many damn liquor stores for one thing, and way too many kids hanging around them.


I might add that these stores are owned predominantly by non-blacks.


I think most blacks tend to do things as a group, I think they have had that mentality since the slave days, so the church isnt designed to target blacks as individuals, but as a group which I think helps, but doesnt solve the problem.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Xphiles, but I think your overall post was meant to be productive. All societies tend to do things in groups. That's the nature of a society, or a community.

May I ask, if someone created an organization to help the lower class, would they be considered, without a doubt, prejudiced against the upper class? Or if someone created an organization to help drug addicts, would non-addicts be the target of their prejudice? Of course the answer is no.

This church is a black church. That doesn't mean no whites allowed, and that whites are the enemy, it just means that their primary concern isn't creating a better world for white people. We did that for hundreds of years. Now, it's time to continue what our black leaders have done before us. And I don't mean Colon or Michael Powell. I mean the leaders who truly helped the black community help themselves.

So, are we denouncing Obama for going to a church whose purpose is to help their community better itself in the face of overwhelming obstacles? If anything, I would want this quality in a leader. Then again I am black, so I guess wanting my leaders to fight for me makes me a racist. BTW, that doesn't mean fighting against white people for the empowerment of blacks. That means fighting a corrupt system for the empowerment of those opressed.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I don't feel or think just because Obama went to this kind of church means this is the way he thinks. Alot of us are bought up to think and believe in different things and then find are own paths.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
The Black Value Sysytem... that's something I'd like to learn more about.


Me, too. I'd like to know what it means... What are black values?



I don't think I'd be welcomed in their church for some reason.


And does that concern you?


Um...only if he becomes president.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Is it that they wouldn't welcome you, or that you would feel uncomfortable going to the church?

I don't se anything here that would show me that they wouldn't welcome you.





new topics




 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join