Obama's Church: Not Your Average Christian Church, page 7

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by jsobecky
Take the mission statement of the church, substitute "white" for " black", and tell me honestly: would there be any different reaction to the church?

Context is key, which is what you seemed to have missed in my question. I ask again, are whites to be prevented from organizing separately so that they won't make blacks look bad?

I had to remove the words "to be" from your re-statement of the question, because they were absent the first time you asked it. To reiterate:

Wait, are you suggesting that whites are being prevented from organizing separately so that they won't make blacks look bad?

No, I am not suggesting that at all. Nor should they be.

The reason it's acceptable for blacks and not for whites is because of the association which is commonly drawn, not to white groups which make black groups look pathetic by comparison, but to white groups which spend their time doing bad things to people who aren't like them.

Name these groups, Vagabond.

The problem is that you seldom hear a white organization throwing around the word white in the same context as this church is using it, and that's because they don't have the same historical needs as blacks. Whites have the community structure, they have a longer history of Christianity, etc- they don't have to mark out the scope of a white organization that provides these things in the same way that black churches do since this isn't something lacking for them.

Or maybe it is because whites are not as racist as some people want to believe they are. Every church I have ever been to has welcomed members of every race and ethnicity without reservation. They didn't feel the need to stress one race over another.

That is the true definition of Christianity. Jesus would not have approved of selective membership, imo.

The context in which you hear whites mark out an organizations territory normally is a matter of selecting membership for an organizationt that means harm to people not like its members.

That is such a load of crap! Tell me which white "organizations" mean "harm to people not like its members," Vagabond? Do you realize the division you are spreading?

And let's be honest here. Why was Team A able to be in the position to knee-cap Team B? Why hadn't Team B claimed America for their own beforehand?

We cannot deny evolution.

That's just disgusting. We couldn't have enslaved them if we weren't better than them?

No. They had equal opportunity to discover the New World. But they didn't. To cry that they came in last place is sour grapes.

There are a host of flaws with this reasoning:

Number 1. It conveniently ignores history. European civilization is a Johnny-come-lately that owes its dominance to the fact that earlier civilizations didn't think we were worth conquering. If the Chinese had showed up in Europe before the 15th Century and acted the way Europeans tend to act when they go somewhere new, it would have been over. Lucky for Europe, the Chinese took one look around the world and said, "these people have nothing to offer us".

Do you seriously believe what you wrote? I am honestly questioning your rationality here...

Number 2. It excuses the inexcusable. The Jews had it coming because they allowed the Germans to catch them. The Americans who died on the Bataan Death March had it coming too. That's what you're really saying, isn't it?

What is inexcusable? That is history. Slavery is as old as recorded history. You attempt to make a 150 year slice of time into the most horrific example of human behavior. We nipped it in the bud with a Civil War. But still, "victims" try to exploit us for it for all that they can get.

Number 3. It attempts to compare unlike virtues. You suggest that blacks were less evolved because they didn't bring to bear enough force to prevent themselves from being enslaved. In so doing you make the ability to project force the paramount human virtue. What about culture? Their weapons were no match for ours, but our music was no match for theirs. So who exactly decided that weapons were what it was all about? Are weapons the measure of human life? Is a bayonette going to give you joy and meaning, and make you feel good about yourself when you're on your deathbed?

Black chieftans sold their brothers to white slave traders. Remember the Barbary Pirates that flourished before America was born. Remember who built the pyramids. Etc., etc.

Don't make this into the end-all and be-all of civilization.

Being able to hurt someone doesn't make you better than them, and if you think it does then I look forward to the day that some nothin' little dog bites your ankle and makes you question your worth.

You are the one doing the most damage by perpetuating the victim mentality. Instead of working for the future, you want blacks to live in the past.

Socialism is not a political code-word, and I did not use it as such.

Nonsense. Socialism is a four letter word in American politics, mostly among people who don't know the first thing about it. There mere charge of socialism is an argument unto itself, requiring no sound logical support, at least in the eyes of certain conservatives. Socialism is a handy way of saying "UnAmerican crap that doesn't work" for the undereducated, sound-byte fed base of the Republican Party. That is exactly how you used it- as a cudgel with which to smack down the very concept of fairness of any kind without having to bother with things like reason or moral consistency.

Good grief, you really don't get it do you? Did you miss a day in school? "We hold these truths to be self evident..." remember anything about that? Maybe you saw it in a textbook somewhere once? Look it up and fill in the blank. It'll knock your socks off.

I got an award for attendance. Anytime you want to debate socialism, create a new thread and notify me. I'll be there.