Obama's Church: Not Your Average Christian Church

yep thats me before I bought access to above politics. Still believe its true....

there is a deep and abiding racism and bigotry at the heart of right wing politics and has been ever since the Republican party embraced the racist elements of the Democratic party that bolted after desegration. And, its still there, whether it was John McCains "black love child with a prostitute (AKA as his adopted Bangledeshi daughter) in the 2000 South Carolina primary, to Willie Horton in the 1988 presidential campaign to this....

its obscene and they should be ashamed of themselves and the posters on here should know better than to peddle this garbage.

Yeah Tucker Carlson is going around saying that Obama's church isn't Christian. Next thing ya know they will say he belongs to one of those old H. P. Lovecraft churches that worship the ancient old ones...anything to stir up the boogie man and fear of the other. Truly dispicable.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Presidential elections always come down to choosing the lesser of two evils. Does anyone honestly view this as being an "evil" on Obama's part?

I agree with the first part, as I used the lesser of two evils analogy earlier. To answer your question honestly for myself then, no. I don't see this aspect as an "evil."

But then again...I don't I don't fear a black man becoming President either.

I'll vote for him if I feel he is best suited for the position. I already know in my mind he is best suited over Hillary Clinton. Now there is unspeakable evil!

The OP presented the question if his church was a typical Christian church considering their creed. It begged the question if he is trying to down-play his black allegiance by calling it a typical Christian Church, when it's creed seems to be less than typical...and thus it silently asked if it implied he was racist or had a racist agenda.

Now, while I don't see it as a typical Christian church, because I've been to many Christian churches, but not to one with such a culture creed to covenant with, I still don't really think he is trying to down play the church's cultural role to hide something sinister nor appease the whites, nor do I think he should have to either. There is nothing wrong with his church or their creed people!

But that all aside, on the other hand, I do think it is a typical Christian church even though many of the black churches I've been to (many southern Baptist) didn't have such a creed.

There is just no real uniformity for Christian churches to be considered typical, with the exception that they are/should be based on the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind and believe in the Holy Bible.

Now, how that moves them to believe, worship, covenant and act, etc is another story entirely. I would imagine their heritage does, and should, help dictate their worship. Be they Afraican or Chinese or white American's singing the National Anthem.

The true judgement of a "Typical Christian church" should be the fruits of it's labors.

Are they Christ-like? Loving? Charitable? Full of faith and good works? Service oriented? Willing to help another in need? Striving to teach the message of redemption, etc.? This church seems all of the above, and thus is typically what a Christian church SHOULD be.

Other than that...man...you've got to get out more if you think the rest of the country has "typical" christian churches in anyway. (I'm not speaking directly to you of course Raso, but rather to whom it may apply)

This one stands out because, it is being spotlighted for one reason, and because more than a mission statement, it has a deeply African/black creed that reads like covenants to be made with fellow members in front of God and to God. This is bound to scare some people...have you not already seen evidence of that here?

I wonder if anyone is upset about the new Chinese Baptist church on Tucson's NW side...I guess not until a black man running for president starts attending it.

I do enjoy playing devils advocate to an extent though, especially when I saw how along came the, what I'd say, thinly disguised fear and racism on this thread.

2l82sk8, That was a really great post!

And Raso... No! I don't see this as an "evil" at all! I don't think he's trying to hide anything and I don't think there's anything terrible about it, at all.

BUT! This is the kind of thing he's going to be up against. We need to get used to it. The next couple of years are going to get NASTY! And if someone has a wart on their butt, we're going to hear about it and see pictures, as well.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
My name is ***** *******. I’ve recently heard that Barack Obama was a member of your congregation. Senator Obama already has my vote for president long before the election. (snip)

I identify with my black side much more because of the position my skin color has put me in life. My youngest sister however is all white.

Would my sister feel comfortable going to this church, being that she grew up in the exact same community as me. (snip) Would my sister be shunned by your congregation because her ancestry doesn’t stem from Africa?

I figured I'd cut to the chase and ask them what you are all wondering about. Do they discriminate against whites? Do they have anyone white in their congregation? If not, would a white person feel welcome if they joined?

Cut to the chase? LMAO Raso. After all that butt-kissing what kind of response would you expect? From anywhere, anyone on any subject you supported so strongly but wondered if they'd be equally kind to your sister.

It wasn't about if they'd welcome a white person, but if they'd welcome YOUR white SISTER. Big difference, especially in light of all the foreplay that preceeded that question.

let me just paraphrase it...

"Hi, I'm ****** ****** and I support you, your instituation and the candidate we'd all like to see become president 100%. We need a black president. I support the black community just as you and your church do. I also think your church and all it does in the community is incredible....

Gush gush gush you are the best church ever...gush gush gush Obama is the best....gush gush and has my vote....gush gush we need a black president.

(Oh, btw, my sister is white, but grew up in the same community as I and believes the same way I do...would she be welcome in your church or are you secretely evil and would shun her for being white or non Afraican?)"

LOL But I know what you were trying to do-and your intent was good. You wanted to know how they felt about whites so you could show those who fear Obama being racist as proven by his affiliation and association with this church, that it wasn't true.

I would not expect any answer other than the one you did receive though-even without all the gushing prior to the question at hand. Even if they were actually racist, I doubt they'd say so in an email that could be put all over the internet trying to discredt Obama as is already being attempted, you know?

At this point, while tip-toeing around the election, I'd imagne white people would be welcomed and accepted -even if only superficially- if we walked right up there and attended services. But I don't know if I'd have been so welcomed before it became a political issue.

But then again, I stand by my "fruit of the labors" I cannot and will not judge them without going to their church...but I still would fear I'd not be welcomed, or uncomfortable that I didn't share their African heritage when celebrating it and reaffirming it it is so paramount to their institutions ways of worship.

You know?

For crying out loud, just come out and say it, "He's different! How do I know that he's not dangerous when he's just so different?"

Of course that's what the average white person is being pushed to say. That's not what is meant by the people pushing this kind of attack. What they are trying to say? They're saying "You need to be afraid of this smooth talkin' (slur). Oh yeah, he's got his fancy suit and all that, but he's still black, and that makes him dangerous because he ain't one of you."

It's racist drivel; perhaps the ugliest form of politics. If you really hate the man, have him shot by the CIA- that would at least be respectful.


Nothing contained in that creed that is ascribed to his church bothers me because it doesn't say anything about hurting anyone or depriving anyone of anything. Take the word black out and it's dang near universal. But that particular organization is there to serve the interests of a historically segregated, outcast people who couldn't rely upon the mainstream institutions, so they've marked this one as theirs very clearly and claimed those worthwhile principles for themselves, making the point that they're not asking anybody to abandon their identity, because these are universal values that can belong to blacks just as well as whites.

As for loyalty to Africa- go ahead, rip em up for not being perfectly eloquent. To which African nation's flag do the pledge? Which African soil belongs to them? They intend loyalty to one another- to their fellow descendents of that continent, which is understandable because humans are not a species intended for isolation and for much of their American history, black people have been isolated from everyone else.

If your church has a problem with community, with civic virtue, with education, with taking ownership of a code of values and making it organic to your way of life in your neighborhood- then yeah, you've got a lot to hash out with Obama's brand of Christianity, and not only with that particular church, but the church of any God worth believing in.

That racism exist in every facit of life.

I don't have a problem with them supporting their black brothers. But I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, they would picket outside the racist "White Values" church.

This prooves one major thing again. All people will support a stance, ideology, if it serves them.
If it doesn't then they will protest.

The white race has been on top in this country since the beginning... we don't need a "white values" church to help our community. We have it all. So royal that is a very poor analogy.

Originally posted by grover
The white race has been on top in this country since the beginning... we don't need a "white values" church to help our community. We have it all. So royal that is a very poor analogy.

Sort of like "parity" in professional sports. Or like not keeping score in kiddie's soccer.

The winners must be shackled in order to let the less able have a chance to win once in a while.

Sounds like socialism to me.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The winners must be shackled in order to let the less able have a chance to win once in a while.

Sounds like socialism to me.

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

Lest we forget, the "winners" we're talking about here didn't just happen to do better by some virtue of their own; they knee-capped the other team at the start of the race.

It's not like black people started on an equal footing in this country and fell behind in education and income, etc.

Certain black organizations exist separately to give them a community structure behind them that they can identify with and trust, some are vestiges of when white people required that through segregation, and a relatively small few of them are sort of silly and probably have a lot to do with the financial and political benefit of the organizers.

It's going to take more than poisoning the well with political code-words like socialism to make that case, if you are infact saying what I thought I read.

In reply to grover: I disagree. If you were to go out and advertise as defending and promoting "White Values" you would be labeled a racist immediately and would probably be put on some watch lists and have your phone tapped.

Isn't if funny how "White Values" are racist and "Black Values" are not?

[edit on 2-12-2007 by groingrinder]

When have you or I been shackled because of our race Josbecky? I know I haven't. I helped raise my step kids to adulthood. They are black and Chinese and I know first hand the bias they experinced ranging from lower expectations from the schools they were in because of their race to the fact that whenever they were out with friends, they were the ones given the third degree by the police.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by jsobecky
The winners must be shackled in order to let the less able have a chance to win once in a while.

Sounds like socialism to me.

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

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

Lest we forget, the "winners" we're talking about here didn't just happen to do better by some virtue of their own; they knee-capped the other team at the start of the race.

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.

It's going to take more than poisoning the well with political code-words like socialism to make that case, if you are infact saying what I thought I read.

Socialism is not a political code-word, and I did not use it as such. I used it in response to this statement:

The white race has been on top in this country since the beginning... we don't need a "white values" church to help our community. We have it all. So royal that is a very poor analogy.

We are being asked to artificially level the playing field so that all may succeed. That is not the way the world works.

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?

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.

In a vacuum, it is FINE to have a white organization. How many blacks belong to the Knights of Lithuania? That's just an organization dedicated to a culture that happens to be distinctly European, just as the black church is dedicated to a culture that is distinctly African.

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.
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.

In so many words, groups like the KKK and countless other white supremecist organizations have sort of spoiled things for most white organizations as far as the social acceptibility of using race in that context is concerned. But when you move beyond the words and into the substance, nobody stops white groups from sharing culture and providing benefits that are lacking in society at large.

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? 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".
That's not the only instance in history it selectively forgets either. America has been sent packing militarily by Arabs, Somalis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Canadians, etc. Does that make them all better than us?

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?

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?


It's like my grandpa wrote to me when he thought he wasn't gonna make it out of the hospital: "Remember, only a few men can build a barn, but any old jackass can kick the door in".

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.

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.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Lest we forget, the "winners" we're talking about here didn't just happen to do better by some virtue of their own; they knee-capped the other team at the start of the race.

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.

And we now know who the master race is don't we Jso.

thats not evolution that is exploitation. I thought Social Darwinism had been discredited as nothing more than a justification for racism decades ago.

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.

You don't have to have a group like the KKK to be a whites only group. There is a private social club here in Roanoke that if you want to be a mover/shaker in this city it is kind of obligatory to belong to... that point blank refused to admit black business people and politician's well into the 90's. It wasn't concern for anything other than declining membership that led them to change their policy.

There are plenty of examples like that. I grew up in the south.... it was desegragation that led to the rise of the private school down here...SO PEOPLE COULD STILL KEEP THEIR CHILDREN SEPERATE FROM BLACKS.

The end result is still the same instituitionalized prejudice.

Forgive the delay; I have been taking a lot of time in the real world lately and not only has that not been very enjoyable, but apparently if you get off the computer and go outside, you run the risk of getting sick. Anyway I'm back and mostly healthy, at least physically speaking now.

Originally posted by jsobecky

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 KKK, Aryan Nation, Aryan Brotherhood, Hammerskin Nation, etc etc etc.
It's simple: there are black groups, like that church, which use language like that, but don't hurt anyone. White groups who use analogous language, however, tend to be malevolent in nature. This is why while it is fine for white groups to fill the same role as Obama's church, it breeds distrust when they use those particular words.
It's a simple matter of sensitivity, not one of discrimination against whites.

Or maybe it is because whites are not as racist as some people want to believe they are.

But when whites are racists they mean business. When a church is exclusively black by its charter, its members are wary of whites. When a church is exclusively white by its charter, its members want blacks DEAD.

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

What would jesus think about that little "you can't deny evolution" line of yours? Would he agree?

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?

I named a few of them above. Can you name any white organizations that have charters similar to that of this church and don't mean any harm? There are plenty of white organizations that dont mean harm, but they don't use the same language because that kind of thing has been poisoned for whites by racist organizations.

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.

Nobody is complaining about them not discovering this continent. They're complaining about being brought here in chains, never being given an equal opportunity in this country, and having people like you act as if any problems they have are of their own making. SOME of their problems do stem from the fact that they have been used as an underclass to pad the well being of others.

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.

We took them out of the chains if that's what you mean. But after generations of enforced illeteracy we drop them into segregated, substandard schools, forcing them into the lower classes and thus keeping them in the worst schools through the neighborhoods they live in. They never gota fair shake in education and they're not alone in that- the lower classes in this country, among whom african americans and others have been forcibly trapped, will never have a fair shake in this country until we provide equal educations.

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.

How foolish of me. I always forget that two wrongs make a right.

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.

You aren't talking about the future and I'm not talking only about the past. You are defending the present and I am attacking it. The present was built on the past and both stink. We need to buiild a just future and that means correcting the problems of the past that built this unjust present.

I got an award for attendance.

Well those are credentials I really can't argue with now, aren't they?

Okay, my prediction went south. I said that the church would suddenly change it's position and that it would change it's website to be more neutral, etc etc That it would bend over backwards to support Obama.

Oh how wrong I was.

Tonight MSNBC is reporting that Obama is now snubbing his minister. At the last minute he made the minister cancel a speech for him. Obama is distancing himself from the black power church to appear more appealing to non-blacks who view the 'church' as a black power cult.

The minister is so ticked off that he's making statements such as this (paraphrase from what I remember being reported on TV ) - 'Wait until everyone finds out that I was with Louis Farrakahn on that big trip to Libya for the Nation of Islam a few years back. Obama's support among Jewish voters will dry up faster than a snowball in hell.'

Soooooooooo .... the minister is in cozy cahoots with the Nation of Islam. Oh how Christian And he's buddies with Louis Farrakahn ... the same fella that made those wild statements that white people blew up the levies in New Orleans so as to kill black people during hurricane Katrina.

Yeah .. I can see why Obama is suddenly distancing himself in public from the whacko that he's had as his spiritual advisor all these years.

Anyways ... that's what the TV news is reporting ... I haven't found anything on the internet to link to.

The 'church' isn't changing to support Obama ... but Obama is distancing himself from the Church and now the 'minister' is shooting off his mouth. Oh what fun ....

edited once for spelling

[edit on 3/6/2007 by FlyersFan]