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.

 

Heart-Broken Black Pastors Want to Meet Obama Over Gay Marriage

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
*That's the title of the article. It's not my title.

Heart Broken Black Pastors Want to Meet Obama Over Gay Marriage


Influential African-American pastors have requested Attorney General Eric Holder to grant them a meeting with President Barack Obama, saying he broke their hearts by endorsing gay marriage – "something that is simply wrong" – as a civil right. "We pray for the President ... President Obama is the fulfillment of our dreams for our sons -- and he has broken our hearts by using his power and position to endorse as a civil right something that is simply wrong," the Rev. William Owens, founder and president of the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP), wrote in a letter to Holder late Thursday.

The coalition, which comprises of leaders of the black church and civil rights leaders who marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King, decided to seek a meeting with Obama after Holder announced he would speak with 350 black pastors to inform them of their rights in speaking for the president without violating their 501(c)3 status. Organizations with 501(c)3 status are not allowed to be involved in fundraising, political campaigning or lobbying.


Um ... haven't church leaders and ministers met with the POTUS all through history? I don't understand ...

1 - why did they go through Holder? Or did the White House push them off onto Holder?
2 - why, if they met with Obama, it would supposedly violate 501(c)3 status?
3 - why the ministers are surprised by Obama endorsing gay marriage 3 days before a major campaign fundraiser at a LGBT event? It's the kind of pandering all politicians do. He's no different.

And last but not least ...
4 - If these black pastors are people who marched for civil rights with Martin Luther King, then why aren't they interested in the civil rights of homosexual people in the USA? Because gay marriage is against their religions? I think they may have forgotten about the equality struggle others still have and they are imposing their beliefs on others. Something that they complained about white people doing to THEM back in the 1960s.

edit on 6/3/2012 by FlyersFan because: fixed quote




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
They should give up their religion.

That's what is really breaking their hearts.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Another question ... if these black pastors are so broken hearted ... will they still vote for Obama in November? Afterall, having a black POTUS "is the fulfillment of our dreams for our sons" (to quote them). Is having a black POTUS more important to them than their religion? Or is their religion more important than skin color? I'd like to ask them that. I guess we'll find out in November.

Side note ... they said "President Obama is the fulfillment of our dreams for our sons" ... what about their daughters? Was that a bit sexist on their part? Or does saying 'sons' somehow magically include daughters as well??



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


It all comes down to Cui Bono.

Who benefits.

When Obama signed an unpopulaer healthcare bill, some saw this as a benefit to them.
When Obama talks about raising taxes, people see this as a benefit to them.
When Obama wanted to increase entitlements, people saw this as a benefit to them.

The gay-marriage thing?

It doesn't benefit them.

They could care less if it compares to the civil rights issues of the 50's and 60's.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


As Obama's colour is so important, apparently, I think it is proper to define it correctly. He is mixed race. He had a white mother and a black father.

As for these pastors, their idiocy is standard practice for the religious. Seriously for how much longer are we going to have to hear their bull#?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Because it simply is not an equal rights thing. It is a call for special rights and to change the definition of what being married is. It is wrong and people with morals are always against it. Some things are wrong and all of the fussing in the world won't make it right.

You can't take something that is inherently immoral and expect the church to go along with it. Period.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
These pastors make me sick, infact any pastor or religous nut who thinks same sex marriage is wrong, makes me sick. They are people just like you and me, leave them be.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ookie
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Because it simply is not an equal rights thing. It is a call for special rights and to change the definition of what being married is. It is wrong and people with morals are always against it. Some things are wrong and all of the fussing in the world won't make it right.

You can't take something that is inherently immoral and expect the church to go along with it. Period.


Please evolve with the rest of us or get out of the way
edit on 3-6-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


No. Though the entire world may go insane I will not. I will not change my beliefs to suit anyone. I will not allow a bunch of sickos to tell me what being moral is. Ever.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ookie
Because it simply is not an equal rights thing. It is a call for special rights and to change the definition of what being married is..


By that standard of thinking ... the exact same thing could have been said about the civil rights movement in the 60's when it came to race. Affirmative Action = special rights. And the civil rights movement changed the standard (unwritten) definition of what being a worthwhile American means.

So why was it okay with the civil rights movement in the 60's but not alright with equal rights for gay Americans now?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
So why was it okay with the civil rights movement in the 60's but not alright with equal rights for gay Americans now?


I have no way of knowing how old you are, FlyersFan. Anyone who lived during the times of segregation should know the answer to your question.

J



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
A thousand signatures isn't really a very big number for a national organization. A state or even city group could get that many signatures. Tells me their position is a pretty minor one.



“Same-sex marriage is an attempt to do the opposite of what Rev. King did,” Owens said. “It’s an attempt by men to use political power to declare that an act contrary to God’s law and to the natural law is a civil right.”


Yeah, real classy guys. Comparing the movement to give a minority group equal rights with a group seeking to DENY a minority group their rights. I bet Obama's just ECSTATIC to have to meet with these bigots.


Originally posted by FlyersFan


Side note ... they said "President Obama is the fulfillment of our dreams for our sons" ... what about their daughters? Was that a bit sexist on their part? Or does saying 'sons' somehow magically include daughters as well??


Well, unless they want their daughters to grow up and be a man, I'm not sure you thought that out, fully.
edit on 3-6-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyJae

Originally posted by FlyersFan
So why was it okay with the civil rights movement in the 60's but not alright with equal rights for gay Americans now?


I have no way of knowing how old you are, FlyersFan. Anyone who lived during the times of segregation should know the answer to your question.

J


Care to elaborate? How is denying rights for one group similar to gaining rights for another group?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by LadyJae

Originally posted by FlyersFan
So why was it okay with the civil rights movement in the 60's but not alright with equal rights for gay Americans now?


I have no way of knowing how old you are, FlyersFan. Anyone who lived during the times of segregation should know the answer to your question.

J


Care to elaborate? How is denying rights for one group similar to gaining rights for another group?


Easy...everyone has the right to marry, including gays, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

Equal rights for all, special rights for none.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Care to elaborate? How is denying rights for one group similar to gaining rights for another group?


It isn't.

Let me share what I remember from before desegregation.

Imagine two schools. One in good repair with sturdy desks, ample supplies, the most current textbooks, bustling cafeteria with hot healthy food and filled with bright young students. The other a crumbling building with patched up/propped up desks, little to no supplies, outdated/cast-off textbooks, NO cafeteria but filled with students just as bright.

Imagine two water fountains. One bubbling with clean, cool water. Even though you're thirsty you can't drink: the other one doesn't work.

Now, imagine you are in town and your children are hungry. The only problem is you have to go to the back door to get your food and then only after the last white customer has left.

There isn't enough space here to chronicle all I remember. I didn't read this in a book or a magazine or a forum. These incidents aren't something told to me by a third-party. I remember them.

Is this happening to the homosexual/bisexual/transgender community? Are they being denied food, housing, medical care, education, or the fundamental rights of a human being because of their sexual orientation??

Until their plight equals that of the African-American before/during the Civil Rights Era, the comparison of movements is ludicrous at best.

J



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Side note ... they said "President Obama is the fulfillment of our dreams for our sons" ... what about their daughters? Was that a bit sexist on their part? Or does saying 'sons' somehow magically include daughters as well??


Last I checked Obama was a man, how does having a black MAN as POTUS fulfill the dreams of their daughters? If it does then every white person's daughters have long since been fulfilled when the first white man took office.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join