Let’s start the week off right with a little fun.
It has been reported that sen. Harry Reid made some racially charged statements concerning pres. Barack Obama. Now many are calling for his resignation as majority leader among other things.
As it turns out, the Pres. has accepted Reid’s apology and some are even defending Reid.
Then there’s this happiness:
And there’s more.
This teaches me a couple of things. First, racism is still a problem in this country.
Second, there is an extreme double standard about race in this country too. Some get a pass; some do not. There is nothing different about Reid’s comments and those made by Trent Lott several years ago–comments that cost Lott his career in the senate. Why is there is a double standard?
Third, we should all choose our words carefully. It could very well be that these statements were given in a context that is different than just the soundbites (or quotations) we are hearing of. Nevertheless, words mean things and people are listening to our words.
So I’m not making any personal point because I do not have any particular opinion. What I am interested in is your opinion: Should Reid resign? Is there is a double standard? Will race ever not be an issue?
This is a different kind of post for me and I realize that this sort of post can be dangerous and cause all sorts of hate and discontent. I also realize many of you dislike Anne Coulter and many dislike Al Sharpton (and some dislike Geraldo and Fox News and me). Be that as it may, try your best to keep this civil and adult.
Share this Post
345 Comments(+Add)
Well, this one’s simple. Imagine if W (and no I wasn’t a fan) had a Monica Lewinsky. The media tends to have more liberals in it and they tend to overlook the errors of those they think will accomplish what they believe is best for the country.
I always laugh when my more liberal friends act like the only news agency with an agenda is Fox.
Here are two quotes.
This is Strom Thurmond speaking in 1948:
“I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n*** race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”
This is Trent Lott speaking in 2002:
“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”
I’m a big fan of charitable reading, but I’m hard pressed to understand why Lott’s comments are less serious than Reid’s.
The simple answer:
Politics = double standard.
(Even if it was God’s will to use the political system to forward His kingdom – the American system is bankrupt. Completely. No bailout.)
* Trent Lott’s remark did not mean what opportunists painted it as.
* Reid’s observation about Obama was absolutely true – which proves that racism still exists.
Reid needs to be replaced with someone who’s more clean and articulate…
Helpful reference for decision-making on this type of issue:
That’s so scarily true.
MG,
Not sure why you think I believe Lott’s comments are less serious since I didn’t suggest that. What I suggested is that certain people are making Reid’s statements less serious. Maybe you misunderstood me. That’s OK. I forgive you.
jerry
I don’t think any politian or media talking heads should be forced to resign based on these types of statements.
(1) Vote them out the next time.
(2) Turn off their program.
(3) Protest, demand apologies if so desired.
(4) Take it to the courts if libel or slander as the law provides (not that Christians should do this).
Reid’s statements were true. Politicians use gender, race, age, caricatures, makeup, exageration, bribery (lobbying), and obscene amounts of money to leverage political acvantage all the time.
And at this time in our culture a lighter skinned and more articulate (white sounding) black person has a much better chance in a national election that do some others. And truth be taold, many whites believe that blacks elected Obama.
No one is color blind in politics. Obama never made race an issue because it would have alienated white voters who eventually did vote for him. The whole thing is one offensive and carnal mess and completely at odds with the teachings of Christ; if that ever really matters.
Re:7
Perhaps I did misunderstand you. When you wrote that “[t]here is nothing different about Reid’s comments and those made by Trent Lott several years ago,” I thought you were stating that Lott’s comments were less (or just as) offensive as Reid’s.
I would disagree. I don’t understand how anyone would think that heartily endorsing the 1948 dixiecrat presidential run is anything less than abhorrent. It’s like lamenting the political demise of P.W. Botha.
Personally, I find Lott’s off-the-cuff remarks at a birthday party not quite as bad as many other things I’ve heard politicians say, but hey, that’s just me.
The thing that I find sad about this whole thing is that it simply illustrates the fact that to many elected officials African Americans are little more than a voting block that they can take for granted. The way the Democrats treat black people is analogous to the way the Republicans treat evangelicals. They really aren’t that worried about being held accountable for their actions by them because at the end of the day, they know they’ll get 90+% of their votes at the ballot box. I just don’t understand why these groups seem content to let themselves be used in such a way.
MG,
Now I don’t think I understand you.
jerry
Every time I see Sharpton’s face I get a little nauseous. A talking head for hire, nothing more. And why he someone always gets the phone call when race comes into play is beyond me.
Racism is as alive and well as it’s ever been. What is worse? A man like Obama leveraged his race like a master to get elected. He played to the MLK analogies, so on and so forth. Pure politics.
In terms of racism, it has now taken on a technological angle, which Obama himself used. For example, have you heard of the company Axciom? His campaign used them to send very specific, targeted and often conflicting messages to people based on demographics: race, sex, age, etc.
It’s amazing technology. It allows a politician, like never before, to play whatever card he needs to resonate with voters and win them over.
I could care less about what Reid and Lott say publicly.
You want a real double standard? The constitution secures the “blessings of liberty” for every citizen, unless those rights conflict with other citizen’s rights.
Why can’t gays marry under those guidelines? (Answer: Because heterosexuals want to restrict the rights of gays regardless of the consitution.)
Another double standard.
RE:11
Really? What if I said at a birthday party for P.W. Botha, “gee, it’s a shame that you’re political career ended when it did. Things would be better if you had stayed in charge!”
How is that anything but an endorsement of Apartheid? And how is that not offensive.
Trent Lott bragged about Mississippi voting for the dixiecrats. It was a platform devoted to preserving segregation. How is that not terribly offensive?
Limbaugh and Beck are racists. Why do some believers support them?
Limbaugh (Donovan McNabb gets a free ride because he’s black.)
Beck (Obama has a visceral hatred for white people.)
I thank God for delivering me from the unholy jungle of politics!
“I can see clealy now the rain is gone…!
I honestly do not think that all that was going through Lott’s mind at the time, but, honestly I would never know. I believe Lott was just trying to say something kind, and he slipped up. It basically comes down to whether or not you believe Lott’s motivation was for ill or benign – something no one can actually know for sure.
But who am I to second guess the wisdom of the Democrat Party – the party that repeatedly voted an ex-KKK Exalted Cyclops into their leadership?
I guess the “ex” means nothing in the economy of redemption? So keep voting Republican so you won’t be tainted. I believe Byrd recanted his views, as did a lot of Dems and Reps over the years. But I guess redemption runs that party lines.
I never said he didn’t recant.
If he were a Republican, he would have been crucified. That’s all I’m saying.
If anyone believes any politicians really cares about anything but their own re-election, I believe they’re naive.
All I’m saying is that the left’s double-standard on this particular issue is so obvious that you have to willfully ignore facts to not see it.
Right. Rick this is not a post or thread about whose worse. It’s a thread about whether or not there is a double standard. Your examples, Beck and Limbaugh, wonderfully expose us to the double-standard of which I speak. Thank you for your help.
Phil – I agree.
The verse “All have sinned” is no more magnified than in the political arena. Allegiance to a party, or even a system, compromises allegiance to Christ.
#20 – That was my intent. I have no dog in this fight, I just object ontologically to the dog fight in general.
Re:17
Trying to compare today’s Democratic and Republican parties to the political landscape of 50 years ago is a (snarky) stretch at best (if not dishonest).
Robert Byrd is the exception to the rule. As the presidential run in 1948 demonstrates, the South underwent a profound shift in political allegiances as the Democratic party in other parts of the country took up the mantle of Civil Rights.
Yes, Strom Thurmond was technically a Democrat in 1957 when he engaged in the longest ever filibuster in support of segregation. But don’t worry, Republicans welcomed him with open arms when he switched parties in 1964.
And if you want to talk Klan affiliation, I don’t think David Duke, former Republican state representative from Louisiana, has gone as far as Byrd in denouncing his past.
MG,
And the ironic thing is, the democrat party has stayed essentially the same. they have only remained true to their ideals embodied by Thurmond.
Of course it’s snarky. That’s the whole point of these types of things, isn’t it? I really don’t know what you’re trying to prove otherwise.
If you think Lott’s comments were indefensible, that’s fine. They probably were. But you should have at least the same type of outrage towards Democrats that make the same type of comments. If you don’t, than it’s clear you’ve lost objectivity for the sake of political expediency.
If there was any doubt that groups that the Democrat Party doesn’t just see African Americans as a voting block to be used for their purposes and that sadly many of them seem obliged to comply, just look at the NAACP’s response to Reid’s comments, calling them “awkward, not offensive”. They might as well be saying, “thank you sir, can I have another”. It’s sad, really.
RE: 25
I’m sorry, but while I find Reid’s comments offensive, I don’t find them as offensive as Lott’s.
Lott said “we are proud [to have voted for a segregationist platform].”
Reid used a word that is (somewhat) offensive today, but clearly was not offensive 40 years ago. He also acknowledged, in a very un-pc fashion, that things like manner of speaking and skin-color affected Obama’s chances at becoming President.
I’m of the opinion that if a Republican had said Reid’s comments, the Democrats would certainly flip out, demand a resignation (which I think would have been extreme), and screamed racist!
The Republicans would have disagreed, and denounced the triumph, once again, of political correctness in this country.
My reaction is somewhere in the middle. I actually agree with George Will on this one (as I agree with him on a lot of issues.)
What I definitely disagree with is that because Reid will survive this (perhaps), that this is evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy, where Democrats say whatever they want, and Republicans get pushed out by looking at blacks the wrong way.
Re: 24, I’m sorry, but I don’t know how to respond to a claim that Democrats are pro-segregation. That just does not make an ounce of sense to me.
i think for the sake of consistency Reid should probably step aside.
i think for the sake of consistency i think the Republicans should hold the same line that they did with Lott. (i.e. They said it wasn’t a big deal.)
i think for the sake of perspective both statements are offensive, but i can understand, per M.G., why Lott’s would sound worse to some people.
i think everyone here needs to remember that despite you not being a racist there was the Republican “Southern Strategy” that was undeniably based upon leveraging racism for political gain. Some people have long memories and that’s why people tend to not be as forgiving of Republicans on this front.
part of a bed they made 30 years ago…
not saying it’s “right”, just saying that perceptions have to be managed better.
it’s about legacy…not snark or dishonesty…life doesn’t happen in a vacuum and people, fair or not, do judge by a track record.
frankly, both parties suck. I just wish some of my conservative friends here could admit that about the Republicans.
just say’n…
26, if you are a Democrat you probably wouldn’t.
Re:28
But I’m interested in learning how, if you care to explain.
For the record, and complete disclosure, I am a registered democrat. And have been for most of my life–except for a couple of idealistic college years when I was convinced, by some other students, that Bill Clinton was the antichrist.
But now I know that’s not true since, in fact, the antichrist is actually Hilary Clinton.
#27 – I am waiving your membership dues.
I am offended at everyone’s comments; including but not limited to comments on blog threads.
well, look at the history, mg. who was in charge of the south back then? was it republicans or democrats? was it robert byrd or someone else? was strom thurmond a democrat or a republican? was bull conner a rebublican or democrat? really. what party led the filibuster in the senate during civil rights movement?
It’s hard for me to understand how you can say there is no double standard when it is so patently obvious that there is.
Arguing over who was worse – the Dems or the Reps – is like arguing who was worse, Hitler or Stalin.
In the end, it’s a wash.
be that as it may, I’ll repeat what I wrote to Rick above. This is not a thread about whose worse, because, as has been noted, both parties suck. Rather it is about whether or not a double standard exists. (it does).
“whose” should be “who’s” or “who is”. sorry for the confusion.
Does a double standard exist both ways?
Is the Pope a Catholic?
I do not think Lott meant his remark to be racist (sepreratism,
and
I don’t think Reid meant his to be racist.
I’ve seen worse on “Christian” blogs.
LOL, Rick for a guy who doesn’t care about Politics you have a lot to say about it.
RE:32
I agree Democrats in the South were against Civil Rights.
But then, THEY ALL BECAME REPUBLICANS (with the exception of Robert Byrd). President Johnson was right when he, a Democrat, passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964… “We have lost the South for a generation.”
But what does that have to do with double standards? What is the double standard, exactly? I thought it was that Trent Lott was forced out but Reid looks like he’ll stay.
Is it something else? Is it because Democrats are thought to be in favor of Civil Rights even though Thurmond, Connor, Helms, etc. were all Democrats 50 years ago?
LOL, Joe for a guy who doesn’t know much you have a lot to say about everything.
#40
Ah there’s the Rick Freuh anger we know and love. You’re a swell guy Rick.
I have addressed issues. I have attempted to show the absurdity of politics and the accuracy of a four way double standard. Here are the policies from this site:
We will allow discussion on all articles
Anyone may comment on posts made to this site.
Why don’t you address what I said and not my right to say them, or do those policies not apply to writers?
Ah, there’s the Joe Marino hypocrisy we know and love. You’re a swell guy Joe.
Rick, you are one weird dude. Where did I say you couldn’t wax all loud and philosophical? Where did I say you couldn’t spread your verbal shite? I didn’t. I never threatened your right to anything but I will address your statements.
For a guy who often talks about us not having rights you went to it in two comments after a joke was made. That’s all it was, a joke.
I find it amusing that you talk incessantly about how politics don’t matter and then have 12 of the first 41 comments.
I find it a joke that you rant and rave about how we have no rights but then go right to your right to post.
What hypocrisy Rick? Please explain to me (in small terms since I don’t know as much as our esteemed retired baptist minister who is on record calling me apostate and heretical) what was hypocritical about me seeing something that was ironic and saying something about it. I get that you don’t like me Rick. I really don’t care. (Feel free to cherry pick this line and run with it) but this time you seem pretty dialed up about something simple. Maybe because you see the hypocrisy of your own crap?
Joe – You are a pristine example of why being emergent doesn’t mean anything. The emergents suggest more charity, more humility, more patience, and generally more adherance to the teachings of Jesus.
I suggest that is generally a fabrication when juxtaposed against some of those who are emergent leaning. And Joe Marino being one of the more obvious and textbook cases.
Please feel free to interject your “jokes” to someone else. 37 comments later and that is all you have to offer? But I bow to the policies here, you have every right to comment in any fashion you desire. (As do I) I have my rights!!
41 and 42.
Seriously guys. Go draw a circle on the chalkboard and stick your nose to it for 15 minutes.
I think the “books” are pretty much open on the personal opinions the regulars here have of each other. Can we PLEASE address the issues and STOP, PLEASE STOP, the ad hominems?
Pretty please?
John – I was addressing the issues until the issue became a suggestion of my hypocrisy. I do not care about politics as it concerns their particulars, I do care about politics as a system. I have been somewhat consistent in that.
Rick, I’m not emergent. You are a pristine example of why being a fundamentalist doesn’t really mean all that much. You talk about how kind you are (or would be) to homosexuals but someone you just don’t like you can talk to however you would like, it’s not a big deal.
Why is that Rick?
You are right Rick, comment away. Seriously. I love reading your comments about how loving and gracious you are with everyone except me. It’s beautiful, man.
BTW, you still haven’t told me where I attacked your right to comment. You still haven’t shown me where I was hypocritical.
But I know we’ve been down this path before. When faced with a logical conundrum (done learned that one in college, I did) you just say that you don’t care.
Please post away, but at least answer my questions. Show me where I attacked your “rights!!”.
I will admit, I believe you are one of the more hypocritical people on this blog, but I was not suggesting that you are hypocritical in this thread.
You are who you are, Joe. It’s a beautiful thing (your words).
I do not believe you are one of the more hypocritical people on this blog…I believe you are the sensei.
I propose that Chris L set up a password protected special area with each regular’s name and numerical code. In it, each other contributor is free to place any ad hominem attacks they would like to. Then the individual wishing to make a personal attack on the character of another contributor can just refer to their code number. That way the name of Christ will not be blasphemed among unbeliever visitors as they will not have access to the passworded area and will not have a clue what the codes mean.
Or, to make it easier we can just use the following codes:
(1) You’re not saved.
(2) You are an idiot.
(3) You are a Pharisee.
(4) You are a racist.
(5) You are delusional.
(6) You are mean-spirited.
(7) You are a liar.
(8) You are a blasphemer.
(9) You are a sycophant
(10) You are a hypocrite
(11) You are scum.
(12) You are a homophobe.
(13) You are Silva-esk.
(14) You are a joy vampire.
Feel free to add.
#49
Well, have at it Rick. Still didn’t answer the questions. Check your meds.
(15) – You admire Ingrid.
Well, real life calls. I’ll come back later to be insulted and hear about grace for others from the same mouth.
OK – Now, where was I before I was so rudely interupted?
Oh yea, Jerry had suggested a double standard and I was agreeing with him in an expanded way.
BTW, I’m not emergent or emergent leaning but that has nothing to do with the OP.
Rick, have a good night. I mean that.
Speaking of double standards and hypocrisy; I would like to openly admit to levels of hypocrisy on everything I believe and everything I teach and everything Jesus taught.
There is empirical evidence for all of that.
So then why did you obviously get so offended when I pointed out something that I thought was ironic–and honestly the word hypocrisy never entered my mind. You said that everything was fine until you were accused of being hypocritical.
Rick,
I sincerely want to understand how we went to argue so quickly. I know you don’t like me, but it seems every time I post something to you anger is the response and the worst possible way to take what is said is written. I don’t expect us to become friends, but I would like to be able to better understand what is happening. If it is preferred I will take this offline to an email.
I am having a bad day. The reason I assumed the worst was because of our history.
I apologize.
I forgive you and ask for your forgiveness for returning with my own snarkiness. Let’s see if we can start a new history from this moment. I hope your day goes better.
Look at it this way, at least you didn’t get a bill for 2k for your wife’s van like I did.
I received a bill for much more than that from my recently ex-wife. From the sound of it, Erica is worth much more than that.
With that resolved, let me point out that there actually is something known technically as the “negro dialect.”
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/african/narratives/negro_dialect.htm
Robinson in the Post has an op-ed about Redi’s comments that I also would agree with.
For the record I hate everyone. Including myself some days!
#62.
I am truly sorry. That just sucks.
There was a girl in one of my classes last semester who was docked a whole grade because she did a presentation in ‘black dialect’ instead of ‘academic dialect.’ And the prof. was African American.
Go figure.
I don’t know why all of you are getting so upset.
It’s politics, they are politicians. They justify lying regularly. Barak Obama forgives him, the NAALCP forgives him, why…because the legislative agenda is more important than the obvious offense.
And many here share the hypocrisy; when Rob Bell, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Shane Claibourne, Jim Wallis, NT Wright say something wrong about scripture or are outright heretical, no one says anything. But let Ingrid or Ken step on toes, and you all jump on them like flies on honey.
This whole thing became moot a long time ago. Joe “Athlete’s Tongue” Biden noted that one thing that allegedly made Obama different from other black men was that he bathed regularly. So naturally, Obama chose Biden as his running mate.
I really have to wonder if anyone who doesn’t think there’s a double standard has been paying attention.
Holy schnikes, John, you OK? 66 comments in this thread before you managed to turn it into a slam on Bell? Were you pinned under a boulder?
“when Rob Bell, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Shane Claibourne, Jim Wallis, NT Wright say something wrong about scripture or are outright heretical, no one says anything. But let Ingrid or Ken step on toes”
I have criticized all of them. However, I consider much of what Ingrid says as “outright heresy”. Self righteousness is as much heresy as denying the virgin birth – they both deny Christ. (An example of a heresy double standard)
wow, John, you sure missed the boat. did you happen to notice how much heat I took from others for my criticism of Claiborne? I mean seriously.
As far as I can tell, everyone is fair game here. And this blog hasn’t been ‘about ken or ingrid’ for a long time.
My 2 cents.
Jesus was right. The rest of us are just guessing.
Chris, I think you got at least 1.5 of those cents from Rich Mullins.
Well John Chisham, that is so insightful.
#71 My point Jerry, you took a great deal of heat where I thought you were gracious about Shane. But there are many who have a sacred religious cow. They act as though it is their girlfriend.
#69 I was open air preaching sans bullhorn (don’t want to offend Joe, Chris, Rob Bell, or Shane Claibourne) at Monday Night Raw in Minneapolis last night.
RE:75
How did it go? Did you get scissor-kicked in the back of the head?
Unfortunately, I was not blessed to be beaten up or arrested for Jesus last night. I was cursed several times and thanked a couple of times, which made me check if I was preaching the truth.
John, you have a seriously depressing version of what it means to belong to Jesus.
78
No, Jerry, I don’t. It is who I have been called to be. I can join with Paul in saying woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel. So if I am cursed, beaten, ostrasized, or loved, I do not care, I must preach. It brings me the joy of the Holy Spirit when I do.
Actually, Paul says that without love, we have nothing. So being unloving is actually worse than the biggest heresy you can think of. In a very real way, being unloving is the biggest heresy there is.
Yeah I know Brendt.
I just figured that I would try to claim some pithy words for myself even if I know someone else said them.
Ummmm…not sure what Chris that is but I’ve never critiqued your method. Now your style maybe? Did you say to anyone last night “Jesus Mania is gonna run wild on you!!!!!!!!!!!”?
As is usually the case, the real news media puts it in perspective.
NEGRO
FYI, it’s been almost two months since Ingrid was even mentioned in a post (and even then, it was in general and not specific), and five months since “Pastor” Ken has been mentioned in an article (and it’s not for wont of material, but simply one of “how many times need you point out that a toilet is a bad place from which to drink before such advice becomes one of common understanding?”).
While I agree that racism is still very much a problem, I disagree that the comments by Reid bear any resemblance to those of Lott.
Apples and oranges.
TADA!
The biggest double standard of all is the fact that the UNCF apparently forgave Reid too. What hypocrisy.
WOW – were to begin…. what a load of manure…
1) see paragraph one of debunking.
2) some here HAVE disagreed with (insert any name on your list).
3) some here have vehemently disagreed with several on your list.
4) when was the last time anyone here posted anything from an ODM?
5) i think part of the problem is our definition of heretical – we tend to reserve it for someone within the church whose teaching goes against an historically accepted core doctrine of the faith… as opposed to just someone who does things differently than we prefer.
i didn’t realize this was a goal/desire, which it must be if you were disappointed. i agree with jerry
(comment 79 is contradicted by 77… btw)
Yes, because Jesus and every other preacher in the NT were beaten and cursed for telling people they were hell bound.
You are as similar to them, John Chisham, as Reid’s comments are to Lott’s.
coming from you, Chad, I will take that as a complement!
You all misread, whatever happens, I praise God. Actually the police were very helpful where they normally are not. God granted us great favor.
I’m sorry, PB, but could you explain how everyone misreads you by thinking that “unfortunately, I was not blessed to be beaten up” means “I wanted to be beaten up?”
I’m curious.
you said you were disappointed you were not beaten up or arrested.
you said that being thanked caused you to question whether or not you were preaching truth.
how have we misread you?
then after say’n this – you claim you do not care what happens to you. if you do not care – why be disappointed? if you do not care – why use the responses as a judgment of truth content?
personally, i would never judge the truthfulness of my message on the response of the audience.
#92 well you believe that based upon their reaction towards me it is ineffective.
I have been blessed to be cursed at, spat at, knocked out, given props, I know that the Word will cause offense. I was surprised I was not arrested or beaten up last night, because the message was so direct and pointed at people, but full of hope with the gospel can save all.
I guess I was just blessed to be able to preach the Gospel.
i said no such thing. YOU said that YOU questioned the truthfulness of your preaching. i said i would not judge myself as you have judged yourself.
i never made any judgment on your effectiveness, i only quoted your comments on how you judged your effectiveness.
so how have i misread you…
as long as it is the word that is causing the offense… and not the messenger.
You need to be careful if you are making this your mantra or goal. I don’t think that means what you think it means.
There has been a major earthquake in Haiti. Let us pray for those poor people and that missionaries will meet spiritual needs.
Did you meet Mike Tyson?
#97 Amen, I have friends down there. They need prayers, blankets, shoes, clean water, food, and the Gospel.
#98 Nah, but I did use him as an illustration to demonstrate that any person can be forgiven if they would repent. I am sure Shane would just say that Mike Tyson has a different sail, Samir would say that we should let him evangelize us, and Rob Bell would recognize the beauty that comes from suffering.
#99 I can only imagine what they might say about you.
To the OP, I think this might be the first political book I have ever bought. It seems really fascinating. Truly.
Isn’t there a SONG about that?
let’s refrain from putting hypothetical words in other people’s mouths.
#102 Not hypothetical. Shane said it in a sermon, Samir said it in a book, and Rob Bell has a book named after that.
If anything, it might be too close to the truth.
re 103:
and the tragic thing is – you seriously believe yourself.
In Haiti – There is no cell phone system in Porte au Prince now and the recue operation is hindered. Many homes have concrete roofs which would have become tombs for people inside. Disease will increase and medical help will be limited.
Suffering on that scale cannot be imagined by people like us. Pray and give.
(As a side note – No people in history have been used and abused to raise more money than the Haitian people. How dispicable it has been to use the suffering and poverty of people to line the pockets of disingenuous preachers. There are committed missionaries there also.)
Politicians lie so why is any instance of double standards a surprise?
The image of PW Botha waving his finger in the air while warning about the “rooi en swart gevaar” (red and black danger) is ingrained in South Africans’ memories.
There was a protest song in the 80’s by Johannes Kerkorrel en die Gereformeerde Blues Band (direct translation – John Chruch Organ and the Reformed Blues Band) that talked about this image on TV and the chorus then went: Sit dit af, sit dit af! (Switch it off, switch it off). Thank God Apartheid got switched off!
Agreed.
One of the key differences I see between Reid’s comment and those of others (like Lott) is that Reid’s comment is more an indictment on America’s attitude towards race than it is a personal racial slur or thought.
#108 – In point of fact, it is observable human behavior toward “different” which is built upon fear and self righteousness. If everyone was white, but 10% of the population had red hair, the same attitude would be present only now directed at hair not race.
It is fear driven.
Rick, I’m not sure I understand your point – at least the first part.
My point is racism is built upon the fear of different. Fear is the motivation which is gleaned and strengthened through upbringing.
HEY!
I have red hair.
No wonder you hate me.
Seriously, folks, I know a ministry that sends direct relief to Haiti YEAR ROUND.
http://www.downeymemorialchurch.com/heart4haiti.html
If you can drop a ten spot in this economy, that would be great. If you could drop more, that would be better. This ministry sends food and other essentials regularly and directly to relief ministries in Haiti. Pray and give.
(of course, the Gospel is also presented regularly by these ministries as they give out food, clothes, and other relief supplies…)
Your red hair comment reminded me of a powerful illustration where a 3rd grade teacher convinced her class that brown eyed people were better than blue eyed people.
It’s called a A Class Divided and there are a few parts to it. Worth the watch.
There is only one bone fide class of people that are observably more intelligent and spiritually astute and humble than all the rest.
Notre Dame fans. We have graciously accepted suffering in the recent years to Mary’s glory.
First my red hair, and now my blue eyes. I am really feeling worthless.
Seriously, folks, take the time to drop some cash towards Haiti, and please do not forget to pray
The real double standard, as I see it, is how Christians are pointing their fingers at politicians or bemoaning the fact that racism still exists in America even as they will go this Sunday to worship in an all white or an all black church during the most segregated hour in our country. And the worst part of that fact is this: Most Christians see nothing wrong with that.
We allow blacks to worship at a different time, and some can worship with us up to, but not over, 10% of the congregation. Black ushers must have light skin and speak without a negro accent.
(satire alert)
Reid’s comment may not have been a personal slur against Obama, but it reveals the way his party thinks about African Americans in general. They are willing to claim them as their own at the ballot box, but they really try to distant themselves from African Americans who are, well, to be blunt, more in line with what the African American culture is. In reality, Reid seems to be saying that if you don’t make an effort to make yourself more like us, don’t bother trying to have a political career in the Democrat Party.
It reminds me a lot of this article that was in the LA Times a few years ago. It’s OK to be black as long as you aren’t too black, I suppose.
Phil,
I haven’t read the entire comment in context, but what I have heard didn’t have anything to do with a particular party but with the American people. In essence, he is saying that the American people (not a political party) are not ready to elect a black President who might be culturally different from white people.
And even if that is what Reid personally thinks or even if that is a reflection of the Dem party (which I am not defending), that still does not compare to comments which suggest it would be better if we went back to the way things used to be, when black people “knew their place”, so to speak.
Racism is a scourge. It is an outrage when it is allowed to exist among believers.
Chad – a question. I know your view on the “U” word, but at what point does the Spirit inhabit a sinner? (I ask this reflecting on racism by HS indwelt believers)
I believe Bill Clinton slighted Jesse Jackson’s South Carolina primary win by subtley suggesting it was just some blindly loyal blacks but not a real win.
Rick –
Good question. According to Scripture the HS indwells us when we repent and trust Christ as our Lord and Savior. Also, according to Scripture, the HS is actively engaged in ALL the world (even the unrepentant) wooing them, drawing the, and convicting them.
However, just because one is indwelt with the HS does not mean all sin is immediately eradicated from their life. There are things we all learn as we walk with God and things God reveals to us as sin that we once before thought as nothing.
So racism can exist in a believer – it just means they aren’t ready to face that devil…yet. That is the task of discipleship.
Does that make sense?
I really don’t think the point is necessarily comparing the harshness of the two statements, but rather how the two people were treated for making them. I have no doubt that if it came to light that the Republican party were looking for a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect”, that whoever said it would be tarred and feathered.
Honestly, I guess the thing that is most offensive to me about Reid’s comments to me, and this is probably one reason why I am disgusted by the Democrat Party in general, is the elitist attitude inherent in it. Somehow these politicians in their ivory towers are the enlightened ones passing all these judgments on the regular peon American, who of course, is racist. If anything, Reid’s constituents should be upset with him for labeling large swaths of them racist. There is just a smugness that I find very off-putting about these sorts of things. I do not doubt that there are racists in the country still, but I think for the most part, racism is not the socially acceptable thing that it was. Racists are generally ostracized in society.
I actually think that one reason race still does play a factor in things like academic performance, salary, etc. actually has to do with things like Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action policies actually tell minorities that they cannot compete with other groups, and that they need more help. This can actually put a subconscious seed of doubt in their mind, and cause them problems down the road.
I heard Macolm Gladwell explain an experiment where two groups of students were given a standardized exam. For the first group, the proctor stated before the test started that African Americans usually don’t fare as well on this particular exam as their white counterparts. In that group, the African Americans scored something like 10% less than the white students. For the other group, the proctor said this test has been specially developed so that no racial group has any edge over the other. Remember, it was the same test that the other group took. In the second group, race played no issue in the scores.
Guys – here’s a question.
Racism is sinful and it is age-old. Why are we so eager to eradicate racism when, like lust or adultery, it cannot be remedied outside of Christ?
Secondly, why are we so shocked when politicians – including the one the comment was made about (Obama) – leveraged his image to carefully craft a candidate that could be all things to all people, so to speak?
“actually has to do with things like Affirmative Action.”
Once you bring boat loads of people, kidnapped from their homeland, and you enslave millions and then free them all – there is no answer without some unfortunate effects. Affirmative action did more good than bad.
Is this not true?
126: good perspective Rick.
What’s unique to me about racism, in all of it’s forms, is that it appears to be the one sin that most, not all, churches have no problem with.
Many congregations that I’ve been a part of do little to engender racial equality in their liturgies, worship, and or communion.
Uniquely the congregations that I’ve attended in largely diverse communities were more ethnocentric than those I’ve attended in less diverse areas.
The first lady of MT. Sinai was black. Also, Solomon had a bi-racial marriage.
A great video/message chris. Thanks.
(Perhaps not the best example, considering he had over 700 of them. Not to mention 300 concubines as part of his second string.)
Good point chris. When it comes to believers, it’s a different story as it should become clear that we are children of the same Father.
My question/point is more directed to politics and the world in general.
As if the only thing that makes us ‘culturally’ different is the color of his skin. That’s like saying the only thing that is culturally different about me and Rick is that OSU wins and ND doesn’t.
And, to your point, I’d happily vote for an African-American whose values and political ideologies reflect mine–which is why I didn’t vote for McCain either. It is unfair to say that those who didn’t vote for Obama did not do so because he is ‘black’ (which he is not since he is technically bi-racial). (Even if we grant that some were necessarily opposed to him because he is bi-racial.)
But those folks that I know who didn’t vote for him did not based on ideological differences: He’s a liberal democrat; they are not. It’s convenient to prop this up as an issue of race–which is what Reid is doing. There might be parts of it that are, but I’m willing to bet that most of it has to do with ideology and/or philosophical/political differences.
I won’t vote for a liberal no matter what color he/she is. Then again, I’m getting to the point where I won’t vote for a conservative either.
Phil,
I agree largely with your statements. Rick has answered for me about Affirmative Action.
This quote I struggle with:
Having grown up in Detroit where in my particular neighborhood the racial make up was more 50/50 I found that most people learned enough about each other that racial stereotypes were non-existent.
Having moved to upper middle class white America I often hear “Them people” or “People like that” etc… I think that most people express this because they are not privy to my past and only see a blond haired, blued eyed youth pastor. Which is both an identifying characteristic for them, “He looks like me so he must think like me” and also a racist approach to life “They aren’t like me so they are inherently flawed”.
Solomon was the creator of e-harmony!
(The black wife was his favorite.)
While I definitely do agree that the Church in general does need to be intentional about making race less of an issue, I think one thing to consider is the unique role that churches have played in minority cultures. In the African American community, the church is really seen as the one constant thing in that community. It’s kind of the one thing they can truly call their own, and I think in some sense many of the people in these churches are a bit hesitant to have that change. I’m not saying that they are racist, but rather, they are wary of losing that part of their heritage. It’s really the one thing I’ve grown more aware of since my wife and I started attending the church we’re at now. But, I must say, despite this little bit of hesitation, the people in our congregation are the most loving and welcoming group I have ever met.
I’d be interested in seeing the empirical data that supports this conjecture.
For example, I live in a particularly ‘white’ community. I worship with a particularly ‘white’ church. There is a ‘black’ church in town, but even the pastors come from Cleveland to minister to the folks there.
So what solutions would you suggest to help our congregation overcome our ‘racism’? Seriously. I’m genuinely interested in hearing your answer to this.
Since when did that become a criteria on this blog?
I hear what you’re saying, Chris. In some ways, I wonder if the people making statements about “those people” can be driven by class distinction almost as much as race. For me growing up in a not-so-diverse part of Pennsylvania, I heard people use the term “those people” to talk about low-income white people living in trailer parks and such.
Another interesting thing I see is that there is kind of the same type of thing happening within the African American community itself. I often hear some of the African American people I know who work at the University or in other professional capacities trying to separate themselves from the culture of “hood”. I don’t believe that it’s really accurate to speak of African Americans as one homogeneous group.
One man’s empirical data is another man’s spin mode.
No seriously. When is it wrong for a church to be a reflection of the community in which it is planted? Didn’t someone write a book about this? How can a white church in a white town become racially diverse?
(This is decidedly beside the point of the OP, but we’ve long since burned that bridge. And this is a much better discussion.)
Okay well… I think this statement supports my conjecture.
Well…I recognize that most, not all, churches, black, white, korean, Hmong, etc…are ethnocentric. As I didn’t qualify my “conjecture” with a particular ethnic group I don’t know if I have any solution other than maybe noticing, perhaps, the non- verbal language we speak as we worship.
Many churches matriculate toward certain ethnic constructs in music and social issues. That is not inherantly racist. However there should be a more energetic effort to fellowship and interact with all evangelical churches in your community.
Bill MacCartney was especially passionate about this very issue, and even APOLOGIZED to some black pastors for the way white people have ignored black believers. It was that humble apology that led to a great deal of reconciliation.
Not suggesting that. But one criteria might be that, statistically, your congregation should/could be as diverse as your community. I.E. Where I live is something like 93% Caucasian, 5% African American, and 2% Asian. So if our congregation was 100 people perhaps you should maybe have equal representation.
Now I know that statistically this doesn’t work. Because the pool gets smaller when more churches are added to the community.
Additionally we have an all black church in our community. My charge is the same to them.
Absolutely.
I don’t know about you, but I would actually big bucks to see Rick getting down during the offering worship here:
Dancing in Church
I think I’ve mentioned this here before.
I heard a great story about a church in Grand Rapids that was planted in the downtown area some 85 years ago. When the downtown area was predominately white. Over time the neighborhood began to become more low income and the ethnic make up changed (which in of itself begs a few questions about racism) and the church was faced with a decision. Do we move to the suburbs or stay. The pastor prayed and was adamant that they stay. The church split. One half went to the suburbs and started a new church and the other half and pastor stayed. They hired an African American associate pastor and now they function as a multi racial community. That’s kingdom work in my opinion.
Chris – you bring up some very insightful points, and I think your background has a lot to do with this.
Racism is a blight on many churches, who are sometimes completely oblivious to the fact that racism plays a part in how they see the world. This is sad and unfortunate, especially when we claim that God is the Father of us all.
Racism will NEVER be brought under control by legislation, AA, education and the like. It is a tool of the Adversary. It is sin.
Phil seems to think we’ve come a long way (in general, outside of the church), and that might be true in some respects, but it’s like a husband saying, “I don’t commit adultery as much as I used to.”
Though he might pat himself on the back, it doesn’t really give his wife the assurance and relief he thinks.
Paul – I love exuberant worship! But my dancing was more in the Hebrew two step mode. 6′5″ 250 lbs. in the aisle praising God in the dance.
Last year not so much; maybe this year.
So, and I’m not being snide here, you think that it would benefit a congregation to hire a black minister in an all white community? Or is this just a Rooney Rule type of thing? I’m being serious and in no way is this to be considered snarkiness.
Rick,
It sure seems as thought it is the ‘white’ folk who more often than not are the ones doing the apologizing. Maybe they are the only ones who need to?
jerry
Well, yes, I do think that overt racism in the vein as it was 50 years ago is socially unacceptable in all but the most backwards parts of the country. I do not deny that there are still institutionalized forms of racism that exist or that people are racist in ways that they aren’t even aware of. What I doubt is the ability of programs like Affirmative Action to really change this.
I won’t deny that AA has had some positive effect in that has forced open some doors that probably would have remained closed. However, I think now that these doors are open, the messages that AA sends to the people it is intending to help end up being harmful in the long run. At its heart AA deals with the symptoms of institutionalized racism, not the underlying causes. Until the causes are dealt the actual problem will remain.
One thing I would ask to supporters of AA is to compare the fates of the Asian American community to that of the African American. Asian American generally did not get the same type of AA support that African Americans did, but yet they have thrived. In many case, they actually outperform their white counterparts, and they can end up being much more successful. They were generally treated very badly not that long ago in American history as well. So what’s different in that community? I don’t think that Asians are inherently smarter than other races. I just think a different value system has been cultivated in this community for many years. And really, there’s no outside force that can do that.
What white congregation would hire a black senior pastor? What white congregation would hire a black youth pastor? What white congregation would allow their white teenage daughters to date a black teenager even if they both claimed to be believers?
I married a black believing man to a white believing woman after Sunday morning service and half the elders would not stay to see it.
Amen, me too. Though I think, in the case of the video, things went a little far. So much for “When you give, let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth.”
Jerry – It is not a question of who “needs” to; it’s a question of who is willing to apologize.
#153.
I agree with you that this is the way it used to be, but I honestly believe it’s changing. At my church, there are numerous multi-racial couples and most people don’t even notice.
Not necessarily. If it fits the culture, and has God’s calling, sure but out of some sort of “guilt” driven absolution no.
Conversely I don’t think a church should look past a black preacher if it’s who God calls to them. I suspect most probably don’t apply because of race and others aren’t interviewed because of it. Sadly that hurts the church.
I think last year (but it may have been two summers ago) an African American law professor came out and said that Affirmative Action was hurting African American law students because it was allowing them to get into schools that they didn’t intellectually belong in because of their skin color. There was an inordinate amount of AA admitted students flunking out, while the African American students that were admitted without the AA were academically more in line with other races.
It created quite a storm at the time.
I believe Paul will back me up on this: A recent phenomenon in America is that white preachers are building churches with a large percentage of black members because they lie to them about prosperity.
158: I have a friend who is African American and is also a doctor. Is biggest complaint is that most in his field have a preconcieved notion about how he “got there”. He’s heard everything from 1)”so did you grow up in the suburbs” to 2)”good thing for you that affirmative action is here”. His responses 1) Nope inner city Detroit. 2) Not sure that would have helped with my class on heart transplants. So how long have you had chest pains?.
I know of several churches in my nondenominational denomination here in Indiana what would be 100% fine w/ all of these. Our youth pastor has 3 adopted children who are all African American, as well. After I went away to college, my parents gave my room to a Christian college student from Barbados who was in the US studying clinical psychology, and she lived here year round (though winters were a challenge, temperature-wise).
You are right in this. AA will not change racism outright, and may even give some people cause to feel marginalized (ie: unemployed white men). But I’m not sure the point of AA is to eliminate racism, but rather attempt (poorly) to level the playing field. Whether it works or not is highly debatable.
Racism will never disappear. So in the mean-time, an effort to open a few doors might not hurt. I’d be interested in hearing, specifically from recipients of AA, if they perceive it negatively (as opposed to a commentator).
Interesting point. Yet, there are tons of reasons why Asians typically do better than blacks (and sometimes even whites).
One word: Family. It is at the core. In the black community, there is a HUGE gaping hole when it comes to the head of the family. In the majority of cases (not all), he is absent or derelict.
Asian values are vastly different, even from whites. Everything circles around family which is a huge motivator, and causes people to sacrifice for the good of all. Not so in the black community where it’s every man for himself.
We could on and on with the differences, but they are truly vast.
159: Rick, you are correct. These wolves in sheep’s clothing capitalize on the desperation to break the yoke of poverty and debt. But black ministers do the same thing as well.
For years now, the prosperity gospel (born about 60 yrs ago in the US) has been exported to Africa where it has spread like a prairie fire. Truly sad.
#156
Obviously YOU noticed.
I have personally conducted a couple of inter-racial weddings. I think it is fun to see two unique individuals come together in such a way. But I agree Rick: I got some funny looks from people in the congregation.
Churches are funny that way. I have often thought that my particular style of preaching would fit well in an African-American congregation where it is perfectly acceptable to be more vocal with the ‘amen’ and ‘hallelujah’ and ‘preach it’ type of interaction from the congregation. I don’t mean that in a stereotypical way, but my experience has been that most ‘white’ churches are dull–as in, “They don’t call it the Western Reserve because we are Western” dull.
Eh. I agree Chris. It shouldn’t be for the sake of doing it (hiring a person of a different skin tone), but in Christ it shouldn’t matter anyhow. Unfortunately, churches don’t hire for reasons of the Spirit or prayer but reasons of expediency and charisma.
I have no empirical data to back up my assertion that most churches hire preachers for the wrong reason.
My opinion: Affirmative Action IS Racism. It is the notion that African Americans cannot advance on their own merits.
I think we oughta have Affirmative Action in the NCAA Basketball. Big slow white guys are not represented equally.
You say thats ridiculous, and I agree. But AA does not advance the Black man, it just continues the attitude that is evident on the nations Indian Reservations and Inner cities where generations of people have become dependent on the government to the point where they have no motivation to go out and make themselves better, because they know that they will get a check at the end of the month whether they look for a job or contribute to society in any way.
And that is this current administrations vision for the country, by the way- The Indian Reservation
It is the ethnocentric policies that made the mess, and it is the ethnocentric policies that continue the mess and make it worse. It is the policy that tells a minority person that they can get nowhere in life without help. And it is a generational curse.
I did the ceremony for a guy from Ethiopia and a girl from Lansing this year. One of the prettiest weddings I did.
This is so accurate. In my experience (single mom, substance abuse, absentee parenting, etc…) I still feel I had several advantages that are often absent in urban African American communities. 1) I’m white 2) Strong grandparents 3) A decent educational program (catholic school) early on 4) Role models.
Not an absolute for all people but I think I had advantages that aren’t afforded to all minorities.
166. Do you make it habit to be continually shallow in your understanding and experience or does it come naturally?
#168
One of the things we see in our ministry is the generational poverty that enslaves people in the inner-city.
One guy typically has 2-4 kids with at 2-3 women and no means to support any of them.
When a family stays together, the mom and dad stick it out together the cycle stops or at least it can stop in one generation.
166: sorry PB. You are way off base here and demonstrate a lack of understanding of history. I am not all for AA (don’t get me wrong), but to not grasp that blacks in the US are not coming from a distinct disadvantage is ridiculous.
It’s like running a 100m dash race. The only hitch is that you start at 50m while I start at the blocks, with my legs tied together. Do you think that’s a fair race?
Your basketball advantage has no leverage and in fact reveals some ignorance (ie: that you think there is an inherent level playing field and hard work and talent alone carry the day). Untrue.
Let me be the first to say that the problem in the black community (such a cliche, inaccurate term) is spiritual, and will not be fixed by programs, AA, anti-racism campaigns, more money and the like.
The problems are SO deep, it’s hard to fully grasp, harder yet to address in a blog forum.
But start with the breakdown of the home. You can’t just fix this with anything else but a paradigm shift that must occur with primarily black men. This paradigm shift can’t occur without Christ opening up blind eyes.
This issue also occurs broadly in Africa and the Caribbean.
As a rule of thumb, if you ever travel overseas, refrain from giving money and goods to the men. Give it to the women. Men will drink and smoke it away, despite their family suffering without food at home. Not so with women. I can’t fully understand why this is such a deep problem, but it is.
PB,
As others have commented, your basketball analogy is terrible. It would only work if until a few years ago, slow white guys were legally prevented from playing basketball, followed by years of regulations and rules designed to systematically oppress slow white guys.
What I think is most funny about people who are strongly against AA and other government intervention is the notion that the African American community was doing just peachy until the government got involved. No, actually African Americans were enslaved until a 150 years ago, and then systematically denied their rights until 45 years ago. Let’s look to that as the cause of racial disparities, not whether you get into Harvard with a 1400 on your SAT instead of a 1600.
Ha.
That’s a good point, and I would say that of those things, really the only thing that can be addressed by public policy at all is the educational aspect of it. But even then, a lot of that is related to the values of a community. Yes, there needs to be a certain baseline for a school to be at in order for it to teach students, but if a community doesn’t instill a love of education in kids at young age, they will be hard-pressed to develop it later in life.
#171 Paul, I come at a disadvantage in this discussion because I am white, so I carry a certain amount of baggage.
But I have ministered in the inner city, I have ministered on the poorest reservation in the USA. And I have ministered to the rural Appalacian poor. What Joe says is true (I agree with JOE?!?!) It is a generational curse that can be broken if families stick it out together and impart the qualities of hard work and effort and a responsibility for self.
What white elitists have done in creating the welfare state has not leveled the playing field, it has crippled multiple generations of minorities in telling them that they are second class humans that need the help of momma government and no matter what they can continue sucking at the tit of the government as long as they need help.
What I am saying is that this is not helping anybody, it is crippling them. Welfare, Affirmative Action, Medicaid, Food stamps, and generational reliance on them is a prison. These are all stop gaps that are supposed to help people get back on their feet that have become life styles.
It has made a whole new generation of slaves.
No one has really said anything close to the “African American community was doing just peachy until the government got involved”.
All I would say is that like many government programs, AA was well-intentioned, but there have been many negative unintentional consequences associated with it.
Again I agree! My only push back would be that wherever there is lack of opportunity/economic resources is that people, christian and non christian resort to “whatever means necessary” thinking which ultimately derails any possibility of advancement. Which I think you ultimately said.
Which was all enacted, in part, because the church abdicated it’s role in caring for the widow and the orphan. And the Church has continued that trend by now saying that those who “suck at the tit of momma government” are now the problem.
My apologies PB I fired off a response as soon as I got to that paragraph. I agree with the “rest of the story”.
As I have said, the gospel aside, the afflictions of the blacks in America have placed them at a disavantage into the near or distant future. Affirmatice action did some good and was necessary, but with all fallen human efforts it comes with residual effects.
I cannot imagine where some of the professional blacks would have come from without some help into the mostly white playing field. No white person can accurately assess the situation and we come with built in biases that we are unaware of.
The American blacks have had only 50 years of integrated and equal education. (Brown vs. Board of Ed.) To decree as a white person that affirmative action is racist is a wonderful example of how blind white Americans are to the plight of the American blacks.
John Brown’s body lies a’smolderin’ in the grace.
“John Brown’s body lies a’smolderin’ in the grave.”
175: PB, that’s a much better comment (than the basketball analogy).
And I agree with you completely about some things like welfare. It’s a massive problem.
“Why should I work for a living when I can sit here and collect the same amount doing nothing?”
“The more kids I have, the more money the government gives.”
Yes, welfare is wholly destructive to generations of individuals/families.
But AA is not quite the same is it? It is an attempt to actually provide opportunity/exposure to jobs/education that might not have been there otherwise.
I’m not all for AA, but I would not lump it in with welfare.
I agree with Rick here:
Worse than what has happened to blacks is what has happened to Indians (native North Americans).
Unfortunately this is not true. Visiting an inner-city school will quickly show that there are vast differences still – in terms of the funding, texbooks, programs, etc.
But again… this is secondary. The family breakdown is at the core.
Until now, even blacks have ignored this gaping hole, instead clamoring for more gov’t money and programs and cops and… there is a need for responsibility within the community which I am just not seeing. Sad to say.
There is no quick fix here at all, and it is getting worse and worse.
Let’s look to that as the cause of racial disparities, not whether you get into Harvard with a 1400 on your SAT instead of a 1600.
I’m not sure if this was written because of my statement that I believe AA is and was unhelpful but if it was I’m not saying at all that AA was the cause of problems in the inner city. I am saying that I believe by and large it did not accomplish what we had hoped it would.
RE:180
Not to single out Rick, but even statements like American blacks have had only 50 years of integrated and equal education (Brown v. Board of Ed.),” display a profound ignorance.
Nothing happened right after Brown. The states ignored the Supreme Court.
Finally, in the 1960s, there was forced integration.
But then the whites moved to the suburbs, and integration never really happened.
The black community still suffers from a disadvantaged and highly segregated public education system, which has myriad causes.
To focus on the “unintended consequences” of something like AA as a real threat to the black community is laughable.
The reason for the breakdown of the blck family goes back to slavery. It is at least two-fold:
1. The inherant poverty that came with being free, poor, and unemployed.
2. The blatant breaking up of black families by slave traders and owners. Many black slave children had either white fathers or had no actual knowledge of who their father was.
The government is not the answer; the gospel is. But some programs helped. Like pain medicine that helps with pain but evenatually becomes addicted. We must be compasionate, though, and avoid an Bourguoise political view that offers a downward explanation without considering all the reasons as well as our calling as believers.
And for the record, I’ve been responding to PB’s reasoning primarily.
Also, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is, well, temporary. How temporary aid designed to get people back to work is crippling is beyond me.
And Medicaid? Really? It’s health insurance. How does that cripple you?
Rick, I’m hoping we can discuss this without a repeat of anything from the past.
To me, this statement sounds rather racists in and of itself. I work for an organization that works specifically with at risk youth, teens and families in under-resourced areas. It was founded by a white guy answering God’s call on his life.
I can tell you story after story about the plight of African Americans in the fair city of Grand Rapids and Detroit. Yes, there have been terrible things done to this people group but the truth is that many of the terrible things done to African Americans has been done by other African Americans as well as white people.
As someone has said repeatedly, the breakdown of the family is tearing away at the inner-city.
There’s a great book to read called “When Helping Hurts.” We have all of our interns read it and anybody who wants to be a part of our ministry. Just because I’m white doesn’t mean I can’t see the problems in the inner city and the injustices that have been done to African Americans.
This is a common belief that I think is ultimately unhelpful in dealing with injustices and righting wrongs in our cities and urban like settings.
Well, then laugh away, I suppose.
I just don’t see why it’s wrong to question a program when its stated goals are one thing, but there’s data that indicates that the program actually has the effects of working against those stated goals. It seems to me that if your system is producing different results because of an inherent flaw in the system, the logical thing to do is address those flaws, not simply invest more time, energy, and money in the inherently flawed system.
I think there is a narrative passed on by conservatives whereby American history starts really in 1964 (don’t look past that), where there is total equality and a perfectly even playing field.
But then the government, trying to help, created the welfare state. And they duped the black community into relying on welfare instead of pursuing the high-paying jobs that were waiting for them because things were equal.
I can assess the black situation from my own perspective, however I do not know what it means to be a black man either today, or 50 years ago, or in the context of a black family heritage. For instance, if I grew up seeing my father maligned and mistreated simply because of his rcae, how would I feel in general about white people.
You may understand more than most white people, Joe, but you still will never see it or experience it as have many black men.
#185.
Again, I agree that played a part in the problem but I think the more current problem with the breakdown in the African American family is that we have taken morals away from them.
I’m working with these young men and women every day. One of our students has 25 step brothers and sisters to 23 different women. Think about that! 26 kids and the dad doesn’t support any of them. Many of those children have children and are not supporting them. Why? Because it is a learned behavior. That is hurting families today far more than slavery of yesterday.
#190
True
“That is hurting families today far more than slavery of yesterday.”
I am sure you do not mean that literally.
The blight of slavery and racism in America is infinitely worse and more wicked and with more profound and lingering effects today that almost anyone can understand.
Good point, and that’s the danger here – trying to come up with a silver bullet.
Every time I get together with my dad (Guyanese black) and my father-in-law (Nigerian) they suffer from the temptation to solve all the problems of the world – including the black race – in about 2 hours. Can’t be done.
Christ is the answer. Period. When he transforms a person, everything changes at the core.
Programs deal with the symptoms.
“For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, one hacks at the root.”
Christ gets to the core. Programs assuage the pain. It’s not something people like to hear, but it’s 100% true.
True. Again – no silver bullets please.
Amen.
Just an illustration here. Earlier in 2009, I pulled the plug on assisting a young man in Kenya who we helped put through school, small business and general help during drought. I told him that no matter what – even if he gets sick – I won’t help him any longer. he went through a tough spot, and it was hard for me to hold to my conviction.
Anyways, after a few months, he sent me an email thanking me for not assisting him – that he was now becoming a man. We must be careful with soothing our consciences, lest we do more damage than good.
I will admit that it does pain me to be seen as coming down on the same side of an issue as PB, but the simple problem is that these programs simply don’t really do anything in the way of giving people the skills they need to actually get a job.
There was a family in my church who received welfare for quite a while when I was growing up. Actually, one of the guys was my best man in my wedding. The father left them when the kids were all quite young, and the mother really didn’t have any type of education beyond high school (well, she was a Bible School graduate from a little fly-by-night school). She received welfare aid for quite a while, and she really didn’t get anything in the way of training. It wasn’t until she made the choice to go back to college on her own that she was able to start getting out of the place she was in. She did have a number of people from our church that helped her out as well, I’ll add.
#193.
Actually I do mean it literally. If the African American man can say that the reason his children and their baby are going hungry tonight is because his grandfather’s family was abused as slaves 60 years ago the onus for change is not on him, in fact it’s out of his control.
The blight of slavery and racism is terrible and wrong but it does not excuse men and women from making bad choices today.
We have a student that used to be a pimp. Met Jesus, left the life and married one his girls. They now have 3 kids and he just recently graduated college.
He had a choice. He could continue to blame what happened to people he never met or he could acknowledge that what happened was awful and wrong and that the choices he was making were also terrible and wrong. He can only control one set of those choices; his own. He did. It wasn’t easy, and he needed others to help him and come alongside him but as an African American he will disagree with many who say the problem for African American families today is slavery of yesterday.
The response, even from white people? Usually he’s called something along the lines of an Uncle Tom.
RE:195
Yes, Phil, I agree completely.
The reason is that the statement that “welfare is not a cure-all” is not the same as “welfare cripples you.”
Just as there are multiple reasons for endemic poverty, multiple things need to happen in order for communities to rise up and prosper.
But the thought that health insurance for kids, or lunches for children at school, or temporary aid, are things that actually CRIPPLE people, is, frankly, beyond me.
Those things don’t solve problems. They are not a cure-all. But I ascribe racial inequality to hundreds of years of oppression, not health insurance.
In regards to Joe and Rick’s comments on slavery in contrast to the problems today – let me suggest that these issues are on a continuum. They are not to be compared.
Here’s a tiny, little insight: in terms of slavery, consider what it’s like to be trodden on – in front of your wife and kids constantly. Because of your race.
Many men end up believing they are almost inhuman, at best second-rate. Mentally and psychologically, this spills over into how they treat and see their women and families.
How do you weigh the impact here?
How do you weigh the impact the onlooking children feel?
This mentality carries on for decades and generations. Insert poverty, lack of opportunity, minimal education… Insert human nature, drugs and alcohol.
The man sees a woman as his only “conquestable” territory (how many women he’s bedded). Kids come, but no relationship.
The man sees his block as his territory that must be defended against others who want the same territory. Gangs form.
Consider cultural reinforcement. No role models of any stature or character (just talent).
It is an absolute tangled mess. But until black individuals (not programs alone) address what’s really happening, it just makes for good debate.
Just got a letter in the mail from my cable company that states:
I’m pretty sure they’re looking out for my best interests.
It seemed somewhat pertinent to discussions about Government programs etc…
A more accurate statement in my opinion would be that it can cripple people and when we are dealing with the extremely poor it often does nothing to actually help them get out of poverty. It is not seen as a temporary fix but as something that is permanent and is passed down from one generation to the next.
#198 – Yes, but the gospel is actually the only answer. And the problem must be addressed person by person, sinner by sinner. But you cannot describe the color “red” to a man born blind. And you cannot be surprised when blind men cannot see the truth, even the temporal truth.
As far as choices go – most of us make choices according to the information we have been given. When you do not have a programmed hard drive with family truths, you cannot make very good “choices”.
BTW – Based upon the “avoid making people dependent” principle – by now we should never help Haiti.
RE:200
But how is it that welfare that is limited to two years is permanent?
You can point to disability benefits, I guess, but then some people truly are disabled (while some cheat).
There is absolutely no way to avoid being taken advantage of and even becoming enabling on some level when you help the poor. Making cheating, laziness, and underachieving expectations as our escuses is unacceptable. We are not giving/helping because of them, we are doing it to Christ. If they have “strings” attached, then it is not gracious – it is law.
I don’t think anyone is advocating not helping people. I at least am not. I have needed other people’s help to survive in the past. Chris Paytas has been one of those people who has helped me. I’ve also been in the place where I’ve been able to help people.
I advocate for people to help people all of the time.
It is also vitally important that we make sure our helping is actually helping and that we don’t allow anyone–ourselves or others– to blame our situation on sins of the past.
BTW – If God gave to us while assessing our responses before He felt it was right to help us again, He would have long sinced stopped helping us.
Unless we are decveived about our own righteousness gained by our own efforts. God’s gifts are by grace alone, as should ours be as well.
Feeding starving people in Darfur has no expectation that they will ever pull themselves out of poverty. Helping poor people has no Scriptural caveats, except when people refuse to work.
I will always feel that the American blacks should get the benefit of the doubt in view of their history. The civil rights movement was a recent as the 60s. Fifty years is a short time to eradicate the residual effects of racism and prejudice.
It would be interesting to hear Eugenes view and perspective as a South African how things have changed there since apartheid ended.
I agree. But I’m curious what would you say to the person who refuses to work and is African American? They exist. I think we’re talking about help on two levels. First of all, help with their needs, but if you really want to help any person who have been done injustice, you have to help them realize the locus of control lies with them not with someone “out there” who did whatever.
The person in the inner city will stand before God and answer for his or her choices the same as you and I . He or she will not be able to say, “But God, my people were enslaved and abused!”
#153 – My Megachurch in Houston has a a black youth minister with a white wife. Houston is a very diverse community. On my upper middle class block we have 4 black, 7 white, and 3 asian families.
I find churches today are more culturely segregated than racially segregated (although there is obviously overlap between race and culture). In my own church we have traditional, blended and contemporary services based on cultural preferences. To blend the average “white” and “black” churches you would have to erradicate the cultural prefences in music and preaching styles. Why are these bad? Why does everyone have to worship in the same way?
Rick – there is a difference between meeting a need (ie: Darfur or Haiti) and encouraging a cycle of dependence (ie: welfare or constant bailing out).
As the cliche goes, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life.”
Of course, teach him to sell fish and he eats steak.
There’s an interesting commentary I came across somewhere that I believe holds some truth:
If you were to amass all of the wealth of the world and then evenly redistribute to every single person, within 10 years it would be back in the same hands, give or take.
Jerry,
It probably can’t. Which is why the tail end of my last comment is the most important part of it. The worst part about an all white church or an all black church is that most Christians see NOTHING wrong with this picture.
Rather than ask how can my all white church in this all white community be racially diverse why not ask why is this an all white community to begin with?
Now, if you live in Maine I can guess. But I would at least expect some sense of consciousness amongst Christians to be able to say, “hey, this isn’t right.”
Because that’s not the purview of the church – trying to demographically engineer its community. We need to treat all equally, not seek “diversity” for its own sake.
Where I tend to come down on this issue is where Paul frames it (1 Cor 12:15; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11) which is a focus on equality in opportunity, not equality in outcome. Where devaluation comes – regardless of race – is where systematic opportunities are purposely jury-rigged to generate a particular outcome via any race-based discrimination. I agree that CRA 1964 was necessary, and that AA was required to force equality in opportunity. I believe that, like labor unions, AA’s time has passed, and it should be phased out rather than institutionalized. AA does not fix the problems with the family – which drives the culture – and at some point, it ends up exacerbating the problem, not helping it.
Even so, there are steps that can be legitimately be taken. The small church we belonged to before moving to Indy used a local third-party Christian agency (which was funded by most of the area churches) when needy families came to the church seeking help. This took care of the problem of folks who just went from church to church each week looking for handouts by getting them into programs where they could get help they needed in “learning to fish”, and removed the excuse of “avoiding being taken advantage of” by the local churches. Our church (which was half a mile from the interstate) also had a small supply of $10 and $20 gas cards from the local gas station, which only accepted them for gasoline purchases (for the folks that stopped by during the day to ask the pastor for ‘gas money, because they were stranded’).
Well said, Joe.
If you look at the example of the Hebrew people, they used their slavery as a reminder of where they came from – and where they could return, even if only in spirit – as a driver for their work ethic (which drove the Romans nuts, because the Jews rested one day a week, but were more productive than those who worked seven). Victimology can be used as a positive driving force or a negative one. Zan recently got The Pursuit of Happyness from Netflix, and I thought that Chris Gardner’s story was amazing.
No, but by making a portion of the aid go towards digging wells, establishing farms, etc., we help create opportunities to escape poverty.
#210 – I agree, John.
************
To the point of the OP, the common path right now when conservatives criticize initiatives taken on by the current Administration (0bama + Congress) – initiatives that have traditionally been opposed by conservatives prior to 2009 – is to criticize them as some sort of racism. Meanwhile, overt racial comments from the left are ignored. I’ve just assumed this to be the standard modus operandi dishonestus. The current flap w/ Reid is no different.
Sure it is. It’s a justice issue. Sticking our heads in the sand and acting like there is no problem here is certainly an option, but not the best one.
You want a DOUBLE STANDARD!!??
How can this man claim to be a Christian, much less a preacher???
He is a disgrace to the name of Christ.
Phil,
Well, if that is what most offends you than I can’t say otherwise. I guess John Chisham would say that unless something is offensive it isn’t true.
But I would simply ask you: Do you deny the truth of what Reid said? I mean, for crying out loud, the news media had a hay day over the fact that the President did a “fist bump”! And that’s not even a black thing! Imagine if he actually used “Negro dialect” (which, let’s be honest, exists). Do you really think America is ready for that?
RE:213
But don’t you think, Chris L., that it’s a legitimate question for Christians to ask, “how did my suburban community get to be this way?”
White flight is real, and it was a direct response to Brown v. Board of Education and forced integration (among other factors).
In other words, yes, you very much can engineer a community.
It happened fifty years ago, it happens today, and Christians should ask themselves “what response should I have to the fact that my community was created 50 years ago because parents did not want their kids to attend school with black kids?”
That’s exactly right, M.G.
Which is more or less the Great Comission – go and MAKE disciples of all nations. IOW, engineer a kingdom community.
Sadly, most of our kingdom communities, what we call “churches,” reflect the kingdoms of our gated communities or hoods more than they do the kingdom of God.
So here’s my question about those complaining about their present white suburbia: who’s going to be the first to pick up and move across the tracks?
(plug the crickets)
Why not? Some of the most famous and well-paid people in the country are black. Just think of how many professional athletes or entertainers are black. I do not see that there are swarms of people trying to prevent these people from rising to where they are. Actually, quite the opposite – I see people lining up to give them more money.
I do realize that there is some disconnect between fame in the pop culture and sports world and the political arena, but I do not believe that most Americans would not vote for a black person simply because he or she was black.
Actually, I think the Democrat Party is heavily invested in trying to keep black people thinking in a victim mentality. They are invested in having a group who are permanent victims so that they can keep the issue alive to use as a campaign issue. Remember, the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate for over 40 years prior to 1994. If they failed to accomplish something legislatively in those 40 years that would deal with institutional racism, why on earth should we expect them to do something that will in the future?
Anyway, I think, really, Reid’s comment reveals his mindset more than that of the country as a whole.
M.G. – It is improving, and again, it may just be Houston, but our dividing lines are along income and not race. (Which is a nother issue). We have an incredibly diverse and integrated population. We do, of course, still have many predominately black, hispanic and asian neighborhoods, but our middle class neighborhoods are extremely diverse.
Being in the music ministry I appreciate black gospel music but don’t want a 100% diet of it. Conversely, I’m sure many blacks only appreciate that genre of music. Simularly, there are specific styles of preaching, which truthfully are often culturally based but which come down to personal preferences. Again, why even seek uniformity.
The Biblical world view is that race should never even be a question or a pre-requisite for anyone to be accepted into ANY fellowship, but neither should social status. And shame on any church that discriminates on that basis. But I don’t see any biblical mandate to integrate based on race for the sake of numbers.
I am preparing right for an evangelism committee meeting tonight and as part of my introduction to the meeting I will be leaning on NT Wright’s thoughts on evangelism as described in Surprised by Hope. Here are my notes from that section:
My ecclesiology is such that I believe we are to be a foretaste of the coming Kingdom (such as Eucharist is a foretaste of the coming eternal banquet). When churches lack diversity where they could be they are failing to project the reality that God is no respecter of persons. They bear only a partial witness to a disbelieving world that Jesus is indeed Lord. This is only heightened, IMO, when we act like it doesn’t matter or that this should be of no concern of ours.
219 –
Well, I say this only because those who disagree with me here are so often in bed with Rob Bell, but Bell has done exactly that. I admire and respect him for it. He seems to think that being intentional about community is important.
Phil,
I think that is pretty naive (comparing black sports heros or pop stars to electing a president).
And I am not all that interested in conspiracy theories.
Probably not the point you were trying to make.
Very stereotypical.
Not really. Sounds more like Eckhardt Tolle than anything remotely reported in the NT.
Neither am I.
I don’t think there’s anything conspiratorial about it, honestly. There’s simply many politicians who have made a career promising change and progress over the same basic issues for decades now. If they haven’t delivered on these yet, why should we believe them?
Republican politicians do the same thing with issues like gay marriage and abortion. So it’s not like I’m just picking on Dems. In many ways, the electorate seems content to re-elect politicians based on what they say more than what they do.
#224: yes, when I read Phil’s comment I got a little chuckle from it. I mean, come on – athletes and entertainers. Now let me go fetch my fiddle!
Well, since Paul C says “not really” I think I’ll change my mind on the matter.
Phil, re: 226 –
Is it not possible that what you are pointing out is merely suggestive of how systemic and deep the problem of race runs? Are we so cynical today that we must conclude that if a project does not succeed it must be because the one’s working on it don’t want it to succeed?
Well, honestly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with either group. Many people in both these groups are very savvy businessmen. I understand what you’re getting at, and I wasn’t trying to say that those are the only things African Americans can have success at. I could point to any number of other areas as well. But what I’m getting at is that I don’t see American society as a whole purposely trying to prevent African Americans from being successful.
Yes, I’d say there are still plenty of times when these people must deal with racism in a way that I will never have to. I really don’t know that there’s a quick solution to that. But I still believe that on a whole, a lot of progress has been made. Basically, as it relates to Reid’s comment, I just don’t think the country on the whole is what he thinks it is.
Phil,
If the “War on Terror” never ends and through the years we continue to have bombs going off in all sorts of orifices (oops, offices), will you conclude that whichever political party is in control must want it that way to maintain power? Would you say, “Well, they keep saying they are going to do something about this but a bomb went off last week, so I think they want to let this happen to keep us scared and keep themselves in power.”
I don’t think you’d say that. So why say it here?
And I disagree. I’m not sure where all you have lived or been, but my experience is very different. And now that I am the father of 2 black children I see it even more.
Chapter and verse, please.
Different demographics does not equal “injustice”. The area I live in is full of farming communities, where most residents have grandparents who lived and worked and died in the area. The jobs there are primarily in the service sector, along with some manufacturing jobs in plants that have not been growing, and don’t pay enough to entice people to want to move to the area.
Some of these farming communities within 30 minutes of Indianapolis have become somewhat “suburbs”, and are slowly becoming more multicultural (particularly those w/ colleges in them). It’s not the business or cause of the church to try to get the civil authorities to target folks of any particular race to move to the community. The church has enough issues within its own given mission statement to deal with, let alone adding an extrabiblical “demographics engineering” mission to its portfolio. It should be welcoming to all who come, and sensitive to those in the community.
Perhaps folks act “like there is no problem” because there actually is no problem.
If individual Christians are passionate about it, I have no problem with it. Expecting the church, as an institution, to engage in demographics engineering is ludicrous.
But it’s not the business of the church to try and reverse “white flight” (noting that it was only one of many factors). Choosing a place to live for the quality of its schools has nothing to do with race and everything to do with outcomes.
Example: When we lived in West Lafayette, white kids were actually the minority, with international kids comprising 60-70% of classes. The school ranked #1 or #2 (depending on the year) as determined by test scores, graduation rate, and college attendance. We were very happy there, and were pleased with the multicultural nature of the schools. When my job moved to Indianapolis, we chose Zionsville (which ranked #1 or #2, depending on how West Lafayette did each year) because of the school system. As it turns out, Zionsville is about 90% white, 5% Asian, 2% black, and 3% hispanic/other and is primarily upper-middle class (with a number of NFL/NBA players). While we would be 100% Ok if the schools were more multicultural, there’s pretty much nothing we can do to change it, or that it should require that we should move.
The church is comprised of members of the community. As the community’s demographics change, so should the church’s. If the church’s demographics do not mirror the national demographics? No big deal for the church as an institution to wring its hands over.
Notice the word “go“. It is not a call for artificially demanding integration where a community is demographically different from the nation. Each church is part of the kingdom, and the universal church is also the kingdom.
Baloney. The kingdom is completely independent of sex, skin color or nation. We have no need to bemoan that the local church does not “reflect the kingdom of God” because it has no Russian members, when 5% of the world is Russian, or that it has no Indian members, when 15% of the world is in India, or that it has 1 or 2 Chinese members, when 18% of the world is Chinese. God is colorblind, and so should its churches be – not the only Christians, but Christians only.
Re:220
Who said that (non-Southern) Democrats failed to institute changes?
Johnson signed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Johnson also signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968. This made housing discrimination against the law.
Reagan vetoed, but Democrats overrode, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988. This made previous Civil Rights provisions applicable to recipients of federal funding.
That’s off the top of my head. The point is, I am baffled by this “Democrats keep the black community down.”
Huh? You can’t discriminate on the basis of race in your hiring, your subletting, your serving of customers, etc.
And that has all been accomplished by the Democratic party over the last forty years.
Chris L, given our past discussion on race I am not surprised by your remarks.
I couldn’t disagree more with you. I’ll just leave it at that.
Actually, I think that fear is one of the biggest things politicians use to their advantage. So, no, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with questioning a policy, domestic or foreign, if the actual results are far different than the stated outcome.
Perhaps I am more cynical than I should, but even in my line of work I regularly and lied to by people about what they did or didn’t do. Why should I simply trust a congressman or a senator just because he says his intentions were pure?
In one way, I suppose you could argue that whole way the Constitution frames how the federal government is setup is to give the citizens the idea that they shouldn’t put too much trust in the people in these positions. The fact that we have the chance to vote them out as often as we do kind of points to the fact that we should doubt their benevolence.
not just the black community… the more dependent people become on them the more power they have.
I’m not complaining, so until taxes go up, the schools tank, or the kids all graduate, I’m fine where I am. If the community were to become 90% black/asian/hispanic/whatever in the next month, and taxes stayed the same, crime stayed the same, the schools stayed the same (quality-wise), I’d be just fine where I am.
Nationalized elections are more popularity contests these days than they have ever been. They’ve been that way ever since Nixon and Kennedy faced off on television. It’s pretty obvious that 0bama wasn’t elected based on a proven track record and experience…
The road to hell IS paved with good intentions. That politicians promise one thing and do another because it keeps them in power is not a cliche for lack of evidence. That the Democratic party prefers blacks to be dependent on them (so as to maintain a solid voting block) is no different than the GOP preferring that evangelicals be dependent on them (for the same reasons). If either was to actually “fix” the problems they were elected to fix, the need for them would go down.
If actually fixing the problem would seriously undermine their power with their key special interest groups? Heck yes. Does a bear crap in the woods? Why do you think malpractice reform and interstate competition between insurance companies are completely absent from the 0bamaCare mess? Why does the left hate Clinton’s Welfare Reform (which has had incredibly positive results)? Why did congress kill off the School Choice program in DC (which was wildly successful for African American children)? Why, when it had control of both houses and the presidency in 2000-2006, did the GOP do nothing about moving the ball on abortion?
Problems get you elected. Solutions make you obsolete.
Phil,
So if I am hearing you correctly, if you thought (like I do) that there was some truth to Reid’s comments you would not be so offended by them?
I guess I find it odd that you are so cynical about the democratic party and its motives and yet you seem to think so well of all of America in general – so well, in fact, that they would have no problem electing a black president who actually acted and talked black since we let them play basketball.
Surely you recognize the disconnect there, right?
Just to be clear, are people taking the position that the entire Civil Rights movement, from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 through today, was just a ploy by Democrats to get the black community to lean on them, thus increasing the power that Democrats can wield?
Since that’s not what Phil said, I doubt there’s a “disconnect” to recognize…
Chris L,
I think you have forfeited your right to ever harp on John Chisham or anyone else for being so disrespectful to Rob Baal and others.
You are no different. It’s sad, really.
No – I’m thinking more about the policies of the past 20 years or so…
I wonder if the other writers here will address Chris L’s disrespect of someone’s name or just let that slide?
Or is there a double standard here?
When I give him the name of a deity, perhaps we’ll talk…
You are a hypocrite, Chris L.
Plain and simple.
I agree, Neil. It’s more based on power (via dependency on the state) than it is about race….
And to elaborate, you are hypocrite because the issue was never about a deity name being used (Rob Baal). He and others have used all sorts of pet names for Wright, Bell, Jones, and others that had nothing to do with deities and you, Neil, Phil, Jerry and others have all told him how child-like, unChristian, disrespectful, mean-spirited, etc. that was. You guys here have even said that it is a small man who has to stoop to such childish tactics.
You are no different when it comes down to it.
Ok, so, to be clear:
Democrats worked for thirty years or so to enact Civil Rights legislation. They may or may not have done this to help the black community. Who knows. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
But then, they hatched a plan, whereby they would actually turn on the black community, encourage dependence, and thereby increase their own power. They did this even though it ran totally counter to what they had, for whatever reason, worked to accomplish over the previous thirty years.
But now they actually want to encourage dependence from everyone. That way, they remain in power, getting rich and ruling the world.
Is that the accepted history?
I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but I applaud it for its audacity.
This is all well and good, but that kind of proves my point. So they’ve passed all these laws that would supposedly eradicate institutional racism, but to hear Senator Reid talk, you’d think that nothing has changed at all in the last 50 years. If that’s the case, than it would seem to me to be an admission of the inadequacy of the laws.
Would you hire the same exterminator to come to your house if after the fifth time (or however many time), you still have the same amount of bugs in your house?
I guess all I’m saying is that if Reid is saying that institutional racism exists in such a big way today, than to me that is saying that these measures that were put forth as solutions to these problems haven’t really worked as they were supposed to.
I mean it’s no different than the whole “Stimulus Plan” thing. A recent study revealed that the unemployment rate in the construction industry was not affected at all by the supposedly “shovel ready” projects that received money under the last stimulus. So what is Obama’s reaction? Well, of course, we need to have another stimulus plan! Let’s spend more money on things that don’t work.
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or anything sinister, really. I just think it’s symptomatic of the mindset that says the federal government can solve these big problems. If something isn’t working it must be because we’re not giving it enough funding. In the private sector, if something doesn’t work, you generally quit spending money on it. In the government world, it seems like the less something works, the more money it receives.
I don’t think the nation’s electorate is an “institution,” Phil. Reid’s comments were not really about institutional racism.
Re:250
So either laws must work perfectly, or they are without merit?
Really? Blacks can swim at all the pools, drink at all the drinking fountains, rent the right apartments, and find the right jobs.
But because Harry Reid thinks that there are some people who still would grant more leeway to lighter skin tones and certain accents, then the entire Civil Rights movement was for naught?
Huh?
Put another way, let’s look at the context of Harry Reid’s words…
Mr. Reid was talking about a black man RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Can we even imagine that happening 50 years ago? If a black man couldn’t sit down at the same counter as a white man, how was he going to run for President?
Yes, Mr. Reid’s comments reveal that there is some racism left in our country.
But they also reveal how profoundly different our country is.
Of course I don’t think the movement was naught. The movement was largely a grassroots effort driven by citizens. It wasn’t something handed down by our benevolent leaders.
And as far as laws “working perfectly”, I’d say no law really “works” insofar as bringing about change. They can be a restraining force, but real change can only happen at the grassroots and individual level – something that I do believe has been happening and is still happening.
The funny thing about this whole conversation to me is how y’all are trying to paint me as some sort of southern bigot against all civil right laws or something. My wife and I are actually going to the MLK, Jr. banquet with a bunch of people from our church on Friday evening this week. I have the utmost respect for the people who have made huge sacrifices for the movement. I just don’t like to see it co-opted and cheapened by politicians who see it as little more as an issue that they can use to their advantage to secure votes.
MG -
I think you’re arguing the wrong thing. Most conservatives I know don’t think Reid should resign. They just point out what is common knowledge – that the left has a double-standard when it comes to race. Reid’s observations are little different than Geraldine Ferraro’s (when she was working for Hillary in 2008), but since she was supporting a candidate to the right of the the left’s pick, she was vilified. Lott’s comments – in a birthday party toast that had no racist undertones – shouldn’t have led to his resignation. The “tea partiers” shouldn’t be declared racists, simply because they despise the current administration’s policies.
While I think Reid (and the Chief Executive) is a worthless hack, as a politician, I don’t think he should resign. I’d just prefer he hang around through November and get handed his lunch.
For the record, I don’t think Reid should resign either. I just think that his comments reveal more about his mindset than what people are admitting. I’m not saying he’s racist himself, but rather, I’m saying that it reveals the low view he actually has of the typical American.
Certainly, he is entitled to whatever opinion he has, but I simply think he’s wrong.
Re:255
I agree that the left has a double-standard on race! Of course it does! It’s the left. But then, the right does as well. If a Republican had said those words, would Republicans be so shocked (just shocked!) over them?
Of course not.
But I do disagree that they are no worse than Lott’s. I am baffled that people can compare frank and un-pc comments on race to an outright endorsement of a segregationist platform and presidential run.
I won’t comment on the left and the right, resignations, whether what happened to Lot was unfair, etc. But I can’t understand equating Lott’s comments with Reid’s.
Proud of the 1948 run? Really?
What a horrible thing to say.
Just wondering… If I attend a church of 100 people, what must the exact racial make-up be for it to “reflect the kingdom of God”? If it matches the exact % of its state’s demographics? The country’s demographics? The world’s demographics?
At what point has it reached the proper Holtzian level of purity to be admitted into the Kingdom of God?
Phil,
Reid said that Obama was more “electable” on the basis of skin-color and accent.
That’s not a comment about the average American. That’s a comment that there is some, perhaps small, subset of Americans who would vote on those characteristics.
Heck, you could say that if skin tone and accent changed just one mind, that makes you more “electable.”
While I would love to believe that all 304 million people don’t have a racist bone in their body, and that skin tone and accent make no difference at all in someone’s presidential run, I’m unsure myself…
1) How seriously do people think out birthday toasts?
2) How reasonable is it to assume that Lott knew Thurmond’s 1948 platform? Considering that Lott was 7 years old in 1948, I doubt he was all that politically aware of it.
3) Lott apologized, noting:
As such, I see no more harm from his statement – and apology, once he was told of the connotation – than from Reid’s.
“we don’t allow anyone–ourselves or others– to blame our situation on sins of the past.”
Do we tell that to victims of molestation? Some sins of the past ARE relevant to people’s situation. They can be overcome through Christ, but they carry some weight in the present.
A black man who was “raised” by a crack whore and whose father (he thinks) was shot to death, and who had to feed himself and his sister since age 7, has some reason why he is an irresponsible criminal.
This girl named Kim has present circumstances due to past sins.
Phil, Neil, Jerry….
When John Chisham changes people’s names out of disrespect or to smear them or just because he doesn’t like them (Rob Baal, NT Wrong, etc), he goes on moderation. But when Chris L uses names like “Zero, Messiah, The One, NoBama, 0Bama, etc” you guys say nothing. Not a word.
Why the double standard?
None of you are fit to call out the double standards of anyone. This site is rift with it.
Chris L, at the rate you are going and the way you continue to mischaracterize me and what I say, I’d say you have already mucked it up by your presence.
If you only help people with whom you expect some return, be it a change in behavior or other, then it is not mercy or help – it is an investment. Mercy and grace are on a one way street.
Rick,
Most all us have some reason to claim victimhood, and to blame our current actions on past injustices done to us. Some people refuse to assign blame and carry on. Others do not. We should help those who do/can not to overcome them, particularly when they are fresh and/or awful. At some point, though, one must move to the end of the grief cycle to acceptance, and move on.
A bad upbringing is not an excuse for current sins. While it might be causal in a person’s mind, the choice to sin is theirs alone, and is not more than they can bear. (I Corinthians 10:12-14)
RE: 260
I’m sorry, Chris L., but you’re straining.
I think we can infer that Lott knew the platform in light of the fact that he recalled that Mississippi was one of just four states that voted for it. I’m pretty cognizant of it myself, even though I was just a twinkle in my grandfather’s eye at the time. Lott knew the history.
They say that actions speak louder than words. While I appreciate his apology, I also recall that Lott himself was a segregationist.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html
Chris L., I want complete honesty. What if a Democrat and former segregationist stated at a party of another former segregationist that he was proud of his segregationist run for the Presidency?
Would you consider that just a harmless little birthday fun?
And
So:
Question: How black/white/asian/etc. must a church be before it no longer “reflects the kingdoms of our gated communities” and reflects the kingdom of God?
You’ve been pretty consistent that churches that aren’t diverse enough (even by community standards) don’t cut the mustard in the Kingdom. So, with that in mind, what is “black enough” or “white enough” for the kingdom?
A boy, born to a whore, was passed around to several men and beaten and molested. His mother left him with a borfriend when she went to jail for several months. He ate frrom garbage sometimes, and he was very diminutive and picked on constantly.
He turned to petty crime to gain acceptance, and no one ever told him they loved him. Ever. He spent most of his teenage years in juvenile prison and learned abuse more and more.
The man’s name was Manson. I suggest his isn, although still his own, were somehow related to his “bad upbringing”. (There are many upringings worse than this)
If he was referencing a political campaign 60 years previously (when he was 7 years old), and didn’t make any additional statements that suggested he knew of the racial overtones of the campaign 60 years previously? And if watching the video of the event made it even more obvious that the statement was not at all a political one, but simply a 100th birthday toast?
I’d say that if Lott had to resign, he should as well (but only for consistency sake, not because he was making a racist statement). If he/she had supported Lott staying in leadership in 2006, then there would be no hypocrisy, so I’d say let him stay.
“I’d say that if Lott had to resign, he should as well”
Eye for an eye. Politics dilutes Christian principles.
Aaaarrghhhhh.
What the heck does being 7 have to do with anything? You know what, I was negative 50 during the beer hall putsch, and I can tell you that was a bad idea. I was negative 110 when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter. That was also a bad idea.
Didn’t know of the racial overtones? Really? Really? So Lott just happened to know the electoral map of a 60 year old campaign, but couldn’t tell you what Strom was fighting for?
Really?
You know what, I don’t know Trent Lott’s heart. Maybe it was completely and totally innocent. Maybe not. But what came out was definitely incredibly stupid.
Intentionally or not, Trent Lott sung the praises of a racist presidential platform. Comparing that to un-pc remarks by Reid is asinine.
That is the usual reaction by sensible people when trying to engage Chris L on race or politics.
A question for anyone:
Which picture more accurately reflects the inbreaking of the kingdom of God:
A. A street with an all black church on one corner and an all white church on the other corner and neither see a problem with this.
B. A street with an all black church on one corner and an all white church on the other corner and both are becoming aware that as Christ’s body and earthly representatives, they are not reflecting the diversity of the Kingdom as well as they could and are seeking to do something about that?
My answer: B
Yours?
(this test is not open for reinterpretation or Chris L’s “well, what if you were 7 years old” crap)
A prayer for Haiti by Sam Wells, Dean of Duke Chapel:
#273 – I’d say a church in every home.
Wrong again, Rick. I’m simply pointing out what is consistent vs. what his hypocritical. “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” – If you think Lott should have resigned, then if you are in an identical situation, you should resign, as well.
Lott didn’t have to resign – it was his choice. In the same way, if MG’s hypothetical was true, and the person had called on Lott to resign, then the correct thing to do would be for him to resign, as well.
I heartily agree. And not something worth resigning over.
A youth minister of mine was called out on a cold winter day when the senior pastor was out of town to perform a funeral for a cousin of a church member who died from intoxication. At the graveside service, in the snow, he said a prayer which included “Lord, I pray that [Fred] is in a much warmer place than we are here today…”
He had no intention of saying something offensive, and was trying to speak to match the occasion, without fully thinking through what he was saying. He apologized profusely for his error, and the apology was accepted as purely accidental (which it was). I don’t see this as any different (though more offensive at face value) than what Lott said. In public speaking, particularly when speaking off the cuff, it is quite often easy to say things that – were you given a chance to completely think and write out a response – can be read to mean all sorts of offensive things. I’m willing to grant quite a bit of grace in such situations.
It depends – it could be A or B or neither, depending on a whole lot of information not available in the hypothetical. After all, we could just as well ask if it’s OK for there to be more than one church in any town. Answer – it depends on how they get along with one another. Same answer to your hypothetical.
LOL!
See 248.
Neither you nor Rick are good at following directions, I see.
So what? So it is OK so long as they get along outside of church? But when they gather for the most important event of their lives (worship) they go to their separate corners?
The point is, if no one sees anything wrong with this picture, something is wrong.
So, all things being equal, which scenario best depicts the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God- A or B?
Chad, your question is a false dichotomy. Diversity isn’t a requirement for the Kingdom of God, it is a reality. A single congregation is not called to reflect the diversity of the Kingdom of God, it is called to reflect the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
I’ve thought long and hard about this, having been around outright racism and genuinely loving and having a desire for all people to know Christ. My answer is that it takes all kinds to reach all kinds. In the previous town I was in we would gather as often as we could schedule it with all the churches in town. This brought together the socio, economic, and political differences of each local congregation. And we worshiped together. And the ministers met together to pray and we praised God and rejoiced together as each congregation was able to reach citizens in our small community. Our churches looked very segregated, but the Church in that community did not.
Do unto others as long as it is consistent to what they do to you.
It depends. We have no information on how they arrived where they are, or how they get along. Worship occurs 24/7, not just a single hour of the week on Sunday morning. So, I think it is likely far more important how they love one another during the other 167 hours of the week than what they do in a single hour one morning a week, when folks tend to be on their “best behavior”.
You could have churches in (A) which were perfectly in tune with the kingdom, and ones in (B) that completely miss the boat. You could have vice-versa. It comes down to love and how people treat one another, not whether people are intentionally cognizant of racial differences and “diversity”.
if memory serves me, pastorboy went on moderation for ascribing to a brother in christ the name of a satanic deity… repeatedly and after being asked not to.
i asked him to respect the bishop of durham. and since then i believe he has.
i asked you to honor pastorboy’s request to use his screen name.
you have chosen not to, but were not put on moderation.
so i guess you are benefiting from any alleged double standard as much as chris l.
the fellowship i belong to is predominantly white. across the street is a church that is wholly black.
neither prohibits attendance of the other.
we work together tp meet the needs, both physical and spiritual, of the neighborhoods that surround out two churches.
neither of us see a problem with this.
chad,
i am amazed at what makes you mad… it’s as if you actively seek out things over which you can enjoy getting mad.
Neil,
I am amazed at the blatant hypocrisy on this blog. You guys seem to revel in it.
The fact that you dismiss Chris L’s disrespectful use of someone’s name when you personally have called John Chisham on the same thing numerous times is just beyond me. Maybe if you pulled your nose out Chris L’s backside you’d be able to see how hypocritical you guys are.
Christian P –
What you describe is, essentially, scenario B.
I think that’s great.
And Neil, how quickly you forget – you “moderated” the discussion between John and I where I told him I’d stop using his real name when he took down those demeaning posters on his blog and/or stopped questioning the salvation of others.
Your response was: Sounds fair, PB, how bout it?
He has not done either.
Nor am I the one writing a post about double standards in others.
You guys should clean up your own lumberyard before you go pointing fingers at others.
per #286 – Chad, you are throwing around some accusations that I think you need to check. We correct, admonish, and rebuke each other regularly. Wrong behavior is wrong behavior. Please stop demonizing. Just so you know, I called Chris L. on some stuff recently, now I’m calling you on it.
Neither was I… (though the observation was accurate).
We’ve let PB “get away” with a number of things – it was the use of another deity (with Bell) and the attacks on another commenter’s name (Bo) that got him moderated… We’ve let the milder stuff go (or at least I have)… As for the mockery of leadership currently in the White House, I think we’ve got a long way to go before a “0″ can hold a candle to the truly vile things tossed at the previous office holder….
Christian (and Zan) in particular have given me pause on some comments a few weeks ago, leading me to step back.
And as for Christian and your “hypothetical”, I think I’d let him speak for himself (A or B are OK when handled correctly in love) rather than put words in his mouth…
262–How the hell did I get dragged into that? I haven’t even been here all day??
For the record, I have nothing to do with who does and does not go on moderation. That is strictly the site owner’s call. I may have input, but I have never made that decision. Believe me, because if I did, Chad, you would have gone on it a long, long time ago.
You talk about trying to have a conversation with Chris L., you should try having a conversation with Chad. It damn near impossible because you are unteachable. Sorry, friend. I know that will probably cause you to go off on some riff about how I am a racist or something, but it’s the truth.
i did not dismiss it.
i believe you have some anger issues.
re 288:
i’m not sure why you’re so angry chad. i asked you to respect pb’s request, you made a counter offer, i thought that fair and i asked pastorboy to comply.
he did not,
so you have continued to use his name.
i have not said anything about it until you brought it up.
we’ve been accused of this before. someone posts a comment and if we do not rail on it within an hour it apparently means we agree.
to all – please see “debunking – paragraph 1.”
“I think we’ve got a long way to go before a “0? can hold a candle to the truly vile things tossed at the previous office holder….”
Again, a curious standard which seems at odds with certain teachings that we sometimes say we believe.
You did not dismiss it, Neil? So where have you told Chris L that his disrespect of Obama’s name, using “Zero” or “Messiah” or “The One” or “0Bama” is inappropriate, childish and mean-spirited? Those are the same things you called John for doing the same exact things to Bell, Wright, Jones and anyone else he doesn’t like.
You can call it “anger issues” all you like. The fact is, you are being a hypocrite and refuse to admit it. And Chris L is doing everything he can to justify his behavior – even using the “well, others said vile things about Bush so I can do it too” argument- rather than just apologize for it.
Don’t you see how two-faced you guys are being? Seriously.
Jerry, you didn’t get “dragged” into anything. I asked you, Neil and Phil a question for whenever you got here. As far as your other involvement, you wrote a post about double-standards and the writers of this site appear to be full of double standards.
Politics is the prism for revealing the spectrum of double standards. I really cannot understand how someone as intelligent and well versed in Scripture as Chris L. is can justify being careless with Christian teachings because of political leanings.
It was that hypocrisy in myown life that led me to re-examine my political involvement. It became evident that those who were on my political “side” were every bit as carnal and demeaning as those on the other “side”.
Eventually I saw the entire genre as a colossal dunghill that promoted unchristian behavior and speech. We all cross those lines sometimes without participating in a forum designed to promote it. Jesus looks at Barak with eyes of redemption, as should we – unless we are looking through different eyes.
Sometimes you do. I’m bringing to your attention your double standard on this case and no one has said a word of it apart from justifying what is deemed wrong behavior in others. It’s hypocritical, Christian.
FTR – This has nothing to do with Obama or party affiliation or anything like that. It has everything to do with the fact that Chris L is increasingly demeaning and disrespectful towards anything or anyone whom he disagrees with and uses the same childish antics that several of you here (Neil, Jerry, Phil) have called out John Chisham on.
If you guys are worried about being consistent and truly do think “wrong is wrong” than why are you justifying Chris L’s behavior?
299- amen
#299 – I can answer my own question. I believe Chris L’s career rubs shoulders with a certain amount of politics, as well as his Biblical stand on some moral issues. However, he must process a certain amount of my rhetoric and entertain some of it as somewhat “interesting”.
I have learned things from him and I trust he will learn some things from me.
With which teachings am I being “careless”, Rick?
When you disrespect men in authority with demeaning names and labels which is unchristian to begin with. (juvenile on some level as well)
But then when you suggest your names are as bad as the other “side” used against Bush, well that is the “world’s” justification for almost all their sins.
“At least I’m not Manson!”
Issues? Sure. Names that are dismissive? No. (i.e. Painted girls of Sodom, Messiah, etc.) The entire thing reeks, and goes to prove my “politics compromises Christian principles” theorum. It also reveals how seriously politics affects the heart.
I don’t know that I’ve ever called out PB for calling people names, but I have called him out for thinking he’s the Holy Spirit by telling us who is and isn’t saved.
Generally, I don’t really think calling someone a name does anything to build a case you’re trying to make. It simply sets up another wall of resistance against the people you’re debating.
“But then when you suggest your names are not as bad…”
BTW Chris – I am not calling you a hypocrite. I think overall you are or attempt to be fair. But politics does what it does, and I think you have at least given it some thought in the last several years.
Things like this would be more acceptable:
Obama is: a deceiver, a socialist, unequiped, etc.
Not acceptable:
Obama: The Messiah, Zero, Moron, the Chosen One, etc.
There is a difference, although in a Christian context we would be better to avoid them all.
Rick, you’re probably right. There is a very short list of folks, of whom our dear leader is one, for whom I am physically reviled to even listen to, let alone name. And it’s not so much the person as it is the combination of position + person (and not each of the positions is a political one, FYI) that leads to the revulsion. I suppose part of it may be politics, but part of it is not.
For early Christians, the name “Caesar” was treated with a good deal of contempt – we’ve got examples in writing and ‘graffiti’ – and fear. He was “the beast”, “666″ and a good number of other things. Out modern leaders/masters/etc. may be just as corrupt, but they are not nearly so pernicious and are not as deserving as was Caesar. So, yes, I am entangled, and I’ll be convicted of what I’m convicted, and look for ways to improve. As such, maybe I’ll just give myself a “B+” and move on…
Or, you could just apologize and we could move on.
Would you show the same contempt and revulsion towards a Republican president?
Would using ‘his’ full name be appropriate?
Barak Hussein Obama? or BHO? I am not being snarky, just wondering.
I would say it depends on your intent. Given the history, most people who used his full name did so only to stir up their “base” by trying to link Obama to Islam or terrorism or both. It wasn’t done out of respect but out of disgust.
And given the history of several around here, I would not believe they had nothing but respectful intentions when using his full name.
IRONY ALERT
I’m curious, would you defend a Republican president so vigorously?
I do not believe we should defend any president as a president. We should defend them as a sinner for whom Christ died. We can confront each other as brothers as to our conduct, but sinners need Christ. Barak needs Christ and I pray for him and his family.
If Christ died for him, how can I deride him unless my politics and economics take precident.
John Chisham, how is that irony?
I’m not defending anyone, Joe. Im’ pointing out a double standard by some of the writers here. If the tables were turned, yes, I’d do the same no matter who was president.
I have said this before and I’ll say it again – I don’t care about political parties. I care about issues. I could care less if they are red or blue.
I apologize on behalf of Chris L for the double-standard we have set up here and for offending Chad.
On second thought, no I don’t. It is brilliant because Chad, however unwittingly, continues to prove the point of my post: Liberals hold to a different standard when it comes to their own. Chad, enough with the self-righteous martyr mode.
I hate to end a great conversation, but isn’t your monthly colonic finished yet?
Rick,
Barack Hussein Obama has already confessed Jesus as Lord.
Jerry, what has happened to you?
You used to be one of the more sensible people around here.
#317 – I hope he has, as do I hope Bush has. Both men seem to believe all roads and religions can lead to the true God. Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson all had as well.
They will not stand before God as presidents; they will stand before him as sinners – either redeemed or damned.
And neither do they stand before you or I either Rick.
#320 – I do not get your point. I said I was praying for Barak since I have my doubts about his conversion and you printed his entirename and said he professed Christ.
Are you informing me that they will not stand before us because you either believe I do not know that or you believe I am judging them now?
It is Irony Chad because of the quote I printed from you, being the very reason you print my full name. Thats Irony and hypocrisy.
Barak Hussein Obama is not a Christian in the orthodox sense of the word, but he is pretty emergent like George Walker Bush…..believing that Allah (the moon god) and Elohim, Yahweh, are one and the same.
FYI, this is the standard flattery tactic Chad exhibits of “you are smart/wise/etc. enough, I know you really do/don’t believe [X]“.
Smokescreens and flattery all around…
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but IIRC, I was pretty critical of Bush for a number of years, despite voting for him as the lesser of two evils in 2004…
“You changed… You used to be cool, man…”
Chad,
I am still one of the more sensible people around here. I am as sensible as Chris L, Neil, Joe, Brendt, Eugene, Christian, Chris and Joe C. We are not the problem. We discuss things, as adults. You make things personal. But I don’t need to defend those guys.
You always say that ‘we’ let our politics cloud our theology without realizing that you have done the same thing. You’ll condemn Chris L because he has a conservative stance on policy, but you won’t rebuke yourself for your liberal stance–as if your liberalism is more pure and holy and righteous than Chris’ conservatism (and he might not even be a full fledged conservative like, say, the other Chris). And you do many things like this.
I told you Chad. It’s not you I dislike. It’s not your politics–which you are free to practice. It’s not even your misguided liberal theology which never seems to be beyond the current class you are taken. It’s your attitude. It’s that ugly, unteachable, condescending attitude towards anyone and anything with whom you disagree. You treat people who disagree with you with contempt–not with Christian charity. You don’t just disagree with people, no that’s not enough. It’s not enough for you until you have painted them or labeled them a homophobe or a racist or worse. You won’t even take time to try and understand someone else’s point before launch into a tirade about how hateful they are and how racist they are and how the ‘don’t understand the plight of the poor’ because they disagree with you about taxes and the place of government in our lives.
I grant the jabs go both ways, but frankly the spirit coming from you is ugly because, I say as one pastor to another, you ‘ought to know better.’ There’s not an ounce of humility in your voice when you comment here.
I’m not sorry to be so honest with you, but you asked. I want to see you love people–even those with whom you disagree, and be kind to them.
Rick,
Because I think you are judging him now.
jerry
I said, “Barak needs Christ and I pray for him and his family.”
I stand by that type of “judging”.
(If it ends up he was saved, I will not be unhappy)
I won’t belabor the point, but why would you say that he ‘needs Christ’ when he has already said he has him? That’s like praying that a fish have water when it’s living in the ocean. Eh, whatever. That’s your call. I’m off. Later guys.
I’m sorry you feel that way, Jerry.
Like I said, you used to be the more sensible one around here.
#329 – There are plenty of people who say they have Christ about whom you have serious doubts. You’ve never met any like that? I’m sure you have.
I’m not sure why you made my comment an issue.
chad,
i have publicly and privately chaffed at some of the rhetoric other posters have used here… from time to time i have challenged them on their tone. sometimes they agree and other times they do not.
if you do not like the fact that i do not do it every time YOU think i should… too bad.
and, no surprise, i think jerry pretty much nailed it in 326.
Chris L.,
Regarding 276, the example you cite, I think, is quite inapposite.
The reason is this. Your friend was guilty essentially of an unintended double entendre. The result is a statement that was, at best, declasse. But any charitable listener would realize that there was one meaning meant, and it was the non-offensive one. Surely no one would say the hurtful meaning on such an occasion.
Trent Lott, though, was not guilty of a double entendre. Rather this is what he said:
“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”
There is really just one way to interpret that. Strom Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform. Mississippi voted for him (together with three other states), and Trent Lott (together with citizens of Mississippi, for whom Trent is speaking), is proud of the vote. Plus, had Strom Thurmond been elected, the United States would be better for it.
Now, because this is clearly not a double entendre, you are basically left with one argument; namely, that Trent Lott was ignorant of Strom Thurmond’s platform. So when he endorsed the 1948 run, he was endorsing “State’s Rights,” but not segregation.
Is this the case? Perhaps. It’s difficult to say. Maybe Trent Lott truly is that ignorant. Somehow, though, I doubt it.
Trent Lott actually made similar remarks in 1980 while campaigning for Reagan. Lott first entered the United States Congress in 1968, just twenty years after Strom Thurmond ran. And he recalled that Mississippi was one of just a few states that voted for Thurmond in 1948.
So there it is. That’s as fair a summation as I can come up with. I don’t really have a position on whether Lott should have been forced out. My only (rather modest, I think) argument is that comparing Lott’s comments to Reid is misplaced.
so there are two ways of interpreting lott’s comments – one racist and one not.
i’m not arguing for or against lott – just say’n that even that comment has two possible interpretations.
I had forgotten the entirety of Lott’s comments. No one should ever be proud of voting for Strom back then. And seeing Strom still being a senator even when he looked like a ghost on Pirates of the Carribean is another revelation of the political machine.
Reid’s comments were true but ill advised. Lott should have been given the opportunity to explain himself. Both parties become pirana when blood is in the water.
I suppose when it comes down to it, the way we interpret a person’s comments has a lot to do with what we think of that person. And in politics, that often comes down to whether or not we like a person’s views or not. I imagine if Trent Lott were someone we actually knew in real life, it would be a different issue. I suspect most people are more charitable in the real world than they are on the internet, otherwise I’d suspect there would be far more violent crimes than there already are.
I’m doubting that he even knew Thurmond’s platform. When I think to 30 years ago (half of the 60-year gap w/ Lott), I couldn’t tell you anything about Reagan’s platform aside from “I’m not a failure like Jimmy Carter”, and I don’t even remember a thing from Ford’s platform in ‘76 (when I was 8). However, if I was giving a toast to Ford at his 100th birthday party (were he still alive in 2013), I’d certainly say that I wish he’d won. If later I found out that he supported abortion on demand, I would apologize if someone took my toast as an endorsement of that position, but that I was simply being kind to a friend on his 100th birthday (Lott’s defense).
To assume perfect political awareness of losing party platforms over half a century ago is pretty darn unrealistic (to say nothing of uncharitable). If I’d been at Thurmond’s birthday party and knew that he once ran for president (not knowing a thing about it), I’d have said I wished he’d won – simply knowing that it was during a period where the Welfare State took root, and that it wouldn’t have happened under an ideologically different administration.
#336 – Excellent point. It clearly elaborates the political atmosphere.
Chris L.,
I fear that the word “platform” is a little misleading here.
I don’t know that much about Reagan’s platform 1980, granted, other than he was running on lower taxes, increased defense, greater vigilance in the Cold War, stronger foreign policy (dealing with Iran especially), etc.
But yes, there are nuances, I’m sure, that I’m not aware of.
But let’s look at 1948. Strom Thurmond, raised a Democrat (just like Trent Lott), broke away and, you know, formed his own party. He did it specifically because of integration (and particularly Truman’s decision to integrate the Armed Forces).
So, it’s not so much a platform, as a one issue crusade that Strom Thurmond was running on (and for which State’s Rights was just a polite way of saying the same thing).
Like your other comments, 337 is a stretch, at best. The idea that Lott would be totally ignorant of the center, foundation, and heartbeat of the 1948 run is wishful thinking.
I believe the term “double standard” is numerically way too conservative.
Rick,
I wasn’t making a big deal of it. I just found it ironic.
Chad,
I don’t need your apologies or want them. It’s not I who needs sympathy. And if by the word ‘used’ you are implying that I am less balanced now, so be it. But the fact is, you do not know how to play nicely in this sandbox.
Now back to your regularly scheduled debate–which you, my friend, have lost.
jerry
Uh…Ok.
This is a shocking, sad documentary:
Born into Brothels
The reason I mention it is because it demonstrates the nigh impossibility, except for God intervening, that a young person has of pulling themselves out of the dredges of society. It takes place in India – far removed from the stereotypes and such that we might be tempted to lean on. We might be tempted to look at the Pursuit of Happyness and other feel good stories, but these are few and far between from what I can see. Only Christ.
What a world? May your kingdom come Lord.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704081704574652651879809462.html
Interesting op-ed from the Journal. I probably agree with 98% of it.
Double standards?
The republican candidate has won Ted Kennedy’s seat in the senate. He is against Obama’s version of healthcare reform. Hooray!
Uh-oh. He is decidedly pro-choice. When will believers understand it is raining and there is no political place to run. If Jesus tarries most Republicans will either be pro-choice or tepidly pro-life.
Sorry – we’re already there.
Signed,
Looking forward to November!!