Hannity guest on Obama's church: Its "scary doctrine" is "something that you'd see in more like a cult"
On the February 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, during a segment discussing the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the church to which Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) belongs, co-host Sean Hannity stated that "many" call Trinity "separatist," adding that "in some cases, even drawing comparisons to a cult." Guest Erik Rush, a columnist for the conservative website WorldNetDaily, said that the church's "scary doctrine" is "something that you'd see in more like a cult or an Aryan Brethren Church or something like that." Just the day before, Hannity -- referring to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) -- had claimed: "We created a new religious litmus test. This is very troublesome to me, and no other candidate is getting that scrutiny."
Referring to "The Black Value System," which is advocated by Trinity, Rush stated: "I would go beyond saying that they're Afrocentric. They're African-centric. They refer to themselves as an African people, and that somewhat disturbs me from the viewpoint of, well, do they consider themselves Americans? Do they consider themselves Christians? Are they worshipping Christ? Are they worshipping African things black? Well, I mean, what is it?" Later in the segment, when co-host Alan Colmes asked: "Are you questioning Barack Obama's Christianity?" Rush responded simply: "Yeah."
In fact, Trinity refers to itself as "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian," while the "Black Value System" encourages parishioners to be "soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind." As Media Matters for America has previously noted, a February 6 Chicago Tribune article stated that the church's "value system" was adopted in 1981 to hold "black Christians accountable for taking care of their own and for continuing to fight oppression." In an interview, Obama reportedly told the Tribune, "If I say to anybody in Iowa -- white, black, Hispanic or Asian -- that my church believes in the African-American community strengthening families or adhering to the black work ethic or being committed to self-discipline and self-respect and not forgetting where you came from, I don't think that's something anybody would object to. ... I think I'd get a few amens."
Addressing conservative criticism of the "value system," Obama also reportedly told the Tribune, "Commitment to God, black community, commitment to the black family, the black work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect. ...Those are values that the conservative movement in particular has suggested are necessary for black advancement." He added, "So I would be puzzled that they would object or quibble with the bulk of a document that basically espouses profoundly conservative values of self-reliance and self-help."
From the February 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: So, as the election season kicks into high gear, we have been repeatedly reminded of Mitt Romney's affiliation with the Mormon church, Latter Day Saints.
However, new information has recently come to light regarding the Trinity Unity [sic] Church in Chicago. That's the one that Senator Barack Obama calls home. Trinity Church's congregation subscribes to a 10-point list, which they refer to as, quote, "Afrocentric." Now, a closer look at the church's vision has led many to call them separatist and, in some cases, even drawing comparisons to a cult.
Joining us now with more on the Trinity Union Church is columnist Erik Rush.
Erik, thank you for being with us, my friend. Appreciate it.
RUSH: Thank you -- pleasure to be here.
HANNITY: Let's -- let's look -- if we look specifically at the 10 items in the church -- for example: commitment to God. Basics, simple -- nobody will disagree.
RUSH: Right.
HANNITY: Commitment to the black community. What if it was a commitment to the white community? Commitment to the white family versus commitment to this church, which says commitment to the black family.
RUSH: Right.
HANNITY: Your thoughts?
RUSH: Well, that -- well, the first thing I did in the column that I wrote was interpolated the words black for white, and I looked at it and suddenly, I was looking at this really scary doctrine, you know. It was something that you'd see in more like a cult or an Aryan Brethren Church or something like that.
I would go beyond saying that they're Afrocentric. They're African-centric. They refer to themselves as an African people, and that somewhat disturbs me from the viewpoint of, well, do they consider themselves Americans? Do they consider themselves Christians? Are they worshipping Christ? Are they worshipping African things black? Well, I mean, what is it?
HANNITY: Well, let me ask you that because, beyond what we just mentioned, you know, the commitment to the black community, the black family, you know, the black work ethic they mentioned in this document, the black community, pledge allegiance to black leadership who embrace the "Black Value System."
RUSH: Right.
HANNITY: You know, if there were a presidential candidate and they were part of a church and, as you point out in your column, you substitute the word "black" for the word "white," there would be an outrage in this country.
RUSH: Yes. Massive
HANNITY: There would be cries of racism in this country.
RUSH: Massive.
HANNITY: Will there -- will this even be a controversy in your view?
RUSH: I think that it could become something of an issue. You know, I've had people flaming me, but I've also had people writing me saying, you know, "What took you guys" -- I guess it means, the media -- "so long to uncover this, because they really are quite cultish, quite separatist?"
COLMES: Mr. Rush, this is Alan Colmes. I have a question. Are you questioning Barack Obama's Christianity?
RUSH: Yeah.
COLMES: Who are you to do that?
RUSH: Anyone just the same as anyone else who can make a discernment about someone's faith.
So analyzing someone's religion is fair game now? Neat! Let's go:
Does George W. Bush actually believe that a a guy who's been dead for 2,000 years - if he existed at all - is someday going to clap his hands and descend through a hole in the clouds and pluck his favorites up to live with him in some non-corporeal eternal paradise?
Really? Are you freaking kidding me? And we let him run the country?
Amazing, isn't it? And every other candidate running today, and to my knowledge every single president in our history has shared ole' George's respect and importance of faith.
I guess they can all figure out how that all happened when they meet in the eternal paradise.
I bet you're made as h*ll that you didn't refresh your browser fast enough to get the first post. You really have no life....it's obvious now.
Just because Tommy Boy spends 6 or 7 hours per day on here doesn't mean he has no life. ; )
Wait a minute. Just because he has no life doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to spew his (sometimes hateful) rhetoric. In fact, having no life may be a prerequisite (sp?).
So? That makes Bush's beliefs any less completely insane?
To you?, No.
But you were talking about running the country. And if we waited for that job to be handed to an atheist, I am afraid it may take awhile.
Actually we were talking about Bush's insane religious fantasies.
Hmmm?
Sorry, what part of that did you not understand?
You mentioned "running the country", that was your context.
And you brought up atheism out of the blue, when nobody else had mentioned it. Since atheists don't have irrational supernatural beliefs I didn't see how that was relevant.
Rusty, This isn't hard - you were questioning why someone with such faith was running a country. I simply pointed out that you're going to have a long wait to find someone who shares your beliefs, or nonbeliefs on faith.
Do you disagree with that?
Why do you keep changing the subject? Hannity is scrutinizing Obama's church's doctrine. Why does Obama get singled out for this scrutiny?
Because he is a presidential candidate who belongs to a church that espouses a separatist doctrine -the topic of this thread. Me changing the subject? You were the first out of the box to bring Bush into it, so ask yourself who is changing the subject?
You were. Hannity opened the door for a rigorous analysis of church doctrine. Let's talk about Bush's. Let's talk about Romney's. I mean, if it's so relevant, as Hannity insists, then why only Obama?
Take it up with the moderators here, be my guest.
Yet another total LIE the right is disseminating. Obama’s church does not espouse a separatist doctrine. I am sure like so many Black churches; this church was organized during a time of legalized/defacto segregation. Those adopted mottos and creeds were written by people that were marginalized by the larger society and they reflect the realities of those times. During those times nobody gave a damn about what happened to or in the Black community other than Blacks themselves and the church leaders were THE leaders of the community. It’s nothing insidious going on here. Tommy Obama's church has White members, if they were separatists I'm sure that wouldn't be allowed. Amazingly the type of people that were so responsible for racial segregation and discrimination scream the loudest about the institutions that Blacks established to help themselves when NO ONE gave a damn about us. Now we are supposed to abandon and forget those organizations that worked tirelessly for the advancement of our community because a professional race baiting trouble maker like Hannity doesn’t like it. Hannity tried to get Michael Steele to agree with him on this the other night, and Steele would not. So Hannity found some nameless Black face to shake his head in agreement with him. Steele probably won’t be back on the HANNITY show any time soon.
"Obama's church has White members" --lynn
That's obviously impossible, lynn. Tommy just told us Obama's church "espouses a separatist doctrine". Why would tommy say that if it ain't true?
Thank you girlfriend, I thought I wasn't the only one seeing this.
This church is NOT preaching a (sic) separatist doctrine. They are preaching to help your fellow man, and that it starts in your own community. How can you blame them for that?
Tommy, does your real name happen to be Rush or Sean?
separatist doctrine
So being an openly gay male with a partner, would we be invited to join the same Church as Georgie and Pickles?
Then someone has to be the biggest fool here. This not about his Obama's religion it about his chances of winning. The right wants Clinton to win because we want the good old days of flat out bashing. Barak is a threat because his articulate and that scares the likes of Hannity and their ilk. The White House is the last bastion that they can hold on too.
Beside Erik Rush looked like a bumbling idiot Tommy Boy, if you saw the interview he couldnn't hold a sentence and couldn't defend what he wrote. It is an Afrocentric Church that something some people can't understand. Because that they don't understand they become flat out dumb just like Hannity trying to make something out of nothing. Through their ignorance they did not want to delve into the good the church Obama belongs too. If you are not a Christian or a Catholic then you are going to damnation. I want to know why don't we ask the canadidates about their religion. Now, what evangelical has the say in this country utter bull$^it. Now the right and the minnions have come to these tactics using a so called freelance writer when I saw his credentials where suspect at best. So by the end of the day Hannity was a dumb a$$ of having this man on the show to be an expert
I'm with Rusty on this one. I would much rather have a president who is more concerned with matters of this world than the next.
It makes you wonder why this country, essentially forged out of religious tolerance, is entirely intolerant of those who are not religious. In a recent poll, Americans were less likely to vote for an atheist than for any other ethnic or religious minority. Frankly, I don't see how independence from organized religion could possibly handicap one's ability to perform the duties of President. I think many Americans are simpletons who don't have the ability to live by any moral code unless the code is laid out for them accompanied by an appropriate fear of their "Creator." This leads them, in turn to assume that atheists have no internal moral compass, which is absurd.
I'll say this much: An atheist President would not be caught pandering to religious groups like our current "Christian" leader. And an atheist sure as hell wouldn't be baited into giving Muslim extremists the holy war with the West they have long desired.
Would the policy of an atheist President just be that of non-involvment in this tiff between the sons of Abraham?
Who says the U.S. should be involved in every religious "tiff"(as you put it)? Wouldn't it be okay to just sit one out. Itis not up to the US to impose its religion on the rest of the world (especially since, although we have no official religion, we have seen that one had better be a Christian to advane in politics. Call me crazy (and I'm certain you will, but getting embroiled iin a holy war war isn't 01always the mode you wan to see.
Wrong again, Tommy.
GWB is a fundamentalist, born again, evangelical Christian, who believes in the literal truth of the bible.
I'd say he is rare among our presidents.
Wrong again,
I specifically said his respect and importance of faith......not the specific tenets of his beliefs.
But we weren't talking about "respect and importance of faith." We were talking about particular doctrine, as Hannity was. Hannity is terrified of Obama's church's doctrine, but Bush's irrational beliefs don't seem to bother him.
Terrified? Where did you get that from? He rightly called it separatist. Bush is not the topic of this thread, despite your machinations otherwise.
Why not? The topic of this thread is scrutinizing the doctrines of politicians' churches. Why not Bush? His church believes some very strange and disturbing things. Why does he get a pass, but not Obama?
Wow, when I am accused of changing the topic it's called "derailment", but you get a pass?
I didn't change the topic. I'm following precisely the trail Hannity blazed.
Shh.....don't let it out that you're following Hannity's trail. You will be expunged from here.
Who gave exclusive right to Hannity to have all of the fun? His tactic leaves him open to ridicule playing by his own rules. I say let 'er rip.
It's because you do it constantly there T-dog.
It isn’t anything separatist about his church. There's a historical context that these morons refused to see because they don't want to. They simply want to stir up racial animus under the guise of pretending to advance their ficttious color blind society. (color neutral should be the goal) In this delusional fantasy color blind world, race can never be mentioned and you have to pretend that you can't tell the difference between Wesley Snipes from Goldie Hahn. Stop the madness!!! And stop attacking our historic institutions. When our own country told us we were SH-IT these institutions kept us from drowning in a sea of poverty, ignorance, and SELF HATRED. They were there to mend the bruises inflicted by our fellow countrymen-government the minute we attempted to venture out of the out of the confines of the impoverished world we were forced to live in. That’s the historic context, so now you know.
I have never seen tommy acknowledge historical context. He will soon ask us all if it is okay for whites to help only whites or something along those lines as if color has anything to do with the argument. Historical oppression is the reason. The oppressed minority often groups together for political protection. It is a natural reaction to historical oppression. If blacks were the historically oppressive majority, whites would be doing the same thing and it would be perfectly understandible.
Feel free to make your own points and leave your projections of my views to me.
No Tommy, we're just as free to dissect your posts as anyone else. Deal widit.
It's not a projection, it's an observation about your repeated comments on matters of race. Your record is plain for everyone to see and Open_Mind's comments were accurate.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of my "projection" below. You're apparently a one trick pony on this issue, tommy.
;^)
And what a huge load of liberal guilt ridden baloney that is? Incredible.
Most humans are capable of guilt. All too often cons will assume that guilt is what drives liberals. Like most other things, they are incorrect. But desperate men will cling to comfortable assumptions when backed into a corner.
Reasonable guilt is highly underrated.
That comment has merit. Keyword:Reasonable.
Which part would constitute the baloney Tommy? The FACT that this country was officially racist/segregated for the VAST majority of its existence? The FACT that strength, stemming from numbers, would lead to the oppressed MINORITY to assemble with the aims of advancing their agenda of being treated as equal? What are you talking about here Tommy, really? By the way, what part of the doctrine is separtist? I didn't gleen from the post that Obama's church seeks to cede from the Union, or go the Garvey route and lauch a repatriation effort. So where is the separatism to be found other than in the mischaracterization of the language of the church's doctrine? So you cannot grasp the historical context that has been pointed out at least twice so far in this thread, at least provide accurate examples of where this separatism comes into play. I dare you.
Lynn,
I don't know who keeps propulgating this "color blind" myth that many associate with conservatives? I have never admitted such a thing, so that is a straw argument. As for race, it can absolutely be mentioned any time, any place.......but to level the term racist whenever it suits some political agenda, where no evidence of it exists, is sleazy and abhorent. That is what I object to.
This church can have any doctrine it feels like......but don't expect it to be some sacred cow that cannot be criticized for it's absolutely separatist doctrine simply because of historical wrongs. As I said, if the term "white" were inserted for "black", I would be calling it the same thing, exactly the same thing.
You are free to call it whatever you feel as well.
Tommy, I understand that you refuse to see the false equivalence.
I would like to know on what basis you feel comfortable asserting that a community banding together for their common good is "exactly the same thing" as the Aryan Nation or whatever white racist group you care to name.
Val, I never said this church or it's doctrine was racist, or akin to some White Aryan nation - apparently you made that up to strenghten a weakened position. What they are is advocating seperatism. If a "white organization " advocated the same thing, I would call it the same thing. It is divisive, in my opinion. And it is a double standard and hypocritical if celebrated in this instance and criticized in another.
I was associating your argument with Hannity's and Rush's because I didn't see where you drew any distinction between your position and theirs.
It's hard for me to imagine any white group that would be analogous to Obama's church, because whites are not discriminated against in our society. In other words, their support group is society itself. I see no problem with any disadvantaged group banding together for mutual aid. You call that "separatism" and see something wrong. I guess my question is "why?"
Well argued.
Val
I think I hit the wrong buttons, because I remember this exact same arguement the first time Obama's church was mentioned (a month ago?). Tommy didn't get it then and I doubt he would get it now.
(Question for you Tommy: So for example, many churches have issues with homosexuality (to differing degrees). If I was to start a church in say "Boystown" Chicago (basically the gay ghetto), to preach to the LGBT community. We had policies and events to help the gay community, to provide help to those fired from jobs for being gay, or those bashed.
So, even though we had nothing that says "no heterosexuals allowed" (as Obama's church does not have "no whites allowed") and we even had heterosexual members. These people believe what we believe and want to help in hte causes we are involved in. But because its in the "gay" section of town it is 90% gay.
Would that be seperatist? Or should we go on a campaign in outside communities to recruite heterosexuals outside our community to join, to make you happy?)
And here you are just a few posts later reaffirming precisely what you took Open_Mind to task for pointing out.
Apparently, you or many of the ilk have just read the doctrine and the purpose of the church.
Oh Tommy,I'm speechless, well not quite but I do know discussing this with you is futile. As Open said you don't WANT to assess the situation through the appropriate historical perspective. I tell you what if we are to pretend that America is just now coming into existence I don't want to ever hear conservatives talk about the founding fathers or any of America's historical great events. Nothing ever happened prior to the here and now. BTW, yes Tommy some things are sacred, just think about how you feel about the free markets. BTW what you refer to as Liberal guilt I refer to as COMPASSION, it’s the ability to empathize with others and put yourself in the place of others and feel their circumstances. It’s not guilt.
Oh yeah that color blind thing. Do you actually read the posts of the right wingers that post here. Any mention of race apparently is against the rules, unless it's a joke term like Halfrican uttered by one of their politcal comedians. Now maybe it's a winger thing and. If I've made a mistake, my bad.
No Lynn you are dead on with the color blind myth. So's the Dems dis blacks myth that Ann Coulter is so fascinated with. When it's convenient cons charge us with a double standard with this excuse then turn around and "hug the tar baby" and that's o.k.
You mean like Osama bin Laden right?
"respect and importance of faith......"
What is beneficial about "faith?" Nothing, it's a dteriment. It clouds judgement. It confuses fantasy with reality. Too much emphasis is put on religion.
"I'd say he (Bush) is rare among our presidents."
I would just say he's been the worst among our Presidents, and leave it at that.
"...every single president in our history has shared ole' George's respect and importance of faith."
No too big on history, are you, Tommy? Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson? Ever read his version of the Bible?
Hello - not too big on comprehension - I said faith, not religion.
Faith in what, Tommy? Jesus? God?
Tommy, you do know that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus? How can you say he shares George's faith?
"every single president in our history has shared ole' George's respect and importance of faith."--tommy
I think tommy's argument was sufficiently vague enough to cover about 99% of all people that ever lived --not just presidents. It's just a worthless platitude. I think it is a mistake to take it seriously at all.
And that was a clever dodge, Tommy. Hannity wasn't talking about faith in the abstract; he was talking about Obama's church's particular doctrine. I say let's analyze every politician's church's doctrine, if we're really going to be fair and balanced. We are going to be fair and balanced, aren't we?
Analyze away, not a problem with me.
Great. Bush claims to believe literally in an outrageous fairy tale about an apocalyptic future. Making his chosen fairy tale come true requires the existence of Israel. Protecting Israel requires risky choices in the Middle East that may not be in our national interest.
Conclusion: Bush is not fit to be president because of his bizarre superstitious beliefs.
Point: You won't hear that on TV.
Great. Now who are you supporting for President who finds that belief as the unqualifier that you do? Because if you support one who does share that belief, in the existence of Israel, then you're just being unfair.
Sorry, who DOES share that belief.........
that's not what Rusty said Tommy.
He said that GWB's literal belief in an apocalyptic future depends on the existence of Israel.
You're playing games . And your employer is getting value for his investment.
I don't think most Christians are biblical literalists, and I doubt many presidential candidates are.
Rusty, Be honest - is it the literal interpretation that you find so disturbing - of which I don't believe myself either, but that's beside the point......or is it just the importance of faith and the beliefs that accompany one's faith that is the crux of the issue for you? And I respect your non-beliefs as I have said many times.
"is it the literal interpretation that you find so disturbing"
Yea, that disturbs me too... kinds wacky. if you ask me. But it's the political application that bothers me more.
BTW, Tommy, people who aren't religious don't have "non-beliefs", they have beliefs.Nor do we "believe in nothing", just different things than religious people.Superstitious and condescending is a bad combination.
Lessee here--help me out: a doctrine calling for a good-sized step of faith, an apocalyptic mindset as a cornerstone of said belief, adherents who congregate to strengthen their chosen faith, and will hold forth vociferously, yea--passionately when heretical suggestions might occasion such gatherings....who WERE those guys, anyway?
...by golly, folks--the Global Warm-mongers and the Religious Right ARE on the same page, cantcha see it?
Am I the only one?
...
The difference is "Global Warm-mongers" as you call them, don't welcome Armageddon at all and in fact believe it may be avoided, while the Republic church seems to do all they can to hasten its arrival.
Of the two, Republicists scare me more.
You have -0- backup for that statement.
Back at yah.
Those are some striking differences, Openmind. As well as one group being science and reality based, and the other being the total opposite, entirely rejecting science for faith.
Not to mention that the two are at complete opposite ends of a logical spectrum.I think Lemoc is confused by the similarities between Islamic Extremists and Christian ones, to the point of seeing passion on two sides of an issue as common ground.
Hbl,
I can see you're a person of faith. By parroting phrases such as "entirely rejecting science...", you are putting your faith in a notion you cannot support with fact, just because you like how it sounds.
And where did Islam get into this?
Sure HBL's generalities don't hold up entirely. If you didn't notice he was mocking your liberal use of that precise tactic yourself. Glad to see you got it....kinda.
;)
BTW, Rusty... Tommy is ignoring me and doesn't want to hear this, but did you know that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jjesus? But he believed in the morals of Jesus' teachings. So Jefferson cut out (literally) all mention of miracles and the resurection from his Bible.
I am not ignoring you, but Rusty has me running all over the place.......keeping up with him ain't easy.
Just waiting to hear you admit you were wrong...
Keep dreaming. That would require at least a modicum of intellectual honesty from him.
Rusty is holding perfectly still. You are the one doing the running.
Get a clue, it was a compliment to him........(geez!)
BTW, Rusty... Tommy is ignoring me and doesn't want to hear this, but did you know that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jjesus? But he believed in the morals of Jesus' teachings. So Jefferson cut out (literally) all mention of miracles and the resurection from his Bible.
I have heard that, Irony. When I read the gospels I mentally redact the supernatural stuff too. A powerful enough story without it.
R. S. Diddn't you say on last Ash wednesday something about you going to church?
What has Rusty ever said that would preclude him from attending any religious service?
Nothing he has posted is inconsistent with every Christian church. Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.
He referred derisively to Christianity as supernatural, which of course it is. Makes me question the sincerity of his arguement here.
"He referred derisively to Christianity as supernatural, which of course it is. Makes me question the sincerity of his arguement here." --Goobs
Read Rusty's post again. He is not attacking Christianity in general, as you suggest. He is ridiculing the literal interpretation of the Bible. RS obviously wasn't referring to Christians (like me and possibly himself) who are not literalists. I see no reason to doubt his sincerity in the least. Do you have to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible to be considered sincere?
For the record I am an agnostic, but I was raised in the Christian church and still attend from time to time with my fiancee, who is Christian. I think Christians have, and continue to do, enormous good in the world and the church offers comfort to many millions of people. That's a good thing. My only problem with religion is that people too often allow it to cloud their ability to reason; for example, biblical literalists.
My problem with what Hannity is doing is that he's using Obama's church's doctrine as a club against Obama, when you would never see him doing that to an "acceptable" Republican Christian like George W. Bush.
I know this proves I'm crazy, but I am a "devout" atheist. Meaning I reject all beliefs that cannot be proven with repeatable experiments, aka the scientific method. Sane so far. However, in order to preserver marital harmony I am a member of the same chruch as Shrub! Methodist. In fact I am such a good member I got some award last year for all the volunteering I did for the youth group.
So, my expample shows that just because you are a member or attend such and such a church, does not mean you buy into the ideology of said church or religion. I know, I am off the hypocrisy scale.
You're not alone. My family attends a United Methodist Church myself, although I am more of a deist/unitarian at heart.
While we're all standing around the campfire, sharing and opening up to one another, I want to just get this off my chest: I lusted in my heart, one time.
Boy,I feel better now. Thanks guys..
For the record, United Methodists have pretty diverse views. Each church and each member is encouraged to evaluate their faith and beliefs, not just blindly follow someone else, which is a legacy of John Wesley. For example, my church is open and welcoming to LGBT members. Unfortunately, in some other UM churches this would not be possible.
The national United Methodists distanced themselves from Bush soon after he was "elected" by the Supreme Court. And on subsequent issues such as the death penalty, gun ownership, (lack of) international aid, the "just war" concept, and many others, the United Methodists have publicly disagreed with the administration.
In my mind, Bush is hypocrite who acts in ways that could never be considered Christian. He actions are about as consistent with being a Christian as they are with being a member of Mensa.
Rusty,
We go 'round and 'round many times, but I appreciate your intellectual honesty and your directness - and your humor. We may disagree on many things, but you always manage to make me evaluate my positions and challenge my thinking. Unlike some here, you avoid the cheap shots and argue intelligently.
We both offer up the sarcasm at times, it lightens the moment at times.....but basically we probably agree on this issue for the most part. There is plenty of selective outrage on the right's part where religion is concerned...sometimes their sanctimony is more than irritating.
Thanks for the lively discussion yesterday..........good weekend.
Georgie really respects the 10 Commandments...except for thou shalt not kill of course.
Hmm...
does any President get through his term(s) without presiding over some killing, for perceived righteous causes?
How would you suggest a President proceed on the Commandments, then?
Sadly what you say is true. However, I do find it remarkable that Cheney, apparently not satisfied with all of the killing and destruction during the week, goes out and kills some more in his spare time!
The church/Cult of the republic party believes in murder, disease, war, poverty, hate, death, and vile immoral behavior. Clearly those who tout the "scary doctrine" are the completely vile and unhinged filth that reside in the republic party and their fruity fundie freak show.
You're making yourself look comical, Hog. You're really James Carville, aren't you?
Finally, an expert that confirms my suspicion that hannity knows more about cults than he is letting on...
Hannity's really getting desperate when he has to book a guest from WorldNutDaily.
Keep it up, Mr. Insanity.
Remember freedom of religion, folks?? Here it is circa 2007 on full display.
Absolutely, freedom of religion. Just call it what it is - a separatist church and let freedom reign.
Then evangelical Christianity is a wacko apocalyptic death cult.
Let freedom reign.
Describes perfectly another apocalyptic religion, defended to the death here.
For the last time, stop picking on the Republicists!
If it ain't AnthroGloboWarmo, then it's gonna be an asteroid ( it's scientific), or it's gonna be a Capitalist hiding under the bed, or we're gonna have a Nuke Power meltdown, or we reached Peak Production last year, and it's run for your life time--it's Apocalypse!!!
Dude, I think you popped something.
Fine, as long as we get to call Catholicism a sexist religion.
Call it whatever you'd like.
Just "calling it what it is."
As is Hannity
And the point, which you know as well as we do, is that for any media personality to call Christianity "what it is" would result in their being banished to the outer darkness, with much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Tommy/Pathetic will defend the filth in republic party when they trash religion, but tommy/pathetic will pound her little chest with fake outrage if someone on the left makes a comment about the right-wing cult's religion. Classic hypocrisy from the republic party of anti-America and pro-terrorism.
Then why won't you call Bush's religion what it is? (An apocalyptic death cult.) Why the double standard?
I said you are free to call it what it is, that is your definition. If I was unclear about agreeing with that, I apologize. Hannity has his right to call this particular church, and he wasn't referring to the religion, only the church, whatever he feels is appropriate. If I was unclear about not agreeing with that, I apologize again.
You were very unclear, as I believe you said "call it [Obama's church] what it is - a separatist church." That's fine with me, we can scrutinize Obama's church. I'm just wondering why it's only Obama's church that warrants scrutiny, when it seems that Bush's church has some very nutty beliefs as well.
Oh please tell me the semantic dodge is not going to be church vs. religion...
And Rusty, I said go ahead and scrutinize them all - from Obama to his internet bloggers.......it's all fine by me.
You misunderstand; I'm not asking your permission. I don't need it. I'm asking why people like Hannity are so selective about analyzing religious doctrine, once they start down that dangerous road. If you can't answer, you really don't need to keep responding although I appreciate your efforts.
I can't answer because you would have to ask Hannity why he does what he does? Is that clear enough for you?
Hannity can get away with calling Obama's church a cult. Pandagon is publically denounced for calling Catholicism a misogynistic ancient myth.
Well, my point is... this jerk Hannity is the guy on-high who's going to question any and all religion to see if it suits him. Not only that, you damn well better be Christian if you hope to get anywhere in this system of ours. That's the understanding and it's not very... well, 'Christian'. Thems sum irony there, too.
I dont agree its separatist, you repeating that dementedly wont MAKE it separatist. Do they call for separation from white society? Do the or do they not speak of the dignity of ALL mankind? No, your definitions do not define reality
Remember Rome, folks? Christians vs. Lions--spectator sport for the haters.
Your point being?
(note, my alias comes from the gnostic Desert Father, not the Roman emperor...)
"my alias comes from the gnostic Desert Father"
Cool... I enjoy reading about the Gnostics. Found that some of my own beliefs meshed easily with some of what I found from the Gnostic gospels.
Yeah, I took on this alias back when I identified much more with gnosticism. Now I am more of a pagan integral humanist, but I got used to the name. I just want to be sure no Roman-history geeks confuse me with any of three bugshit-insane imperial Valentinians...
Ahh,
..that comment was made to fit in somewhere back down the line; I forget where now. But actually, it's food for thought all by itself, no?
Uh, I'm pretty sure "afrocentric" and "african-centric" mean the same thing.
It is yet another instance of the most tired false equivalence of all, which is to act as if blacks supporting the black community are the moral equivalent of the Aryan Nation.
This is what 21st century American racism looks like, all "colour-blind" and unctuous with a nice "non-separatist" smiley face.
So, "non-separatist" is racist, but "separatist" is not?
No, but the black community looking out for the black community is not "racist."
It is, in fact, the community "pulling itself up by its own bootstraps," which is what the right has been insisting they do for generations...
Fine, then when the white community looks out for the white community, the same standards apply. Or is this a double standard?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the white community been looking out for the white community for some time now?
This is exactly the false equivalence I was speaking about.
There is nothing false about it. If you apply one set of standards for one, you need to for all, in this case. You cannot say the black community is only looking out for itself, but then say if a white church had the same doctrine with the word "white" inserted, it would be racist.
That is absurd.
Tommy, racism = discrimination + power. No power, no racism. There is all the difference in the world between a disadvantaged community coming together for mutual support, and a majority holding the minority down.
To act like they are the same is a false equivalence.
That is ridiculous. So black people cannot be racist? I have heard that idiotic line of reasoning before and it is absolutely the most absurd notion I have ever heard. And the ultimate in victimhood........good job.
Yes, black people in America cannot be racist.
Racism has a very specific meaning. A disempowered group cannot be racist towads a group in power. Individual blacks can be prejudiced against whites on account of their race, but that is not racism. I am not saying it is good, and I certainly deplore the horrible violence in Long Beach that Savagerocks is sure to bring up when he gets here. I am just saying it is differentfrom institutionalized racism.
No. I think you misunderstand racism to a degree. Racism is usually described as relating to a belief in racial superiority. Blacks can indeed be racists.
Where tommy makes his mistake is in ignoring the historic role of discrimination and oppression by a majority group over a minority group. This has nothing to do with race --although apparently that is all tommy sees. Oppressive majorities naturally instill a stronger sense of solidarity in a beseiged minority. It doesn't matter what the skin colors involved are. Swarming is a natural defense mechanism in the natural world and in human populations as well.
Minorities are constantly aware that in a society where the majority rules, the rights of the minority need to be vigorously protected. The rights of the majority are obviously naturally protected by majority rule.
If tommy wanted to argue this issue honestly he wouldn't keep omitting the pertinent context. By focusing on race, he is indeed creating a false equivalency.
OM, I'm using a definition of racism that is common among anti-racist groups in this country. I think what you are talking about is more properly called supremacy, as in white supremacy.
I know that there are black supremacist, Asian supremacist, etc. groups... however, without power, minority supremacy is hardly on a par with white supremacy. I mean, I don't support or condone any supremacy, but you would have to agree there is a huge difference between majority-group supremacy and minority-group supremacy, wouldn't you?
When someone disparages or treats disrespectfully one solely because of their race, they have exhibited racism. It is abhorent no matter which race does it, or to which race it is directeds toward. You can play silly sematic games to shirk some responsibility or play the victim card all day long - it changes nothing.
All responsible adults should be held to the same standards, regardless of race, that is equality and fairness.
I largely agree with the first paragraph tommy. Although getting back to the subject of the thread, where has Obama's church done this in your mind?
As for the second paragraph, it is true to a large degree, but it is also simply too idealistically vague of a statement to be of any use. It appears to be another tired attempt to say context is completely irrelevant to everything, which isn't as clear cut.
Using your statement: "All responsible adults should be held to the same standards, regardless of race, that is equality and fairness." It is possible to construct an analogy where a serial killer and a police officer (who kills a rapist/pedophile/murderer in the line of duty) are both equally guilty by holding them to the same standard of "Thou shalt not kill".
Context has meaning. Your platitudes are missing that.
Great analogy - ya, I hold a serial killer and a police officer to the same standard - that is so patently moronic it isn's worthy of a response.
I am not into excuse making for those that knowingly and willingly act in less than honorable ways, if you want to reach back for historical context or oppression or some other victim-laden excuse for bad behavior, be my guest.......it is the liberal way for some.
I judge people on their character and their actions, and hold them, including myself completely responsible and accountable. I don't blame someone or something else. You can create all shades of gray for evil and dangerous and racist behavior, that is certainly your business........but I don't. To lessen a racist act on the part of a minority because of some extraneuous or historical wrong is nothing more than an excuse, and I don't buy it. People make choices every minute, every day......everyone needs to be held to the same standard.
"Great analogy - ya, I hold a serial killer and a police officer to the same standard - that is so patently moronic it isn's worthy of a response." --tommy
So both should get the same punishment for killing people in the example I cited?
What about "unworthy of a response" did you not understand? Perhaps you should answer your own inane question.
Great non-answer. Typical.
You are right. I think I was indeed using a definition of supremacy. However, I would think that anyone who thinks they are superior based on race would necessarily be a racist.
I think the whole idea that you need to have power in order to be a racist: ergo black people can't be racist is unnecessarily self-serving and not fully supportable. Who decides who has power? Is a racist black teacher, principal, doctor, legislator, police officer or judge really any different than racist white ones? The argument that black people can't be racist would seem to at least be partially negated by the black people who do indeed have power.
I would answer your question generally by saying that I see power as something that inheres in societies, rather than individuals. That being said, if there was a pervasive dynamic in a particular place or context where blacks or other minorities were systematically disempowering whites on the basis of race, I could go with racism as a way of describing that. However, I've seen no evidence of that in the real world. Perhaps I am missing something.
Again, this is not to "play silly semantic games" or to say that supremacy regardless of who practices it is a anything but a negative thing. I am simply pointing to the relative prevalence - and thus, relative harm - of white and black prejudice. I see them as being on two very different levels. Others may disagree, but I'd like to see some reasoning to back it up.
I assume we're talking the United States. Could there be racism directed toward whites in places such as S. Africa or Rhodesia?
Duh? What do you think the white people do in those countries? They join together for political protection. It is the same all over the world. This isn't about race it is about who has the power and who fears those that have the power.
Oops. I apologize for the disproportionate response.
A slight correction/clarification of your post is in order. Rhodesia consisted of two English Colonies where the white minority ruled at one time. South Africa was another example of rule by a white minority. In that context it is hard to see where you have a problem with Val's statement as these 3 regimes were undoubtedly white racists. Perhaps you shouldn't have referred to "Rhodesia", but the names of the modern nations of Zimbabwe and Zambia.
I assume you were referring to modern Zimbabwe/Zambia and modern South Africa as well. To answer the question, it is entirely possible that those black people who have political power could be racist by Val's conditions.
God, you're like a robot. You repeat the same moronic arguments in every thread about race even though people have attempted to educate you over and over again. Nothing sinks in with you. You're a rock of ignorance.
OK, now seriously, this is what you need to do. And I'm not even joking here. Get off the computer for a while, go out into the real world and find somewhere like a bookstore, a bar or a coffee shop or something, where there are a lot of black people (I'm assuming that you'll have to drive pretty far from where you are to find such a place), start up a conversation with some of your usual ignorant nonsense about race, and then shut up and listen for as long as it takes for somebody to finally set you straight. Because something about learning these things on a message board just isn't working for you. I assume you read the responses, but you somehow remain as completely ignorant as when you started. You've been schooled so many times here that it isn't even funny anymore. Do the world a favor (or at least that part of the world that has to deal with you) and go wise up. Seriously.
Exactly. The best advice I have seen for anyone in a while. Whatever tommy is doing now apparently isn't working. Of course, he could just be a lost cause.
I refuse to think of anyone as a lost cause. Thankfully, racism and bigotry aren't necessarily permanent states, but someone actually has to be willing to change. The problem with Tommy--at least at the moment--is that he is clearly being willfully ignorant. Despite all these people here trying again and again to educate him, he's competely blind to it.
You people are the most entertaining part of my day. For you to lecture me on my views is even more hysterical.......talk about getting out more? Now that is a kicker - you both sit here and post on a website that offers you no intellectual challenging thinking, just one parrot after another to tell you how right you are, to legitimize your views and repeat the same over and over.......yet you have the audacity to tell me to broaden my horizons. I couldn't make you boys up if I tried....
Just know that the more defensive and opposed you are to what I believe and think, the more convinced how right I am. For predictability from the two of you is more than expected, it's like you are the same person. Keep it up, really........
"You people are the most entertaining part of my day,"
-----
You really need to get out more often.
ya got me there......you're right.
I guess at heart you agree with Clams overall point. Good for you.
Just know that the more defensive and opposed you are to what I believe and think, the more convinced how right I am.
So your evidence of being right is how opposed others are to your views? Opposition doesn't prove you're right. However, your statement does confirm your own obstinateness.
No, not necessarily - only those that follow me around like a desperate and sad obsessed predator, lie about what I've said, offer nothing constructive except contrarian viewpoints only to argue an irrelevancy........those are people who entertain me. Many here provoke throughtful and intersting discussions.
No, not necessarily
Even considering the context you offer, opposition still doesn't prove you're right. In fact, granting your assertion regarding some other for a moment, arguments from those who argue an irrelevancy are simply irrelevant. They don't disprove your argument. However, they don't prove your argument either.
This discussion has me curious...have you ever admitted making a substantive (i.e., non-typographical) error on MMFA?
Strangely enough, although tommy's explanations are indeed insufficient it inadvertantly demonstrates some of the bunkering mentality (with regards to his views) that he apparently disagrees with so much amongst other oppressed/besieged minorities. Interesting.
"This discussion has me curious...have you ever admitted making a substantive (i.e., non-typographical) error on MMFA?" --CD
Tommy used to admit his mistakes occasionally. For example he apologized for plagiarism at least once and I applauded him at the time for his brave honesty.
That previous commitment to honesty does seem to have withered as of late. When I put him to task for putting words in Rusty's mouth, Tommy absolutely refused to apologize for it.
"...lie about what I've said..."
Here is the now-obligatory request for you to back up the claim that myself or anyone else here has ever lied about something you said. And as always, you won't be able to come up with a single example. So as I've said a dozen times over at this point, when you call someone a liar, either provide evidence (as I have here in the past) or admit that you're wrong. And since I don't expect you to ever admit you're wrong, simply not posting a response will do just fine.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
You invalidate a legitimate criticism mirrored by more then one person by claiming that there is no intellectual debate on this site and its all group think.
Weak... but not surprising considering the source.
Looks like the last part of my statement is true.
:(
Where you're concerned, it absolutely is. Do yourself a favor and try your reparative therapy on someone more willing.
Unlike you, I am able to recognize good advice. Thanks. Will do.
And what is interesting is that you used to be one of the more open minded and respectful posters here, I was often challenged and appreciated your views because they were well thought out and written.
But you have become a bombthrowing poster who swoops in just to take a personal jab out of the blue......when another poster called you "closed mind", I couldn't figure out why and thought it unfair.
Wow, how time has changed that opinion. But feel free to swoop down all you want - if that has replaced intelligent discussion for you, who am I to argue?
"And what is interesting is that you used to be one of the more open minded and respectful posters here, I was often challenged and appreciated your views because they were well thought out and written." --tommy
Of course, it is always everyone else's fault. Isn't it? What happened to accountability? I will take responsibility for growing increasingly impatient with what I consider your increasing use of non-answers and evasions.
White people banding together and calling for "white unity" has ALWAYS been associated with one thing in this country and that's white supremacy.
Black people banding together and calling for "black unity" has ALWAYS been associated with one thing in this country and that's overcoming the effects of white supremacy.
The equivalency that right wingers are trying to make is dishonest and slimey.
Thank you RJC, you definitely “get it”. People especially those on the right love to tease about the Black community referring to Clinton as the first Black president. Clearly we know that Clinton isn't Black, but he was the first president to truly seem to understand the enormity of our history and how it has effected us. He understood that we could commemorate our past and still be good Americans and that it didn’t mean we hated White people. Why did we create the institutions we did? Why did we write a Negro National Anthem? The world told us we were crap and many of us believed it and unfortunately there are some that still do believe that. These institutions existed often to keep us from starving to death literally but their primary focus was to build self esteem, and maintain hope. When we ventured out of our community and were called n-igger, n-igger, n-igger, these institutions were there when we returned telling us how wonderful we were. They told us that everything was going to be okay one day. So when you read these mottos, creeds, and affirmations it can't be removed from the historic context in which they were written. I really wish people like Tommy could understand that. We can certainly move forward as a new merged society, but we are not going to forget the people and institutions that were so instrumental to our survival. That's not going to happen, and it’s unfair to expect it to.
Lynn, I do get it. While on a very theoretical level I do understand where Tommy is coming from, I think his position is immature and lacking historical perspective.
If white supremacists hadn't given white people such a bad name, maybe the concept of a white church calling for "white unity" wouldn't be looked upon so suspiciously.
Lynn,
Please curtail your generalizations about people on the Right. I'm one you would call Right, and I DO get it, as do the bulk of the others right of center. No problem w/the actual mission of Obama's church, and I wished Hannity HAD read some of the material recommended by (I think the man was Obama's pastor) tonite, instead of haranguing (sp?) the guy.
Tommy is merely arguing principle with an objective (I think--sorry if I'm mistaken, Tommy) of pointing out SOME hypocricy. If we weren't all guilty of SOME hypocricy, this wouldn't be half as much fun.
Anyway, your generalization
Meant to delete that last phrase. Felt I had said enough.
The thing that seems to be missing is that there is NO hypocrisy here at all if you consider the context. Tommy is simply unwilling to consider that in his arguments for some odd reason. I believe you that some conservatives grasp this although I am not as optimistic as you seem to be about the numbers.
Anyway, glad to see you at least think you "get it". That's not a cut on you per se. I don't think any of us really know for sure if we "get it" or not. Maybe I am just projecting. It remains to be seen.
Just pointing out that hypocrisy can be found everywhere, and--we're to make allowance for that (means that a concept, a mission, a philosophy, a belief system, is not invalidated just because inconsistency can be found).
I can agree with that. Thank you for elaborating.
Interesting point. I'll add that, ironically, much hypocrisy seems to result from absolutes imposed with the intent of achieving consistency.
Sadly, it is so.
Now you sound damn stupid here. The problem with you is that you are in fear, the right wants Clinton to win the nomination. I thinkyou protest to damn much, and do you need a hanky.
Yeah, but ... you see... the right-wing nutzos like Hannity et al... "African" is a bit of a slanderous label, no? Uh, huh? The guy's a moron. What do you expect?
Wow - they've stuped to swiftboating someone's religious faith now.
"Scary Doctrine" - booga booga.
I'm suprised Falwell and Robertson haven't chimed in calling Obama's church pagan or refer to Romney's religion as a cult.
"Just the day before, Hannity -- referring to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) -- had claimed: "We created a new religious litmus test. This is very troublesome to me, and no other candidate is getting that scrutiny." "
It's only troubling to Insanity when applied to his Republican friends. Hypocrite city.
Insanity, who is invited to personally meet with King George inside the White House, is on a mission everyday to pull the wool over American's eyes. He and Fox Noise are a disgrace to honest people everywhere.
"Will there -- will this even be a controversy in your view?" Sean asked innocently.
This is the funniest line in the whole piece... Of course not, Sean... how could this possibly become a controversy when you have guests like Erik Rush questioning Obama's Christianity? Hannity has no shame... but we knew that.
The fact that atheists and agnostics receive such hatred in this country is a disgrace. Faith is the license that religious people give themselves to believe when all reasons fail.
If small children weren't brainwashed at an early age, religion would never survive. Religion is a crutch for simple minded people who need strength in numbers. That being said, I don't discriminate against anyone based on their religion, nor do I attempt to influence their beliefs. The same can't be said about them.
I can never remember who said it but when asked whether god exiists responded that the only rational answer was "I don't know."
BTW, neuro-psychiatrists have discovered that portion of the brain that when stimulated produces a "religious experience"... a feeling of oneness who God and the universe. I think humans have some sort of primordial urge to believe in a higher power. That's not proof of a higher power but I think humans are wired to believe.
Some call it a "God-shaped void" inside every human being. Going further, it is said that there WILL be something in that space, as an object of worship--has to be SOMETHING.
I don't know that it necessarily needs to be "worship". But it does seem that people do have a void that needs to be filled with something close to worship like addiction or a passion for something.
I have heard it before and it does seem to have some validity.
Irony101, ragarding the harbwiring fo the brain to believe in things that are higher.
Maybe a year ago (or two) I read a paper dealing with that part of the brain (the "religious experience" portion). A group of socialogist, neuro-expects, etc. sat around talking about that part of the brain and its possible reason for existance. (Some also argued it did not exists/work the way the rest believed)
I'm paraphrasing but they basically said, that this part of the brain exsisted for early man. To basically give members of a tribe a good feeling when they followed the leader of the group. So the group did not fall apart. Or something like that. (I hate referencing items without the text in front of me.)
How hypocritical. First you say that atheists are the target of all this hatred, then you proceed to slur those of faith in the same post. Amazing.
"I don't know" as the answer as to whether a god exists is logical. However, the bible has been easily disproven. Organized religion is a farce. Belief in biblical stories is no different from believing in Zeus or Poseidon.
I like that line from the wacky film Nacho Libre, "I don't believe in religion. I believe in science." It's non-judgmental and it's basic underlying drive is a search for truth.
Waiting for your further expository statements about THE Bible being disproven.
ALL of it, really? Guess I missed it.
I listed facts, not slurs. If you were born in a Muslim family, you would be taught to be a Muslim. If you were born in a Jewish family, you would be taught to be Jewish. If you were born in a Christian family, you would be taught to be a Christian.
This is brainwashing.
Please explain to me why over half of this country would never consider voting for an atheist.
Facts? Really?.........."brainwashed". "reasons why they fail". "a crutch for simple minded people".
And you would have to ask the country why they won't vote for an atheist, I have no idea except maybe it's the intolerant disrespect that comes from some of them?
If that is your test then no one would vote a Chirstian into office Thomas.
And you would have to ask the country why they won't vote for an atheist, I have no idea except maybe it's the intolerant disrespect that comes from some of them?
If that was the problem then nobody would ever vote for a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, either.
"If you were born in a Jewish family, you would be taught to be Jewish."
You'd be taught to be a doctor... ;>)
BTW, my wife and I trying to adopt a kid... in medical school. ;>)
Irony, I was born Catholic, and like so many others, it taught me to be an ex-Catholic.
I was born and raised a Catholic and it taught me to be a Catholic.
I was born and raised to be a decent human being, and I'm trying my best.
I listed facts...
Actually, you were making dubious generalizations.
If you were born in a X family, you would be taught to be a X.
Possibly or even probably, but not necessarily. However, even if one is raised X, that is not a guarantee that one will be X as an adult. Increases the likelihood? I know of no studies on the subject, but that wouldn't surprise me.
Your earlier assertion that it's only the raising of children in religion that sustains religion is dubious. Also, I wouldn't consider all religious people to be simple-minded, as you seem to imply.
This is brainwashing.
It can be. It need not be.
Please explain to me why over half of this country would never consider voting for an atheist.
I was curious if there was any polls to support Tommy's claim. Interestingly, there is... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/16/154311/206 As for why, I haven't given the subject enough time to comment.
This repsonse says it all from rush when asked his qualifications for questioning ones faith. Anyone just the same as anyone else who can make a discernment about someone's faith.
So anyone can make a discernment about someone elses faith. WOW what a moron Obamas been. All this time he thought it was God who was going to discern his faith, but the reality is it's erick rush. Holy smokes all Christians should rush to erick so he can discern their faith.
end sarcasm.
Heh erick, Jesus loves you and Satan has you.
What I wrote is not intolerant. You completely missed the point. People do not choose their religions, their religions are chosen for them. I disagree with religion, but I tolerate it. I would never not vote for someone because they were Muslim or Jewish. How many Christians would vote for a Muslim?
Intolerance is forcing your abortion views on others. Intolerance is discriminating against people simply for being gay. Intolerance is supporting wars where innocent people are killed, as long as they are Muslims, so that rich white men can become richer.
If you really believe that there are no atheists or agnostics in Congress, then you are sadly mistaken. It is a disgrace that they have to pretend to be Christian in order to get elected!
"It is a disgrace that they have to pretend to be Christian in order to get elected!"
Thank you for having the balls to say that. It's as though religion, and partiularly Christianity, is like third-base that you have to touch before reaching home plate. And in so many instances it is pure, unadulterated bullsh*t, as can be clearly discerned just by the way a candidate conductts a mean-spirited campaign.
Would a real Christian have Karl Rove as chief adviser.., or not denounce the Swiftboating of his opponent. Christian, indeed...!
What is offensive is the general assumption that rational people who are turned off by organized religion do not have a spiritual side. Or have renounced "God". As I recall it was great, charismatic man named Jesus who denounced the hypocrites who conspicuously and publicly practiced the rituals of their religion as though that was paramount.
Ferrous,
I can see your points.
Truth, I agree with ChristianDem that your statement that people's faith is a result of having it forced upon them, is not supported by the facts, including some on these postings here.
Not that it doesn't happen, but I venture to say that your arrival at your belief system was a journey undertaken by you, beginning somewhere and ending where you are now. I'm thinking you consider it YOUR journey, and nobody forced you to believe that which you believe.
Truth seeker...
I find your post so one sided and apparently so lacking in insight as to be humerous.
Forcing your abortion view on others? What do you think about murder? I assume you are against murder and think it is okay to put in prison those who commit this crime? Do you not see this is the same thing as forcing your views? Yes there is a debate regarding abortion, but the side you leave out is that by 'forcing' your beliefs for abortion you are allowing the killing of millions of innocent innocent human beings.
I hope you see the error in your logic.
oops.. it should have read humorous.
Please forgive my spelling.
This is precisely the kind of quasi-factual reporting that one expects from Faux "News." Trinity UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST is hardly a separatist institution, rather it is one of the flagship churches for a highly inclusive, very historical, denomination of Protestant Christians. The Pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, is one of the most highly regarded preachers and Christian leaders in the country.
The credo to which these buffoons refer is more of a community commitment than a doctrine. Worship at Trinity is generally a tremendous spiritual experience and often a fairly multi-cultural one as well. The church however is located in a predominantly African American and historically depressed area of Chicago and to that end Dr. Wright has encouraged church members to bear out a real commitment to people in this neighborhood so that the wealthier members do not simply disappear from the area but use their gifts and skills and resources to better the lives of those still stuck in poverty.
I am not African American but whenever I am in Chicago this is my favorite place to worship. I have never had anything other than a warm and enthusiastic welcome from some of the kindest and most inclusive people I have ever met. Hannity is flat-out lying about Trinity and Rush is clearly either a shill for Hannity or inexcusably ignorant about the church.
First off thank you Lynn for brilliantly articulating so much of what I experience daily. I love reading your posts. Secondly I now hope Mitt Romney gets the nod on the Republican side and Obama gets it on the Dem side. With these two going up against each other the Repubs will not get as many Black votes because many will simply want to vote for the first Black man with a real chance of winning and I really don't see Black Christians voting for a Mormon.
Hannity had the Rev. Dr. Wright on his show tonight but he tried his sneaky move of throwing a comment right before the break but the Rev wasn't having it. The shmuck had the nerve to tell the Rev he should change his motto to "help all americans". I guess in his small mind that is somehow better than "all mankind". I agree with the Rev that Hannity should read a book but my guess is he will remain as ignorant as ever.
Doctrinal Statement that sounds very Christian to me. Perhaps those discussing the subject were not all that versed in the Scriptures A congregation committed to adoration. A congregation preaching salvation. A congregation actively seeking reconciliation. A congregation with a non-negotiable commitment to Africa.. A congregation committed to Biblical Education. A congregation committed to cultural education. A congregation committed to the historical education of the African people.in diaspora. A congregation committed to liberation . A congregation committed to restoration. A congregation working towards economic parity.
I have to laugh when "Christians" talk about cults or, like Pat Robertson, say that other religions like Hinduism are "occult". The Christian Church as a weekly rite, ritually drink the blood and eat the body of their Lord and master. What is more occult than that?Let's face it folks, Chrisitianity is a cult religion just like all of the others.
Religion is kinda funny, it reminds me of sports fans a Yankee fan cannot concieve the idea of cheering for the Red Sox and vice versa. My religion is not a cult and your cult is not a religion.
You miss the essence. Obviously nobody is engaging in cannibalism. The body and blood of Christ is purely spiritual food that is manifested in the transubstantiation during the consecration of the Eucharist.
Lots of ecclesiastical language above. It takes some thought, so I encourage you to investigate further and rather than ridicule, try to understand what it really all about.
" It takes some thought, so I encourage you to investigate further and rather than ridicule, try to understand what it really all about." --AA
Good point. I wish Hannity had taken your advice as well.
That's true, AA, but it doesn't make the ritual any less cult-like.
Catholicism takes communion ( the body and blood) literally, if I understand it correctly (help me out, ex-Catholics). Protestants don't.
Both Catholics and Protestants indeed take communion. From what I understand from Catholic members of my family, some Catholics believe that the wine and bread actually become the blood and flesh of Jesus somewhere in the process of taking it. I don't know how widely held that view is amongst Catholics.
What religion are you lemoc if you don't mind sharing?
Media Matters is a little behind on the story. News Hounds have a clip from last night's Hannityshmannity in which the pastor of Obama's church does a number on little Sean. [link to tinyurl.com] Sometimes that bullying, sneering condescending style of Hannity's just doesn't work with someone who refuses to be intimidated.
Shorter Sean Hannity:
"Obama's church is like a cult because it does not conform to wealthy, white, right-wing conservative evangelical concepts of what it means to be a 'Christian' "
Hannity can hold forth on the subject of anyone else's faith, morals , or values in general when he can better explain the picture of him with that stupid grin on his face standing next to <a href="[link to patriotboy.blogspot.com] the pneumatic blonde in front of the Bunny Ranch</a>
Think about this also. How many public places have either FOX, CNN or Headline news on a TV? For instance airport bars. Part of what FOX does for the right wing, is have commentators or guests on, such that they can put up such inflamatory text as "Obama's church ... unusual doctrines" thus polluting that particular airport bar with innuendo. Headline news, same thing when Beck is on. It's a wonder that a democrat ever gets elected, only the total lack of governing ability keeps the Republicans from taking over goverment completely.
Open mind,
I think Tommy points out the reverse of what Lynn is saying. From the white historical perspective, anyone who espouses African-centric ideology looks to the average white person as a separists.
BTW, Thank God for Christians of every color who fought the and defeated the idea of slavery and were in the vanguard of equal rights for all. Who knows what might have happened if it weren't for the Christians.
"I think Tommy points out the reverse of what Lynn is saying. From the white historical perspective, anyone who espouses African-centric ideology looks to the average white person as a separists."
It only looks that way if you have the mindset that it is.
That's part of what Lynn was saying about "getting it" vs "not getting it"
I'm no big fan of churches and/or organized religion but I do applaud anyone trying to help those who have difficulty helping themselves.
I've always wondered why there is (and this thread about Hannity lays it out when reading between the lines) this horror (often from the right) about Blacks, Hispanics & Asians (to use as examples) celebrating their heritage and ethnicity whereas it's all "fine and dandy" to be proud to be Italian, Irish or whatever other european ethnic groups are concerned? (This thread topic does cut across both faith and race)
I mean if we acknowledge our heritage we're "bad Americans"?
"I think Tommy points out the reverse of what Lynn is saying. From the white historical perspective, anyone who espouses African-centric ideology looks to the average white person as a separists."--AnotherAmerican
I agree with that assessment. At one time I shared that point of view and made the exact same arguments he makes now. The problem with his point of view (and my old one) is that the premise seems to wipe away every facet of history. There is a reason why it is understandible that some black groups join together to help other black people and it is rooted deeply in that history. Of course it would make no sense if that context is entirely ignored as tommy does and I used to do.
I am asking tommy to look a little deeper than just the white perspective.
I am equally grateful to our forefathers who fought for fairness and equality, whether they were Christians, Deists, Unitarians, atheists or whatever..