Is Barack Obama a RACIST??

Obama with VetsHe is if you believe some bloggers and a handful of anonymous email.

Here are the facts. Obama attends Trinity United Church of Christ which adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. They identify “12 precepts and covenantal statements” that reflect on “Black Ethics” which “must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.”

The concepts of “Black Ethics”:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Now to return to the claim that Obama’s church (and by association Obama himself) are racists. Obviously not. Clearly the sources of this claim are ultracon groups and race-driven derivatives of the soon to be late Bush era who are a bit upset that the last 8 years has produced such a backlash that their most dear enemy, Hillary, and their worst nightmare, a black presidential candidate, are poised to take over the Executive branch. These points alone draw serious doubt on any validity, but on the point of fact, it is fallacious.

First off, black communities and churches were formed because of Jim Crow and subsequent social conditioning. The conditioning came in the form of total segregation and subjugation that lasted more than 100 years. White communities viciously conspired against blacks and forced them to live separate lives. It is no surprise to sociologists that the social barrier lingers. It took what I consider the Second Civil War of 1963 to FORCE white communities to cease the subduction of the black community. But we were too late; the damage was done.

Deep problems continue to plague many black Americans and this church is simply recognizing them as community borne and a communal burden. By stating “Black Ethics” they are taking making an honest attempt to repair the social damage caused by a lack of identity and security. Everything in this mission statement is an intelligent distillation of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – creating togetherness, collective membership, and support through Christian fellowship. And they have done this hand-in-hand with the spirit of God of mercy and love. Clearly, statements like ‘black community,’ ‘black family,’ and ‘black leadership’ are constructs for self-improvement and self-motivation, not ambitions toward racial supremacy.

Which leads me to my second point. There have never been nor is there likely ever going to be roving black church death squads killing whitey. Hit the buzzer, ain’t going to happen. Nor will the greater Black Community ever condone any action that aims to marginalize any other ethic community. Personally, I think the long lesson of communal suffering has made black leaders stronger that way; they are quicker in sniffing out the stench of racial injustice in all its insidious forms.
The wording of this mission statement may be jarring to some, but I think non-whites feel threatened being around blacks because of background social guilt over the centuries of injustice against Blacks. But it is entirely likely that a white person could walk into that church and worship Jesus right alongside the rest of the parishioners – and receive the Lord’s blessing just the same. But what would happen if a black person walked into a church somewhere in the Deep South?

In fact, is it not true that portions of the White Community are still active in promoting “White Ethics” ala KKK? Are there not churches throughout the country continue to marginalize and discriminate against non-whites? Not only do they spread hate for black people, but they also heap up Jews and any body else who doesn’t measure up to their brand of whiteness. But what is really scary is that you don’t even need the KKK to seed racial terrorism: America did it to the American Indians from the colonial times and right through the 1800’s. Then they did it to Chinese immigrants who slaved to build the railroads and man the factories and mines during the 1800’s. The Japanese took a good strong turn during and after WWII. And now they’re doing it to the Latinos – this time under the guise of national security.

There is no practicable argument that can successfully equate a black Christian church making an honest attempt to address social problems in their community with KKK White churches that created the terrorism of racial “ethics.” I can only conclude that this position is seeded by an appalling ignorance and is mere slander.

UPDATE: “Pastor Gate” doesn’t change a whit. But this time I suspect other politico machination at work (e.g., White Dems who may fear Obama’s strength with independent voters). Sadly, the populace is responding in predictable ways.

Failure of Ministry: You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it (Part II)

In my previous post, I brought up a quote from the late Dr Adrian Pierce Rogers – known primarily by this snip: “You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” In the previous post, demonstrated how Dr Rogers’ well known quote failed on two points. The first failure was how he chooses to define “socialism.” The United States, along with ALL successful industrialized nations, has a long history of supporting a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism. In fact, isn’t is true that the two economic systems appear to support one another? Of course it is.

Second point of failure: Ministry

It is odd that Dr Rogers would try to redefine how public policy ought to serve the lower classes – the “poor” as he called it. He errs on so many levels – chief among them, his attempt to draw a line between capitalism and socialism; a line that ceased to exist (at least in this country) for nearly a century. But economics aside, his greatest failure is his contradiction against the Christian faith.

For those who are not familiar with his ministry, Dr. Rogers served three terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, was a Southern Baptist pastor, and an author of several works well-known among Christian conservatives.  Rogers graduated from Stetson University and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He eventually became the senior pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, a church with a membership of 29,000 by the time he retired in March 2005.

One would believe that a man of such esteemed pastoral credentials would follow scriptural examples of charitable giving. Instead, this man chose to tell a nation that “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” We know by other writings that his intent was purely political – to defame “liberals” who support welfare policies designed to help poor. But in the process, he makes a terrible, egregious error of faith.

Having read many of his sermons, I know that he had a penchant for quoting the Old Testament. I wonder if he ever got to Deuteronomy 14:28-29:

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.”

And Deuteronomy 15:7

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

There are dozens of passages like that throughout the OT, but I prefer the New Testament where God leaves us with his most lasting lessons. For instance, Matthew 25:34-40, where Jesus Christ said:

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Clearly, when Jesus instructs us to give to the poor, he asks that we do so willingly. Let’s give Dr. Rogers the benefit of the doubt and say that his point was that charity should not be legislated (“Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” – 1 Cor 13:3). And yet, should we all be so cheerful in our giving that there would be any poor left to help? The sad truth is, the free market is not free because greedy humans behave badly and taxes are required by law because selfish humans would never give government a dime.

I will go so far as to say that this unfortunate quote by Dr Rogers attempts to change Christian teaching into something more convenient; something more marketable to Christian conservatives. Moreover, by the example of the feeding of the 5,000, isn’t Jesus Christ demonstrating to us that indeed you CAN multiply wealth by dividing it?

I’ll leave you with my favorite quote today:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.
– 1 Timothy 6:17-18

Blog Bias?

I’m being asked to write for blogs as a PR activity. Well… it’s good money and I’m a good little prostitute… so off I go. But I think that blogs are turning some PR practitioners and marketers into tech junkies and making them lazy (especially a particular unnamed firm). Blogs still cannot compete with good-old fashioned ink (or video). People still turn to traditional news sources for their facts.

Yet, blogs do serve a purpose and I disagree with the growing suspicion (of some cynics) that blogs may threaten critical thinking of the public-at-large. They also worry that over saturation from blog-debates could harm the credibility of traditional news sources and – God forbid – taint public discussion with erroneous speculation (oh, you mean like Rush Limburger, Ann “blowhard” Coulter, et al?).

Blogs have made nitwits like Limbaugh and Coulter irrelevant by extending public debate to anybody with some bandwidth and a server. Of course there is some junking up to deal with, but now the selection is so diverse and the scope so deep that just about every opinion and point of view under the sun is fully represented and broadly explored. It reminds me of the gaggles of soapbox orators that once adorned the entrances of county fairs across the nation, spouting rhetoric and reason to gawking crowds. But oh what a selection of soapboxes – pro and con ad nauseum – all at one time, 24/7/365 and no shooting. The emerging “blog-slog” is as a healthy byproduct of democracy and our growing lust for ‘watchdog’ transparency? And we could use a whole heck of a lot more transparency at all levels of governance these days.

PIC_sharp_edges_21.jpgAt any rate, blogging is a far less insulting demonstration of the 1st Amendment than the talkshow hacks of the previous media age – ala Limbaugh and Coulter whom I think presented a far dire threat to civic debate. If anything, blogs encourage critical thinking and they help enlarge our constitutional entitlement for free speech. And you know what? If any one of those blog-nabobs becomes the least bit myopic or irrelevant there will always be plenty more soapboxes to gawk at.