Obama: Belongs to a racist religious organisation

[one_raven]

Are you committed to the 'white family' and the 'white community'?

No, I'm not, but that's not the point.
This isn't about me.

I take no offense to those who are.
Just as I take no offense to those who are committed to the black family or the black community.
I am a white man who has good friends who would make that claim.
Why should it bother you?

It seems to bother you that people make the claim that they are committed to the black family or community, yet you defend people who are committed to white family and community?
This is why people call you racist.
Not because you have white pride, but because you have white pride, yet condemn others for having black pride.

What would we call a white person (most likely a male, because tyrannical whites are usually male, right?) that does the above? The word begins with an 'R', and ends with an 'ACIST!!!'

We?
There is no "we" here.
I would not call the person a racist.
From what you are saying, neither would you.
So, why do you call people with black pride racist?

 

[mountainhare]

raven:

Yes, necessarily - that was the whole point of the movement.

False. Black Nationalism and Black Separatism are two different concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_separatism

Black separatism is a separatist political movement that seeks a separate homeland for black people. Parallel to white separatism, there also exists a similarly black separatist movement, particularly in the United States. Black separatists generally think that whites are racist oppressors of blacks and that there can be no remedy for black advancement within contemporary white-dominated society. They believe the only solution is for blacks to break away and create a separate society controlled by persons of African descent.

The more specific goals were historically in flux and varied from group to group. Martin Delaney in the 19th century and Marcus Garvey in the 1920s outspokenly called for African Americans to return to Africa, by moving to Liberia. Benjamin "Pap" Singleton looked to form separatist colonies in the American West. The Nation of Islam calls, much more quietly, for an independent black state on American soil. Much more mainstream views within black separatism hold that blacks would be better served by exclusively black schools and businesses, as well as by black local politicians and police.

The mainstream black separatism is sharply opposed by anti-segregationists and integrationists within the African American community. They generally hold that blacks can and should advance within the larger American society and call on them to work to achieve that through personal improvement, educational achievement, business involvement, and political action. Martin Luther King, who was a key speaker and leader in the political effort to overthrow segregation in the 1960s, and Malcolm X, who until May 21, 1964 was known as a black separatist from the Nation of Islam, may personify the opposition between the two views.

Now, compare with Black Nationalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism

Black nationalism (BN) advocates a racial definition (or redefinition) of black national identity, as opposed to multiculturalism. There are different black nationalist philosophies but the principles of all black nationalist ideologies are 1) black pride, and 2) black economic, political, social and/or cultural independence from white society. Marcus Garvey is considered to be the grandfather of black nationalism.

Neither 1) nor 2) equate to: Hey, let's form our own independent country, and purchase goods solely from black merchantmen.

Any group that does honestly profess pride and does not promote separatism is not racist in my view, and I don't have a problem with them.
I assume you agree, being that you are defedning White Nationalism with that quote.

I wasn't attempting to 'defend' White Nationalism, I posted the definition for comparison, and to make a point. Black and White Nationalism are essentially 'mirror image concepts', where Black/White Separatism is simply a subset of Black/White Nationalism. Ergo: If White Nationalism is racist, then so is Black Nationalism.

If that's true, then you should have no problem what so ever with Obama being associated with this church, correct?
They do not preach separatism.

They preach Black Nationalism, much like S tormfront preaches White Nationalism. Some S tormfronters are White Separatists, but not all are.

So I throw the question back at you: If Obama is affiliated with a church that preaches Black Nationalism, surely you have no problem with Ron Paul accepting donations from an organisation which promotes White Nationalism?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

As to your question, frankly, I don't give a shit who Obama mixes with. He's welcome to refound the Black Panthers, for all I care. But it does bother me when simpering liberals and blacks display such hypocrisy by criticising evil White Nationalists, while conveniently neglecting to condemn Black Nationalists.

But I forget myself. My ancestors were white, took advantage of their 'white privilege' (especially my Polish ancestors under Nazi and Soviet rule, and my Irish ancestors under British rule), and hence I'm not in a position to complain. That's the burden a privileged white male must carry.

 

[mountainhare]

one_raven:

No, I'm not, but that's not the point.
This isn't about me.

I know. I'm just curious as to whether you would ever commit yourself to such beliefs, or whether you consider such an idealogue 'racist'.

I take no offense to those who are.

Cool. And I take no offense to blacks who are committed to a 'black family'. What I do take offense to is how blacks are allowed to state openly, and with encouragement from society, that they are committed to 'black beliefs' and a 'black community', while for whites to do pledge themselves to a 'white community' would be considered racist.

And this all ties back with the point of my OP. Why is Ron Paul under constant fire for simply accepting money from White Nationalists, whereas everyone is hunkeedorie about Obama's association with Black Nationalists? That is the sort of hypocrisy I take offense to!

 

[one_raven]

I personally have a problem with the kind of reasoning that leads to:

I take no offense to blacks who are committed to a 'black family'. What I do take offense to is how blacks are allowed to state openly, and with encouragement from society, that they are committed to 'black beliefs' and a 'black community', while for whites to do pledge themselves to a 'white community' would be considered racist.

If you don't have a problem with people who are committed to a balck family or community, why make a fuss out of someone being associated with them or make a fuss about them themselves?
Your problem, it seems, is with a people who do not like white pride, correct?
Or is it with a society that is more sensitive to one group than it is to another?
Either way, if your problem is not with people who claim black pride, why call them out on the carpet?
That makes YOU out to be the hypocrite.

Regarding Obama and Paul, specifcally...
I don't know if the specific groups that gave him money do preach/practice separatism or not, so I can't speak to that.
I DO know that there is nothing regarding black separatism in what you quoted from this organization, therefore I have no problem with it at all.
Whether or not people are upset about Ron Paul taking money from white nationalists and whther or not it is wrong is an entirely different, unrelated issue for me.

As for black nationalism including separatism as part of it's ideology, it says so right in your own quote (the same thing I quoted).

black economic, political, social and/or cultural independence from white society.

That is separatism.
I didn't say that it was the same as the Black Separatist Movement (though of course there is some crossover).
Have you read any Garvey or Malcom X?
They were most certainly separatists, and the quarantining is definitely part and parcel to the Black Nationalist movement.

 

[mountainhare]

one_raven:

Your problem, it seems, is with a people who do not like white pride, correct?

No. My problem is with people who condemn white pride for being racist, yet do not condemn black pride for being racist. I don't condemn a belief, but inconsistency in beliefs.

Either way, if your problem is not with people who claim black pride, why call them out on the carpet?
That makes YOU out to be the hypocrite.

Very good. Now you understand the purpose of this thread. After all, I'm responding to the thread criticising Ron Paul for his so-called 'affiliation' with White Nationalists, by posters who seem quite willing to turn a blind eye to Obama and his association with Black Nationalists!

Regarding Obama and Paul, specifcally...
I don't know if the specific groups that gave him money do preach/practice separatism or not, so I can't speak to that.
I DO know that there is nothing regarding black separatism in what you quoted from this organization, therefore I have no problem with it at all.
Whether or not people are upset about Ron Paul taking money from white nationalists and whther or not it is wrong is an entirely different, unrelated issue for me.

That's fine, I have no quarrel with you, as your beliefs are not inconsistent.

That is separatism.

I do not agree that "black economic, political, social and/or cultural independence from white society. " equates to "[blacks to] break away and create a separate society controlled by persons of African descent."

 

[one_raven]

I do not agree that "black economic, political, social and/or cultural independence from white society. " equates to "[blacks to] break away and create a separate society controlled by persons of African descent."

They do not equate and I am not saying they do.
What I am saying is that you are confusing separatism as a general concept with the Black Separatist Movement.
The Black Nationalist movement was (is? I haven't been following it) a separatist movement in that they wanted financial, cultural and local segregation from whites.
They wanted to be a completely separate nation of black men within the US, not to mention the urging of blacks to move to Africa by the founder of the movement himself.

 

[mountainhare]

one_raven:

They do not equate and I am not saying they do.
What I am saying is that you are confusing separatism as a general concept with the Black Separatist Movement.
The Black Nationalist movement was (is? I haven't been following it) a separatist movement in that they wanted financial, cultural and local segregation from whites.
They wanted to be a completely separate nation of black men within the US, not to mention the urging of blacks to move to Africa by the founder of the movement himself.

If that is true, what is the 'black' equivalent for 'White' Nationalism? 'Black pride'?

 

[Bells]

Mountainhare

one_raven:


No. My problem is with people who condemn white pride for being racist, yet do not condemn black pride for being racist. I don't condemn a belief, but inconsistency in beliefs.

There's no problem with white pride. Just as there is no problem with 'black pride'. I personally have taupe pride. The problem, however, exists when either group attempts to exhibit said pride to the detriment and exclusion of others. It is a problem when they attempt to separate from the rest of society and deem themselves to be superior to all others and wish destruction on other groups in society.

Having looked through the Trinity Church's site, I see nothing that excludes other races from their organisation. They do not advocate the use of violence against others, unlike St0rmfront, who do. There is a vast difference in the two organisations. One is a separatist movement and the other is not. St0rmfront openly advocates racism, discrimination and racial superiority while Trinity does not. Lets not forget who started St0rmfront.. Don Black was a KKK frontman and I believe, once tried to invade another country. You can't even compare the two organisations.

Ganymede

Seriously kid, cool it a bit. Calm down.

 

[Plazma Inferno!]

Administrator's Note:

DeepThought and Ganymede, you have 24 hours to use your cold shower. Use it wisely.

 

[sandy]

An organization to do what?

To do anything. Whites can NOT have ANY kind of org promoting their white pride, white whatever. They would be flamed into oblivion for "racism".

IRISH ORGANIZATIONS ....
Every race has their own organizations, and I don't think any of the above organizations are racist.

Those aren't races, those are nationalities. BIG difference. I don't really care about black OR white orgs. I'm just saying the hypocrisy is pathetic...

 

[Challenger78]

To do anything. Whites can NOT have ANY kind of org promoting their white pride, white whatever. They would be flamed into oblivion for "racism".

Who need an organisation when you lot are responsible for killing off at least half of two indigenous population.. Oh, and there still hasn't been a black President.

Those aren't races, those are nationalities. BIG difference. I don't really care about black OR white orgs. I'm just saying the hypocrisy is pathetic...

Just when I thought your hypocrisy couldn't get worse.

No wonder I don't come here anymore.

If I weren't so bored, I wouldn't either.

 

[Kadark]

To do anything. Whites can NOT have ANY kind of org promoting their white pride, white whatever. They would be flamed into oblivion for "racism".

Yeah, but think about it: usually with "White pride" organizations, there is a clear message of superiority and purity over other colours. Go on "White pride" websites/clubs/organizations, and you'll unearth a common theme exhibited by all: superiority (usually saying they've evolved more than their counterparts), dehumanization of other races/ethnic groups, and usually some sort of longing for an expulsion of non-Whites from regions dominated by Whites. I haven't seen many Black equivalents to these types of clubs or groups. There's a frightening increase in self-proclaimed Nazis across the net; hopefully, they remain Internet phantoms rather than vocal members of society.

No wonder I don't come here anymore.

How are things going with you?

 

[Bells]

Those aren't races, those are nationalities. BIG difference. I don't really care about black OR white orgs. I'm just saying the hypocrisy is pathetic...

If that were the case, then why say this?

To do anything. Whites can NOT have ANY kind of org promoting their white pride, white whatever. They would be flamed into oblivion for "racism".

There's a word for this. What could it be. Hypocrisy maybe?

 

[James R]

one_raven:

Nicely done in sorting out exactly what mountainhare's problem is. You hit the nail on the head. It's not his "white pride". It's that he thinks white pride is just fine, while black pride is racist.

 

[flameofanor5]

Obama realizes that a large part of our population. If you say you are a Christian, easy votes....Besides, Obama says that the Bible doesn't qualify anymore. For those of you who never thought it did, well, you aren't claiming to be something you aren't.

 

[flameofanor5]

[Edit]

Obama realizes that a large part of our population is Christian. If you say you are a Christian, easy votes....Besides, Obama says that the Bible doesn't qualify anymore. For those of you who never thought it did, well, you aren't claiming to be something you aren't.

 

[sandy]

[Edit]

Obama realizes that a large part of our population is Christian. If you say you are a Christian, easy votes....Besides, Obama says that the Bible doesn't qualify anymore. For those of you who never thought it did, well, you aren't claiming to be something you aren't.

I know. I don't like him. I don't trust him. I have met all but two of the viable POTUS candidates. B HUSSEIN Obama made my skin crawl. He's like a snake.
I do like Edwards personally. He is kind and charming. I would never vote for him though.

 

[one_raven]

one_raven:

Nicely done in sorting out exactly what mountainhare's problem is. You hit the nail on the head. It's not his "white pride". It's that he thinks white pride is just fine, while black pride is racist.

Thank you, but it wasn't that difficult.

 

[James R]

It helped clarify some stuff for me.

 

[sandy]

Obama's church: More about Africa than God?
Chicago congregation has 'non-negotiable commitment' to 'mother continent'

While some election commentators are looking carefully at the level of devotion Obama has to Islam, it is the strong African-centered and race-based philosophy of the senator's United Church of Christ that has some bloggers crying foul.

The first paragraph of the "About Us" section of the church's website mentions the word "black" or "Africa" five times:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian. ... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The church seems to place Africa and African people before God.
It says nothing about other races in their community or a commitment to help the people in their community....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59600