If I were going to judge a candidate by his church, I would never vote. Most churches seem ridiculous to me. I prefer to go by the policies the candidate talks about and whether or not the person seems trustworthy. For most politicians, churches are like social clubs.
I can at least understand to some extent why black people might feel a need to protect things like "the black family". It's a family values thing only linked to a particular type of idealized family found in a culture that can only be described as "black" (even though it does not pertain to all blacks, maybe not even a majority). Like all family values things, it's an ideal and an archetype not reflected much in reality.
I can understand the point of helping the black community. The black community needs help. When Bill Cosby talks about blacks taking responsibility for their community we all cheer. Don't see what the difference is here. Maybe to some extent it's true. Maybe not. At least it's understandable.
It does not appear that the church is hostile toward whites. It just values some idealized "black" values. And it seems to believe that the larger society is somehow hostile to family values and uses Middle Class ideology to crush them (at least that's what I got out of it... seems nonsensical, but no more than the usual "secular culture out to destroy family values" crap).

I think the author is trying to pull this off as sounding all hostile toward whites. It's really trying to preserve the perceived family values of the so-called "black" community. It's no more bizarre to me than the typical evangelical church. Counterproductive, unnecessarily exclusive, maybe out of touch with reality? Sure. But it's a church. I expect these things.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.


Hmmm looks to me like a direct reaction to the enslaving of blacks by whites. Hardly over the top it just states that they do not want to be kept ignornant by the captor class and that they must be aware that those that held them once before in bondage could very well do so again if that class feels threatened by blacks.

Historically speaking its well within the bounds of reason for a former slave population to worry about just what the majority has in mind for them. Seperate but equal was meant to do exactly as they charged...ie it kept them uneducated enough not to compete but educated enough not to make them impossible to employ. That is they were kept educated enough so that they could still be used for menial labor and be paid wages so low as to consitute another form of slavery but held back from meaningful educational achievment by and large to keep them from not just seeing the injustice but doing something about it.


As to the second part that to came to pass with the KKK and the white establishements persecution of blacks deemed "uppity". THat is blacks who were smart enough to see the issue and charismatic/educated enough to make themselves heard. Jim Crowe laws were the direct result of the use of education or lack there of to take away rights.

No this is just a reaction to history by the black community. History that is to this day still shaping how blacks relate to the world and how whites relate to other races. When you look at the issue of race in AMerica one sees that history and economics and education are some of the most important roles in shaping the ideals and beleifs of the majority and a minority....African AMerican religious views were largely shaped by the simple fact that they were enslaved once and then enslaved again economically, educationally and legally by the white majority.

I believe the idea is somehow that blacks are only being allowed into the middle class in order to create an illusion of equality. The philosophy seems to hold that there is an invisible ceiling and that the main idea is to turn blacks against each other by class warfare.
It's overall a counterproductive philosophy in my opinion, but understandablewhen put in perspective I suppose.

But if I'm to guess by the guy they honor at the top of 12th's link, I think the value just revolves around sticking to principle when offered something. And most likely it would hold that middle class blacks should not forget their brethren in poor society. I don't really see anything wrong with those things. The middle class blacks are the people best set to help out the poor demographic generally called the "black community".
It's a bit too into the whole race-solidarity thing... but I think there are varying degrees of how far you take that. You cannot define a member of a church by the church itself. That's why this is overall pointless.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

It is hard to make sense of, but it reads to me like a screed against being co-opted by "the system", in which successful blacks think of themselves as middle-class individuals instead of middle-class blacks, and thus deprive the "black community" of its most talented and successful members. They make a distinction between "middle-income" and "middle class", for instance. Being successful is fine; turning your back on the black community is not.

__________________
Man up.

Uh huh...


..and If it was trying to preserve the perceived family values of te so-called "white" community?


No amount of collegic thinking or dialetic mumblygook gets away from the fact that ANY white canidate a member of ANY chruch with such a white centric philosophy would be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed as a racist.

That was my point but I seemed to have stumbled upon another..the "excuse" for why its ok if your not white.

Both of you seem to be trying hard to comprehend the incomprehensible. While Java is certainly right that "It's a bit too into the whole race-solidarity thing", I think y'all are GLOSSING over the meaning of the words themselves. If all it talked about was giving back to the black community, I could endorse it. But, it goes much farther than that.

If this is not what Obama believes, he needs to say so. I bet he does not sign on to all of this though obviously he will agree with some of it. Faith may be the only thing I agree with Obama on. Those who endorse all the aspects of the black value system will have to understand that Obama is not running for president of the Black United States.

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

To be clear, I think excessive race identification is a bad thing -- not just in a "bad for the United States" thing, but bad for personal success. But if people, and especially minority groups, want to do it, that's their business.

Is that racist? Technically, yes. But I simply don't have a problem with minority groups -- blacks, women, gays, Minnesota Republicans, Lawrence Welk fans -- banding together to increase their power. If we insist that they not do so, then their voice is essentially lost, drowned out by the majority.

Where I have trouble with racism is when it's used to suppress other groups, not merely promote one's own. Such suppressive racism requires deliberate, militant action by minorities, but it's pretty much an unavoidable side effect of majority groups. So majority discrimination bothers me pretty much every time.

Agreed.

__________________
Man up.

The nit-wit UCC pastor of Obama's church was on Hannity and Colmes, spouting forth his liberation theology. I don't care what kook politics a person has, but when they warp the Gospel into some sort of political ideology, that's when the alarms sound. This is precisely what liberation theology does by embracing a far left political agenda and connecting it to the Gospel of Christ. The same holds true for some churches on the right.

The UCC is the most liberal church in North America, and also a dying church. It is a very graying church with a rapidly declining church membership. The policies articulated by Obama's church bear strong witness as to why they are a dying church.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

On an side note since Barney reminded me what I was going to bring up earlier.

The article writer was on the same show the day before the pastor. (Which is where I heard about it to begin with)

That whats called Fair&Balanced FOX bashers..they almost always have both sides. You rarely if ever get that on CNN/MSNBC..which probably explains why FOX news ratings dwarf their competitiors by enormous number.

Whats going to be the next problem with Sen. Obama the kind of underwears he wears, his favorite color, his favorite food.

Is there no end to the madness.

Peace.

__________________
E.Pluribus Unum

People of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

If you think Education is Expensive try Ignorance.

Its weak too speak and blame somebody else when you destroy yourself.