| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2008 11:07:08 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by karmat:
See, I don't know.
Many months ago, I visited the church website. On their "Who we Are" page, it was very pro-black, pro-African, anti-white. The exact wording I do not remember, but it was something like "resist the oppression" of the white people. It was enough for me to come away from the website feeling, well, less than loved by my brothers and sisters in Christ, and a little hesitant to open my arms to Obama's candidacy. It was freakingly similar to some of the white supremacist sites I've happened across, only black was substituted for white. :(
I looked yesterday, and that particular wording has since been removed. In its place are video clips about how they love their white brothers, or something like that. Hopefully, that means they have evaluated their stance and realized it was divisive, instead of just detrimental to the campaign. |
Is it this page ? The 'Black Ethics' section has since been removed. You can just go to //www.archive.org and put in //www.tucc.org/home.htm and browse any version of the site history that you like |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 11:14:09 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is it this page ? The 'Black Ethics' section has since been removed. You can just go to //www.archive.org and put in //www.tucc.org/home.htm and browse any version of the site history that you like |
It returned no results
edit --
Duh. That is the wayback page.
That could possibly be it. Substitute "white" wherever it says "black," and you would have a website that would railed against.
But, like you said, it has since been removed, at least the more divisive parts.
Message edited by author 2008-03-21 11:17:34.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 11:58:24 AM · #103 |
If anything ... in the history of this country, perhaps this will go down as yet another defining moment. People are engaged in a conversation that does in fact effect this country in an almost undefinable way.
I'm pretty sure that Obama is less "racist" than most of the people who hold leadership titles in this country (especially government). There are of course people that are looking for a way to pull the wind from his sails for many reasons - and spinning this into something that is hurtful to his campaign certainly seems easy. I think he's handled himself well - as I believe he would as President.
Note: I believe John Kerry also writes many of his speeches. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 12:11:36 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is it this page ? The 'Black Ethics' section has since been removed. You can just go to //www.archive.org and put in //www.tucc.org/home.htm and browse any version of the site history that you like |
It returned no results
edit --
Duh. That is the wayback page.
That could possibly be it. Substitute "white" wherever it says "black," and you would have a website that would railed against.
But, like you said, it has since been removed, at least the more divisive parts. |
This seems to be the bit that was removed. I guess you could see it as divisive ?
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.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 12:13:06 PM · #105 |
A question to those that are not offended by Obama's relationship with Wright:
If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama were republican (with republican positions on issues) and or white, would your opinion of the relationship with Wright change any?
If this were McCain's pastor, would your opinion be different? Hillary's? Bush's? |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 12:14:44 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is it this page ? The 'Black Ethics' section has since been removed. You can just go to //www.archive.org and put in //www.tucc.org/home.htm and browse any version of the site history that you like |
It returned no results
edit --
Duh. That is the wayback page.
That could possibly be it. Substitute "white" wherever it says "black," and you would have a website that would railed against.
But, like you said, it has since been removed, at least the more divisive parts. |
This seems to be the bit that was removed. I guess you could see it as divisive ?
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. |
I don't see that as divisive. Now, if it also said to the detriment of all others then it would be divisive. I guess if you add your own 'read between the lines' interpretation, well, .... |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 12:24:31 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
A question to those that are not offended by Obama's relationship with Wright:
If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama were republican (with republican positions on issues) and or white, would your opinion of the relationship with Wright change any?
If this were McCain's pastor, would your opinion be different? Hillary's? Bush's? |
It is a fine question, that cuts both ways. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 12:34:35 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
A question to those that are not offended by Obama's relationship with Wright:
If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama were republican (with republican positions on issues) and or white, would your opinion of the relationship with Wright change any?
If this were McCain's pastor, would your opinion be different? Hillary's? Bush's? |
No. I'm sure if we dug we could find a friend/associate/whatever of any candidate that has controversial views. This just happens to be the issue of the moment because Obama is the current front runner for the democratic nomination. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 12:35:03 PM · #109 |
I still haven't made a choice who I will vote for, But because Ralph Wiggum would be an upgrade from our current Boss, Id say any of the canidates still in the running are going to be step in a positive direction. Maybe not a big step but it is better than going further backwards.
Message edited by author 2008-03-21 12:52:40. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 12:41:19 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
I don't see that as divisive. Now, if it also said to the detriment of all others then it would be divisive. I guess if you add your own 'read between the lines' interpretation, well, .... |
Having seen a few interviews with KKK leaders, several of these are very similar to their beliefs. Racisim is treating someone differently due to race. If this isn't racisim, what is?
And, with this a part of the churches documents, how welcome are white people? Hispanics? Asians? Having this on a website for a church is not divisive?
And you have to ask, why were these recently removed from the site? |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 12:45:02 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
I don't see that as divisive. Now, if it also said to the detriment of all others then it would be divisive. I guess if you add your own 'read between the lines' interpretation, well, .... |
Having seen a few interviews with KKK leaders, several of these are very similar to their beliefs. Racisim is treating someone differently due to race. If this isn't racisim, what is?
And, with this a part of the churches documents, how welcome are white people? Hispanics? Asians? Having this on a website for a church is not divisive?
And you have to ask, why were these recently removed from the site? |
Nowhere does it say these are exclusive of any other commitments. Just because someone is committed to the black community (or any other community for that matter) doesn't mean they will not do anything for another community.
Every organisation has a core set of goals/commitments/whatever you want to call it. I'm sure a church in the Chinese community would have similar goals. Just replace black with Chinese. No offense intended to either group or any other.
Message edited by author 2008-03-21 12:50:30. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 01:03:21 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And you have to ask, why were these recently removed from the site? |
By 'recently,' I assume you mean a year ago, in March of 2007?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 01:08:08 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
A question to those that are not offended by Obama's relationship with Wright:
If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama were republican (with republican positions on issues) and or white, would your opinion of the relationship with Wright change any?
If this were McCain's pastor, would your opinion be different? Hillary's? Bush's? |
No.
I'm not offended by Obama's relationship with Wright.
I am offended by some of the things Wright has espoused.
I think we all have friends that might hold different opinions on controversial matters, possibly even opinions that are offensive to us. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 01:30:03 PM · #114 |
| Again, I don't think the issue, for me at least, is with Mr.Obama's association with the Rev or his church. I think the issue is his hypocrisy stating that he would not have anyone on his staff who would say anything derogatory of any person of any ethnic group. He demands that Imus be fired by NBC and then in turn puts the Rev on his staff knowing full well that the Rev has made racially charged statements. I also have a hard time believing that Mr.Obama was unaware that the Rev has made these sort of comments or had these beliefs until recently. Let me get this right, you have known the guy for 20+ years, he is your closest spiritual advisor and close friend, you have heard thousands of his sermons preached on sundays(execpt the ones in questions of course), he performs your marriage ceremony, baptises your two children and inspires you to wright a book, but you have "Never" heard him state anything of this sort? Never in passing or in jest or in a moment of frustraion with current events? I was born on a day but it was not yesterday so spare me. I will repeat my position again and state that the fact that he is friend/spiritual advisor doesn't bother me, heck I have friends and some family members that have some crazy beliefs but I don't disown them, I accept them for who they are with their faults as well as their strenghts. The main issue with me is the "Do as I say and not as I do" mentality that he has shown with his actions, which is typical of politicians. His words are beautifully written but unfortuantly his actions speak much louder than his words at this point, at least for me. Maybe I'm naive and I fell for the smooth talking, hope inducing speeches he had been giving on the campaign trail, but I felt he was different than the other politicians in this race and unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Now I'll hear a speech of his and wonder if he is telling me what I should do while doing the opposite. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 01:43:59 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
A question to those that are not offended by Obama's relationship with Wright:
If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama were republican (with republican positions on issues) and or white, would your opinion of the relationship with Wright change any?
If this were McCain's pastor, would your opinion be different? Hillary's? Bush's? |
I believe that Obama is no more responsible for Reverend Wright's comments than McCain is for Bill Cunningham's repeated 'Barack Hussein Obama' references when warming up the crowd at a McCain campaign event.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 02:18:17 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
I don't see that as divisive. Now, if it also said to the detriment of all others then it would be divisive. I guess if you add your own 'read between the lines' interpretation, well, .... |
Having seen a few interviews with KKK leaders, several of these are very similar to their beliefs. Racisim is treating someone differently due to race. If this isn't racisim, what is?
And, with this a part of the churches documents, how welcome are white people? Hispanics? Asians? Having this on a website for a church is not divisive?
And you have to ask, why were these recently removed from the site? |
Nowhere does it say these are exclusive of any other commitments. Just because someone is committed to the black community (or any other community for that matter) doesn't mean they will not do anything for another community.
Every organisation has a core set of goals/commitments/whatever you want to call it. I'm sure a church in the Chinese community would have similar goals. Just replace black with Chinese. No offense intended to either group or any other. |
Not knowing what the "black value system" is, it's difficult to form an enlightened opinion. But I don't see anything there that espouses black supremacy, meaning that blacks are superior to whites and should dominate whites or discriminate against whites.
Would you say that women who join women's groups to work on issues that predominantly affect women are necessarily sexist or hate men or want to discriminate against men? That's a fair comparison, I think, and my answer would be of course not. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 05:23:26 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
A question to those that are not offended by Obama's relationship with Wright:
If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama were republican (with republican positions on issues) and or white, would your opinion of the relationship with Wright change any?
If this were McCain's pastor, would your opinion be different? Hillary's? Bush's? |
I believe that Obama is no more responsible for Reverend Wright's comments than McCain is for Bill Cunningham's repeated 'Barack Hussein Obama' references when warming up the crowd at a McCain campaign event.
~Terry |
I do not think Obama is responsible for Wright's words but he has been associated with Wright for 20 years. Is McCain and Cunningham even distant friends? You will always be judged by who you surround yourself with. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 05:26:13 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Nowhere does it say these are exclusive of any other commitments. Just because someone is committed to the black community (or any other community for that matter) doesn't mean they will not do anything for another community.
Every organisation has a core set of goals/commitments/whatever you want to call it. I'm sure a church in the Chinese community would have similar goals. Just replace black with Chinese. No offense intended to either group or any other. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Not knowing what the "black value system" is, it's difficult to form an enlightened opinion. But I don't see anything there that espouses black supremacy, meaning that blacks are superior to whites and should dominate whites or discriminate against whites.
Would you say that women who join women's groups to work on issues that predominantly affect women are necessarily sexist or hate men or want to discriminate against men? That's a fair comparison, I think, and my answer would be of course not. |
Please explain Wright's words then. When coupled with what Wright has said, this looks worse.
If a Chinese church or a women's group talked like Wright has, I'd call them racist/sexist too.
Message edited by author 2008-03-21 17:29:40. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 05:31:19 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And you have to ask, why were these recently removed from the site? |
By 'recently,' I assume you mean a year ago, in March of 2007?
~Terry |
I don't know when it was changed, I had heard it was changed a few months ago when it was being talked about on conservative talk radio? Who know if that was true?
When did Obama announce his run though?
Message edited by author 2008-03-21 17:32:27. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 05:36:20 PM · #120 |
Excellent point. There was a time when neither could vote (for example).
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Would you say that women who join women's groups to work on issues that predominantly affect women are necessarily sexist or hate men or want to discriminate against men? That's a fair comparison, I think, and my answer would be of course not. |
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 05:37:33 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I don't know when it was changed, I had heard it was changed a few months ago when it was being talked about on conservative talk radio? Who know if that was true? |
The link above shows when it changed. The people on talk radio could check their facts if they wanted to, too. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 06:04:53 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And you have to ask, why were these recently removed from the site? |
By 'recently,' I assume you mean a year ago, in March of 2007?
~Terry |
I don't know when it was changed, I had heard it was changed a few months ago when it was being talked about on conservative talk radio? Who know if that was true?
When did Obama announce his run though? |
The Internet Archive Wayback Machine shows that it was changed between 15 March and 29 March 2007.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2008-03-21 18:05:37.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 06:37:33 PM · #123 |
Here's a link to a YouTube video of an interview with Jeremiah Wright about the "black value system" and those old words on the church's website:
Jeremiah Wright on Fox Noise
If you listen to his explanation all the way through, I think you'll see that my interpretation was correct, that the "black value system" has nothing to do with black supremacy. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 06:44:31 PM · #124 |
| Does it really make a difference if the statement was there two weeks ago, two months ago or a year ago, seems like hair splitting to me. Regardless of whether you find it offensive and divisive or not it now has the appearance that they removed it to benefit the campaign, as if they are hiding something. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 06:49:24 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Does it really make a difference if the statement was there two weeks ago, two months ago or a year ago, seems like hair splitting to me. Regardless of whether you find it offensive and divisive or not it now has the appearance that they removed it to benefit the campaign, as if they are hiding something. |
Whether or not that's true, last I checked, Barack Obama is not the church's webmaster.
~Terry
|
|
