Browse By

But you have to understand, black churches aren’t really Christian…

Someone needs to take Tucker Carlson’s bowtie away. Or shove it in his mouth. Or choke him with it. Something.

CARLSON: So Barack Obama is a member of a church called Trinity United Church of Christ. It’s a predominantly black church in Chicago, that espouses something called the “Black Value System,” [PDF] which includes calls for congregants to be “soldiers for black freedom” and a, quote, “disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness.” Now, it would seem to me, Tom, not to make a broad sweeping statement here, but a racially exclusive theology, a theology that ministers to one group of people, based on race, kind of contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity, and is worth talking about. Wouldn’t you say?

Johnnie Cochran: This is Chewbacca.

Chewbacca Defense

I’m sorry, Tucker… but what? Excuse me? Say again?

CARLSON: Soldiers for black freedom? How about — what about soldiers for freedom for everybody. What does that mean?

Johnnie Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with Barack Obama? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with Barack Obama! It does not make sense!


What. The. Fuck.

Lindsay at This Modern World helpfully points out that the Trinity United Church of Christ describes itself as “Unashamedly black and Unapologetically Christian” and that its first ethical precept states:

Commitment of God “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activist, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind.

This information isn’t secret, yanno. I don’t have a special black church access code to find these things. It’s on their damn website. Is it really too much to ask that Tucker do something even remotely journalistic and responsible like research?

I don’t even know why I typed that sentence. Responsibility is not this Partisan Hack’s strong suit. Hell, dressing like an adult in the 21st century isn’t his strong suit.

But I still.. I just can’t.. I… Johnnie?

Johnnie Cochran: Lookit the monkey! Lookit the silly monkey!

Lookit the monkey

*all heads explode*

This your first time on my blog? Want to yell at me about my horrible racism? Do it over on the Open Thread. Keep comments here about the post topic.Tags: , , , , ,

157 thoughts on “But you have to understand, black churches aren’t really Christian…”

  1. Ann says:

    Hello, ABW.

    This human is full of rage that a black church advocates “spirtual uplift” for black people, albeit, with the word “black” in front of their desire to bring black people up to a better station in life, physically, morally, spiritually.

    And for Carson to go into a psychological tirade because this church mentions the phrase, “soldiers for black freedom” (as if we black people are all really free from white supremacy and its devastating affects on us in this country), and he goes on to say also, “a theology that ministers to one group of people, based on race, kind of contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity, and is worth talking about. Wouldn’t you say?”, smacks of his stupidity of the knowledge that this is what white Christianity has been to black Americans ever since we have been in this country.

    Christianity practiced in the opposite of what Jesus Christ spoke of. Christianity that was anything but Christianity when practiced by white people during America’s history of racial apartheid and racial pogroms against her black citizens.

    As if this has not happened before under Cristianity, EXCEPT it has happened under brutal and barbaric conditions of cruelty and hypocrisy? As if white Christian America’s treatment of her black citizens was over-whelmingly humane? Conditions socially sanctioned by many white Christians throughout the centuries, decades, and generations?

    Has not the white Christian church been racially exclusive for forever in America?

    Has not the white Christian church condoned, and pardoned, from the pulpit, the following atrocities:

    -Mass gang rapes against black women and black girls during slavery and Jim Crow segregation
    -Lynching, castration, torture, immolation of black men. Selling of their charred remains body parts as souvenirs

    Many white ministers across the South preached and exhorted the white community to commit crimes against humanity against their fellow black citizens every Sunday in church. And, every other day of the week. This was normal behaviour in the white Christian world in their psychotic, depraved mistreatment of their fellow citizens.

    But, I guess that was okay.

    Afterall, they were just black humans—er, I mean,—-just black animals.

    Not worthy of treatment that would be good, humane, kind, Christian fellowship as equals.

    This black church is instilling good values into its black men, women and children members.

    This human Carson should be glad.

    So far, black Christians have not advocated the types of viciousness against white America that white America has perpetuated aginst her black citizens.

    And for that, white America should fall down on her knees and thank God.

  2. Ann says:

    “But, you have to understand, black churches aren’t really black christian…”

    They’ve been christian more than, and far longer, than white churches have ever been “Christian” in their mistreatment of black Christians.

  3. Xanthippas says:

    What a stupid thing for him to say. Has he been in one of those huge evangelical modern churches in the suburbs lately? Many of those churches espouse nationalist and xenophobic doctrine, what with flags waving everywhere and condemnations of Islam, and are not accused of being un-Christian. In fact their nationally and racially exclusive theology goes hand-in-hand with the inclusiveness and xenophobia of their congregants, and so they never face accusations of being un-Christian, though you’ll hardly find such attitudes in the bible.

    It would be nice if people who are on cable would spend about five minutes thinking about these things, but that doesn’t make for good TV I suppose.

  4. elementskater says:

    Tucker comes across sounding like an idiot. It’s almost as if he’s saying, “Oh my dear sweet Jesus, black people who are proud to be black…have a church…and they’re Christians?”

    Obama seems to have some good ideas, why don’t they (as “journalists”) concentrate on his politics?

  5. dailymuse says:

    Tucker is a dick.

  6. dailymuse says:

    Tucker is a whiny, little dick.

  7. Steve says:

    I haven’t seen all the context, and in this case it can make a big difference.

    You can see that if you substitute “white” for “black”, and speak of a “struggle for white freedom”. If you’re thining of a free and non-racial democratic society, that sounds racist. But of course America has not always been a free and non-racial democratic society. It’s been “the land of the free, and the home of the slave”.

    So in that context, when one is speaking about the struggle for freedom of a specific oppressed group, the commentators atre being disingenuous.

  8. abu ameerah says:

    Tucker Carlson, the former CNN Crossfire reject, needs to be put out of his misery. Statements like these prove how full of crap he really is.

    He should join the rest of his conservative ilk and go play scrabble in al Anbar province…

  9. socialorb says:

    Man… so much drama in the LBC…. its hard being Sean Hannity.


    Seriously, I think people are looking for ANYTHING against Obama. I am surprised he is running in the first place considering all the stuff that is going to be thrown at him, but I do think he would make a good president especially in these times. Not too sure about Hillary.

  10. judohobo says:

    These white supremacists are looking for anything they can find against Obama, and it shows, they’re really reaching with this one, just like when the prime minister of australia said that if he were a terrorist he’d be praying for Obama to win. They’re just trying to remind us all that only white people with no
    qualifications or ability should be president

  11. pluckymama says:

    Goodness, how can a person say something isn’t “Christian”? Perhaps black people do need to get together and support eachother, they never said anything about white being a bad race. They aren’t black supremacists.

    Obama for president!!

  12. Pingback: Happy Valentine’s Day « The Sound of EmCeeKhan
  13. Trackback: Happy Valentine’s Day « The Sound of EmCeeKhan
  14. zkennedy23 says:

    “They’re just trying to remind us all that only white people with no qualifications or ability should be president”

    Wht r y gttng t Jdhb?

    Pls fll m n bcs ‘m t lss f wr.. N qlfctns… h wt! Mr lk “N JSTFCTN”. cld sy ll dmcrts r grnl br tng pssbgs. Whts my jstfctn? Th fct ht dmcrts. (Whch s vry bd jstfctn) Ths gs fr y Hb. “h hs wht mn wth n qlfctn!”
    Wll sr, hw dd h gt n ffc ll ths tms? Pls rp ff ll yr l Gr nd Krry lctn stckrs, th vts r n nd ll f YR vts wr cst n vn.


  15. the angry black woman says:

    Ahem, zkennedy, you’re treading on thin ice. One more outburst from you and… well…. it’ll be funny for me, but not for you.

  16. Jason357 says:

    Tucker gave up his bowtie long ago. He tried no tie, and lately has gone with traditional necktie. Obama is a hypocrite if he preaches about a colorblind society and joins institutions that are all how the color of one’s skin. I don’t see how that’s so murky.

  17. zkennedy23 says:

    Mh… s fr s th blck chrch dl gs (whch my ntrst shws stggrng ZR) Thrs n nd t spcfy chrch… rlgn shld nt hv stblshmnts crtd fr crtn ppl.

    ls… W knw wht hppnd t blcks n th pst. Hw mny plgs hv bn cst? Mny, s qt sng th pst (whch hs bn dwlld n LNG NGH) t jstfy mkng chrchs fr blcks. Jst bcs stl yr cr lst mnth dsn’t mn y r blgtd t d th sm.


  18. the angry black woman says:

    Hey Jason, I did notice that the third time watching the vid. Good to know he’s joing the world of blandly dressed people once more.

    zkennedy – it’s been a long time since I’ve devoweled someone!

  19. Steve J. says:

    I love Barack, and personally don’t care what his religious beliefs are, as long as he does not use them to justify irrational policies like some presidents seem to have done before.

  20. zkennedy23 says:

    I have a direct question miss “ABW” and I’m not trying to “butt heads” with you, but why do you need to specify that you’re an “angry black woman”? I mean, I myself am an “angry guy”, but I don’t really feel the need to add race into it. So my question is, why is there a need to put race into the picture?

  21. the angry black woman says:

    That question is best asked in the comments of my “About” post. Feel free to repost the comment there and I’ll answer you.

  22. Peaseblossom says:

    *sigh* It’s begun already.

    Opponents are going to be hard pressed to find a way to bring Obama down using facts, so I guess they have to make their own up.

  23. zkennedy23 says:

    Ths my b ltt “lft wng”, bt ll ths prpgnd wth th wrd “rtclt” mks m wnt t prjctl vmt n smn’s fc.

    Wh grs? Wh dsgrs?…

  24. healtheland says:

    Do any of you read the Bible? Like, Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11 for instance? Since you obviously have not, it says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” and “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” So, unless you are one of those people who do not believe that the Bible should be literally interpreted (except when it talks about peace and helping the poor, and other stuff that you personally agree with), then Tucker Carlson is right. There should be no racial distinctions or special racial movements in the church. And the early church practiced that: it was extremely diverse. As a matter of fact, Acts records the first attempt to divide the church by racial lines when the Jews were discriminating against the Greeks in their social service programs: the church immediately crushed it by placing lovers of God as adminstrators of the social programs to ensure equal and fair treatment for all. There is nothing wrong, naturally, with having black churches where legitimate circumstances (demographics, friendships, an affinity for certain worship styles) dictate it. (Then again, being a Christian SHOULD force people out of their own natural desires and comfort zones, and that includes a desire to “be with your own kind and do things the way you like to and are used to.”) But by all means, a church dedicated to “black activism” and “black uplift” definitely contradicts the Bible.

    And then there is the sin angle. Hypocrisy is a sin. These same people know very much that they consider the white churches that are “dedicated to white activism and white uplift” as RACIST HATE GROUPS. Now while the world countenances such blatant double standards where it is convenient, God and the Bible holds Christians to higher standards. So go ask Barack Obama and the members of this church what they think of groups as the National Association for the Advancement of White People and the many other pro – white organizations (including not a few “churches”) that profess nonviolence and nonaggression against other races (yes, they use the “we are not anti – black, we are pro – white” line). I absolutely guarantee you that 99.9% of them will be convicted of the sin of hypocrisy by their own words, and that 99.9% of the 0.1% who will not will be either lying or quite strange.

  25. Jason357 says:

    Someone else who drives me crazy always changing their on-air look is Allison on The Most. Stewart?? She looks great in glasses, but keeps taking them on and off, and then wears a couple of different kinds. Just leave the damn things on, Allison.

    No need for race to be a factor as long as everyone refrains from bringing it up, not just white people. Tucker Carlson is a terrible show host and has deep neocon roots in his family. His father is a connected neocon type. Similar to Limbaugh pretending to have not had any help becoming famous…the US Congress just named a building after his grandfather. Yeah, sure Rush, did it all on your own.

    A dirty little secret about Tucker is that he’s always against anyone who opposes the GOP. He talks all of that grassroots/populist talk, but deep down opposes anyone the GOP leadership opposes. Joe Scarborough is the same kind of phony.

  26. jhaas says:

    “colorblind” is a disservice to true race reconciliation.

  27. the angry black woman says:

    healtheland, everything you just said is complete and utter bullshit. And I’ll tell you why.

    First of all, there’s nothing in this church’s precepts that EXCLUDES white people or asians or native americans or anyone of any kind. What they are doing is recognizing the needs of their congregants, who are predominantly black. So this shit about them being contradictory to the bible is just so very, very wrong.

    Beyond that, you are seriously not allowed to come in here and condemn a black church for wanting to help uplift traditionally downtrodden peoples when you have absolutely no fucking clue about the history of black churches in this country. Christianity, as practiced by white people in America almost since this country became a country, was completely contradictiry to the Bible. Evidence?
    Slavery – condoned by the churches.
    Lynchings – condoned by the churches.
    Segregation – condoned by the churches.

    Need I go on?

    Do you even understand why we have ‘black’ churches? It has nothing to do with this racist bull you’re spewing. It’s because in many cases blacks weren’t allowed to worship with white people. And even when they were, they had to hear a preacher speak on the pulpit about how they were less than shit (but God would forive them for that as long as they paid due respect to the white man). For you to even waste time typing up such horrendous stupidity tells me that you are ignorant of history or even of what goes on around you today. You quote the Bible, so I take it you’re a Christian. Guess what? You’re a BAD ONE. You don’t even know the real history of your religion and you’re going to come here and tell ME that black churches are racist? Get the fuck out of your white privilege bubble you Neanderthal!


  28. healtheland says:

    angry black woman:

    I am black. Attended black churches all my life; have never been a member of and rarely visited white ones. Grew up in a town that was 70% black, attended public schools that were 70+% black, attended a black college. Married to a black woman, now live in an area that is 90% black. I have been profiled and stopped by police. I have been discriminated against when seeking employment and on the job while employed.

    I do not know the real history of my religion? Maybe not. But I do know the Bible. At no point does the Bible call the slavery a sin. As a matter of fact, the book of Leviticus explicitly describes how slaves are to be treated. And in the book of Philemon, Paul instructed a slaveowner to accept his runaway slave upon his return, and not punish him.

    And where in my post did I say that this church excludes people? I did not. You are clearly not familiar with the Bible; but did you at least read my post? I merely said: “There should be no racial distinctions or special racial movements in the church.” This church may not exclude people, but it certainly has an exclusive philosophy, as its philosophy excludes the true meaning and intent of the Bible.

    Now as to what churches may or may have condoned or done, it means nothing to me. Why? Because I am not a practitioner or defender of any religion, I only adhere to the Bible. Many churches have failed to follow the Bible and thereby transgressed it. Such is sin, and sin is what sinners do. So, a person who commits or supports or even fails to prevent lynching may call himself a Christian, but in reality he is just another sinner just like everyone else. How do I know this? The Bible says so. Pay attention to what the Bible actually says rather than what people do – especially sinners – and you will be illuminated.

  29. foreclosurefish says:

    This is the best material they’ve been able to come up with about Obama so far? They’re going to have to dig a lot deeper than that to find anything remotely controversial. This is almost not even noteworthy.

    The Bible says a lot of things. A lot of things it says contradicts things it says earlier or later in the book.

    Trying to call Obama racist for going to a church that espouses black values is just as ridiculous as saying he’s anti-Jewish for going to a Christian church. Or that he’s anti-New York for going to a church in Chicago. Or that he’s against bipartisanship for going to a church with the word “Trinity” in it.

    See: Ridiculous.

  30. Sam Spade says:

    Kerry had a hard time from the Catholic church where he is a regular, devoted member. Now Obama is getting a hard time about his church too.

    I could deal with this as usual political nastiness, but consider: Bush employs his rebirth to wipe away the sins of his youth. He cites a higher father in his decisions, even those involving war. What grieves me is that Bush DOES NOT ATTEND CHURCH. There is simply no way to spin this: either he’s a hypocrite, or he feels more important than other Christians. Try to imagine what would happen if Obama or any Democrat wasn’t a regular attendee of a Christian church!

  31. the angry black woman says:

    Ah, healtheland, you’re one of those ‘non-denominational’ christians. Yeah, I have even less respect for what you have to say than normal. Keep that in mind as I continue.

    I am very familiar with the Bible. I mean… not the crazy interpretations of the Bible by those who claim to ‘only live by the Bible’, but familiar enough. I don’t recall it saying anywhere “There should be no racial distinctions or special racial movements in the church.” The passage you quoted does not preclude groups of Greek Christians getting together, helping other Greeks out, and using the Bible to empower Greeks to be better people. It just says Christ is for everyone. Obama’s church doesn’t keep Christ from anyone, now does it? So therefore, it’s not anti-Biblical to have a black church that’s all about the black people.

    You did not say ‘their church excludes people’. That was just my answer to your ‘Christ is for everyone’ business. And again I say, no where in the Bible does it say it’s bad for people of a similar ethnic, cultural, geographic, or political background to get together and form churches around such.

    It’s surprising to me that you’re black. I usually only hear this kind of crazy talk from whites. But the non-denominational thing answers that for me.

    (By the way, just so everyone is clear on this point – I am not hating on all the non-denominational folks. I just have major ideological issues with them mainly based on my own encounters with their ilk. *coughcoughcultcough* If you count yourself as ND and feel I’m being unfair to the group of you, drop me a line.)

    At any rate, what about this church’s philosophy is exclusive? Do they say “we won’t minister to anyone but blacks”? Or “No one but blacks may attend our church” or “only black people deserve to be one with Christ”? Where is the exclusion?

    And just so ya know, I do pay attention to what the Bible says. Some of the things the Bible has taught me:

    -It’s okay to have group sex with girl virgins but not random men off the street
    -God gambles with Satan and we are their pawns
    -Slavery is a-ok
    -Sex with prostitutes is a-ok
    -It’s not okay to murder unless you’re murdering whole tribes of people in a war you started because you wanted to take their land
    -It’s okay for a woman to be raped, but when her brothers slaughter the man who raped her along with his tribe, that’s not good because the neighbors will look down on you
    -It’s totally fine to steal your brother’s birthright because mom likes you best
    -Any tree that doesn’t bloom out of season sucks ass, according to Jesus
    -family is unimportant, according to Jesus
    -God will kill children if their parents worship other gods.
    -Jews are icky

    Yeah, I’ll be following that book any moment now.

  32. Mick Gee says:

    Obama is gonna win this one….even if it means the entire hip hop community has to come out in full lyrical force, starting with RAPSPACE.TV!

  33. healtheland says:


    “The Bible says a lot of things. A lot of things it says contradicts things it says earlier or later in the book.” Even if it were true, that would be irrelevant to the context of the comments that I made, do you not agree? As it is, please list one of these examples of “contradiction” in the Bible; it would be very useful to me in my Bible study, as I have read the Bible cover to cover three times within the past few years, am starting the fourth, and have yet to find the contradictions of which you speak. I am familiar with the many things purpoted to be contradictions, but virtually all of them are things taken out of context.

    “A church that espouses black values”? Whatever are “black values”? For that matter, what are “white values”? “Asian values”? “Hispanic values”? “Sri Lankan/Madagascarian values?” Do such things exist? I think the term that you are looking for is “black political interests.” But I would venture that were it a white senator and leading Presidential candidate or otherwise person of prominence belonging to a church or organization that promoted “white values” or “white political interests”, it would indeed be exceedingly controversial with a lot of people, yourself included.

    Now while organizations that espouse and promote black political interests may indeed be appropriate and proper after a fashion, the only thing that Christian churches should be promoting is Jesus Christ. That many churches, black and white, fail to do so exclusively and in many cases at all, is a great shame and is great evidence indeed of the flaws inherent in man and in everything that man tries to do of and for himself.

  34. cdebianchi says:

    My goodness. Great point.

  35. the angry black woman says:

    healtheland, this is not the place to debate the Bible. Though as far as contradictions go, this list is pretty exhaustive and, despite what you say, is not based on stuff ‘taken out of context. The thing is, anyone can twist the Bible around to make it do whatever they want and justify whatever they want. That’s the history of the thing.

    At any rate, if you want to have a debate about the Bible, do so on your blog.

    What are ‘black values’? That’s actually an interesting question. yes, black values do exist. I’m sure asian values do, too.

    Let’s start by defining values as pertains to this conversation: An ideal accepted by some individual or group.

    Okay then. A Black value might then be “a desire for all black children to grow up not ever feeling like they are inferior because of their skin color, hair, neighborhood, ancestry, or way of speaking.” I woldn’t call that a ‘white value’ because that’s something white folks take for granted. I also wouldn’t call it an ‘asian value’ because I don’t know to what extent ‘asian’ people worry about those issues.

    The crux is, there are some values that are defined by our experience as black people. Of course values will intersect and many many have nothing to do wth race, culture, country, or even religion. Not all values are universal, though. Therefore, there ARE such things as black values.

    I think that Jesus (or Joshua, as I call him. After all, that’s what his momma named him) would be all about churches ministering to their congregations. There’s nothing in the precepts of this church that isn’t about Joshua. You’ve still failed to demonstrate how they are not about Joshua.

    Also, you’re being very judgmental about churches and people not like yourself. Isn’t judgment the exclusive province of God? I think it is, yeah. You’re going to hell!

  36. windypurple says:

    This is a mockery of Christianity..

  37. healtheland says:

    the angry black woman:

    I mean no disrespect, but you honestly prove the truism: “reading does not equal comprehension.” Now in your case, it is not due to any intellectual or educational deficiency on your part, but your insistence on reading everything that I write through the construct of biases and preconceived notions that you have created for everyone who disagrees with you. Alas, for that I cannot judge you, for not long ago, I was not the same as you but rather much worse. Indeed, were blogging in existence in college (that is if I had your initiative when in college; my lacking such is why it took me so long to FINALLY get out!), my weblog would be just like yours, except far more angry, racist, and violent. Especially against whites, Jews, and Christians. Or did I mention that I was a “hip hop radical” poseur while in college? Loved Public Enemy, Poor Righteous Teachers, X Clan, Brand Nubian, all that stuff. Took part in a protest rally that shut down the dean’s office. Bought plenty of copies of the Final Call. Passed out fliers publicizing the Million Man March. Used to shave my head, put on the baggy jeans, plaid shirts (or T shirts with racist slogans on them), bandanas, baseball caps, and walk down the street giving angry stares to white people, especially cops. Neat stuff like that.

    You said: “At any rate, what about this church’s philosophy is exclusive? Do they say “we won’t minister to anyone but blacks”? Or “No one but blacks may attend our church” or “only black people deserve to be one with Christ”? Where is the exclusion?” in response to: “This church may not exclude people, but it certainly has an exclusive philosophy, as its philosophy excludes the true meaning and intent of the Bible.” By that, I was not saying that the church was keeping out or marginalizing PEOPLE, but rather true Christianity. They are not alone of course, as a matter of fact I would hazard a guess and say that the vast majority of western churches do the same. So in that respects, there is nothing unusual or special about this church; indeed they are doing nothing that a white church that works to help the Republican Party or any church that is primarily concerned with its own financial matters or being a social meeting place is doing. So no, I am not singling out black churches or Obama’s church. It is no different than any other church that exists for any other reason than to promote Jesus Christ exclusively in the manner that the Bible proscribes.

    And by the way, where does the Bible say that Jews are icky? It calls them God’s Chosen People throughout. Where does the Bible say that it is fine to steal your brother’s birthright? Jacob paid dearly for that decision. As a matter of fact, the name Jacob means “thief”, and his name was later changed to Israel only after he repented. Keep in mind: just because people’s actions are recorded in the Bible does not mean that the Bible condones it! And for those who hammer the “the Bible is misogynistic” thing, carrying that preconceived notion obscures the reader from noticing that the superior character of women often in clear contrast to that of man is a constant theme in the Bible, repeating over and over again, starting from the beginning (as a matter of fact ESPECIALLY in the beginning).

  38. the angry black woman says:

    You are an ex-radical. Am I supposed to say yay?

    At any rate, I don’t think you know what true Christianity is. Not that you’re alone there. There are a lot of people who don’t know what it is. Hell, I’m sure I don’t. That’s because I haven’t read the Bible in any of its original languages. I haven’t stdied it, not just for the words in it or the translations of those words, but in the context of the culture and society that existed around the people who wrote it. I don’t know much about Pastine in the irst century, I don’t know Aramaic from Klingon. And I’m willing to bet that you don’t, either. Tell me if I’m wrong, but my hunch says I’m right. And, in that case, you really can’t tell me what true christianity is, because true Christianity was invented around 2,000 years ago by some people who were scared, hurt, dissilusioned, and, in the case of Paul, completely power hungry and silly. If you want to tell me you follow what the Bible says, then you’re really going to have to tell me you read greek, hebrew, aramaic, etc. Really.

    Jews are icky:
    John 7:1 “for [Jesus] would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.”
    7:13 “no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.”
    speaking about Jews in 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.”
    John really isn’t into Jews…

    Jesus condemns the Jews for being “the children of them which killed the prophets.” in Matthew 23:31

    Acts has a lot of blaming ‘the Jews’ for killing Jesus, which is a real dubious proposition.

    Jacob pays dearly…. by inheriting his brother’s birthright, having 12 sons, getting the whole nation named after him, and ending up in heaven with the other patriarchs. Yeah, that’s fair. I should BE so punished as to end up with everything while the person I stole from ends up as a footnote. yeah. Everything is okay as long as you repent! I’m going to go kick a puppy. Seems to me that the bible condones actions by not saying “by the way, this is wrong.” It has no problem saying that having sex with another man’s wife is wrong, why not throw something in there about not reaping benefits from stolen property?

    But, again, this isn’t the place to debate the Bible. If you want, we can continue. But make a space on YOUR blog.

  39. healtheland says:

    the angry black woman:

    I respond to another’s question with a request for more information and am told “talk about the Bible on your own blog”? That is most unfair.

    “Okay then. A Black value might then be “a desire for all black children to grow up not ever feeling like they are inferior because of their skin color, hair, neighborhood, ancestry, or way of speaking.” I woldn’t call that a ‘white value’ because that’s something white folks take for granted. I also wouldn’t call it an ‘asian value’ because I don’t know to what extent ‘asian’ people worry about those issues.”

    I am surprised that a progressive such as yourself would be so ethnocentric! First off, “white folks” very much so cannot take that for granted in places where they are the minority and find themselves discriminated against, as is often the case and happens! As a matter of fact, I recently read an article on an Indian (I mean from India, not “Native American”) CEO of an American company where the interviewer asked if he had faced discrimination in America. He replied: “In America, I, an Indian, can be the CEO of an American company. No white person can be the CEO of an Indian company in India.” Second, you are being very monolithic in your treatment of white people, blithely ignoring the many class/ethnic divisions amongst them. If you have ever spent time in Appalachia (or a trailer park) you will very much find white people who grow up being made to feel inferior and deeply resent it! Or even go to a large city, especially Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and New York, and there are the things going on between the Irish, Italians, Polish, Catholics, Protestants, etc. And let us go to Europe. Why did the World Wars start? Because the Germans were angry at the French and British for regarding themselves as superior to Germans. Nazism was actually a defensive mechanism against the centuries of French and British looking down on the Germans, and that was why it was so popular. And then you also had the eastern Europeans (Gavrilo Princip) starting a World War because they felt put upon by western Europeans. Even in a relatively small country like the U.K., the Irish and Scots are certain that the British discriminate against them. See the movie “The Commitments” about an Irish R&B group where their manager convinces the group that they can handle the switch from rock to R&B because “you are Irish, and the Irish are the blacks of the U.K., and what is more you are from Dublin, and Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland.” And if I am correct, did not the mafia start in Sicily because Sicilians were looked down upon by the other Italians?

    So, there is nothing unique whatsoever regarding “black values.” And referencing the Bible again, it is a book FULL of racial and ethnic tensions. During the time of Joshua (you are correct, that is his actual name, Yeshua, which means “God saves”, and his being given that name was the fulfillment of a specific Messianic prophecy given in Isaiah, so yes the Bible is contradictory, right?) the big ethnic/racial problem in Israel during that time was between the Jews and the Samaritans. They hated each other because the Jews viewed the Samaritans as very much lesser than they, and were incensed at the Samaritans’ claim that they were worshipping the same God. As a matter of fact, one of the worst insults hurled at Jesus (in the Gospel of John) was when the Jews called him a Samaritan! Of course, the Jews themselves were in a bad state at the time, under ruthless brutal subjugation to Rome. So, Jesus could have very well focused his ministry on “Jewish values” in the manner after Obama’s church. Instead, he made a specific point of ministering to the Samaritans, and also of advocating the Samaritans’ cause to his own people, including “the good Samaritan” where he actually depicted a Samaritan as being more moral and decent than the Jewish religious leaders! (It would have been the equivalent of giving a major sermon showing how a Dixiecrat was more moral than an NAACP member in front of a black empowerment crowd I suppose.)

    So no, this church is not following after the example of Jesus, but doing the opposite. Is that judging them? Of course it is. This whole “do not judge” business is – yes! – an example of how people take the Bible out of context. If I witness a murder, would I refrain from reporting to the authorities and testifying in court that the man committed murder because it would be a sin of “judging”? OF COURSE NOT! In a similar fashion, it is not a sin to state that a church or a Christian has departed from the Bible. To the contrary, Paul’s writings in the New Testament say that it is a sin NOT TO.

    I would explain the context of the “judge not” verse, but as you yourself told me, this is not a Bible blog, so I guess I cannot.

  40. the angry black woman says:

    I respond to another’s question with a request for more information and am told “talk about the Bible on your own blog”? That is most unfair.

    No, it’s just setting the boundaries of what goes on in the posts on my blog. This conversation is veering off topic, I feel. It doesn’t really have much to do with Obama. Now, if you feel that more discussion is to be had about the bible, make an open post on your blog and tell people here to trot over there. That’s perfectly acceptable.

  41. the angry black woman says:

    In response to your “the white people have it hard, too!” rant. Yes, people everywhere face hardships. But here in America, we have something called White Privilege. Look it up. The history of the world is the history of people oppressing each other, true, and no one has a monopoly on suffering. But I’m talking about America. This church? is in America. Not Ireland or Germany or anywhere else. Thus, my ‘black values’ bit still holds.

    And even if we take your assertion that rural people have these worries, too, they don’t have all of those worries all at once. Even where whites are a ‘minority’, they still have White Privilege (again, in America). Even outside of America they can have it. A white person can’t be CEO in India? Boofuckinghoo. That doesn’t mean they’re oppressed. If I were Indian, I would be doing my damnedest to keep white people out of the country and particularly out of positions of power due to what happened the last time they were allowed in.

    Being a progressive doesn’t mean I put on the rosy glasses of ignorance and pretend that race doesn’t matter. It matters a lot. What I want is for people to quit acting like it doesn’t matter, to quit saying that all people need is to work hard and do right and the whole world will fall at their feet. That’s craziness.

    Black values are unique to black people living in America in the present time. But, again, it doesn’t mean that other folks’ values don’t intersect at some points. It does mean that they are particular enough to need addressing within the community.

    Seems like Joshua changed his mind about whether he was there for ‘all people’ or just the children of Israel. At first he said, “leave those other people alone, we’re here for Jews!” Then someone pointed out to the editor that they blame the Jews for his death later. So then, randomly, he’s there for everyone.

    Since you’ve already equated the church’s values with politics, under your definition, Joshua did focus his ministry on “Jewish values” because it was all about being against “Roman values”.

    Um, you’re totally twisting the whole judging thing around. (I called it, tho! Two comments back) Witnesing murder and reporting it to the authorities is not exercising judgment on your fellow man. It’s reporting a crime. If something illegal happens, our laws say you gotta tell the authorities. But promouncing that people are not being ‘true Christians’ is judgment, not crime reporting. You’re taking it upon yourself to say what God may or may not find pleasing. “Judge not” is NOT out of context. It’s quite clear. What possible context can you pull out of your ass to show that what you’re doing isn’t being judgmental?

    And yeah, tell me on your own blog. C’mon, you have one. Create a post, open up a dialogue. Unless you fear the mighty wrath of the abw. (personally, I would fear the wrath of Hathor more.)

  42. AuLThaT says:

    Listen to Tucker say “I don’t think Barack is a scary guy” and you find the root of his racism and the reason he has a problem with anything prefaced by the word Black. Obama presents himself as an electable candidate for president… meaning he is not “scary” to white america. He doesn’t come off as the type of person who would get into office and promptly repay the founding fathers for all that they’ve done for us descendants of slaves. He’s not even a descendant of slaves. That phrase “I don’t think Barack is a scary guy” stood out more than all the other pheces falling out of his mouth. It makes me wonder who considers a “scary guy” and what it is that causes him such fear.

  43. healtheland says:

    the angry black woman:

    Actually, I was not a radical at all then. Quite the contrary, I was following the crowd, doing what was very popular and gained me much acceptance at the time! If anything, I am a radical NOW.

    I suppose that since I cannot be a true Christian since the Bible was written 2000 years ago in languages that I do not understand in cultures that I do not relate to, then one would have had to be a German in the late 1800s to be a real Marxist? Or for that matter to be a real liberal – leftist – progressive, all of which grew out of Marxism with a little French enlightenment thrown in? And I suppose that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand anything that Frederick Douglass or Sojourner Truth wrote and thereby be a true soldier for black liberation unless you yourself lived in that time and were a slave? (Wait a minute, were Douglass and Truth born free? I think they were, but the point is still good.) And are you going to tell me that modern Jews don’t understand Judaism? Or that modern philosophers do not understand philosophy unless they lived amongst Plato and Aristotle and speak ancient Greek, where philosophy was (allegedly) invented? And do you REALLY UNDERSTAND evolution, for instance? Have you, er, read Darwin’s book? It is, to say the least, quite racist (and sexist). As a matter of fact, its intent was to advocate the notion that only the white race would survive and the rest would die out, just as all the rest of the “lesser evolved species” died out. So do you, er, know what REALLY MOTIVATED DARWIN to write that book? Could it be … that he just plain did not like black people? With a title like “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, it is a good guess. What I would like to know is that why is it that the media and our schools only refers to the book by the name of “Origin of Species” and just leaves out the rest? So, after your own fashion, unless you agree with Darwin’s beliefs that blacks are inferior to whites – a disfavored race – and therefore will soon (according to the evolutionary timeline anyways) be no more, which would be a good thing, then you truly do not understand evolution. Then again, if you truly understood evolution according to the theory’s originator (or in truth popularizer, but Darwin’s fellowtravelers all had similar ideas), you shouldn’t even be blogging, because according to Darwin your underevolved brain is unsuited for anything other than having and rearing children and doing menial chores around the house. So, er, yeah, Darwinism is great, much better than “both man and woman were created equal in the image of God” and “God created and loves all races and wishes to draw them near to him” Bible stuff. Sure, modern Darwinism has now dumped all of the nasty racist and misogynist stuff, but that was revisionism done by people who “really don’t understand evolution since they didn’t know Darwin or his fellow scientists and did not live in his time or culture.” But a guy who DID UNDERSTAND Darwinism, loved it, and put it into practice? Adolph Hitler! It is a historical fact! During the Nuremburg trials, Nazi officers actually used Darwinism as their main defense, saying that they had a right to use science to advance the interests of their state, and that it was none of the international community’s business! The people running the trials did not want to oppose Darwinism, so they actually had to create a new legal theory solely for the purposes of convicting them! It is all 100% true, but people, you know, do not like to put that sort of thing in history books. Offends too many people. Especially Darwinists, who are heavily represented (to say the least) among the people who write and publish history books.

    So you see, people only apply the “you REALLY don’t understand it” notion to things that they personally disagree with and dislike. It is the classic red herring.

    Ah well, it is way past my bedtime, and I perhaps should never have intruded on your blog in the first place. I commend you for being very honest, patient, accommodating, and (with the exception of your most unfortunate initial response) hospitable towards my intrusion. As to whether we should contend over the Bible on my weblog, I will extend to you the opportunity by giving out its address (, but first I will warn you … you will find its content most offensive to your sensibilities!

  44. healtheland says:

    the angry black woman:

    P. S. As far as claiming that I am promoting “colorblindness”, you have me mistaken for someone else. If there is one thing that the Bible is not, it is colorblind! Quite the contrary, the Bible identifies EVERYONE by their nation, and also assigns them attributes according to their nation. Further, being “colorblind” would be living a lie, which is exactly the opposite of what the Bible demands of you (calls it a sin as a matter of fact).

    So, I never said that race does not matter. To the contrary, racism is incontrovertibly a sin, and the church is obligated according to the Bible to oppose it. However, the method of opposition has to be in accordance with Bible doctrine. (Of course, reading the Bible with the predisposition that it is a racist sexist patriarchial oppressive repressive book practiced by evil men would sort of preclude your identifying anything in it that can be used to fight racism.)

    And lest you misunderstand me, I have no problem with the existence of a SECULAR ORGANIZATION that has the same goals and philosophy as Barack Obama’s church. I only object when Christian churches do. I suppose that you could call it “separation between church and state”, a doctrine that I will prejudge you to be in favor of. Especially when the churches in question are white conservative ones. Now this time, I really do mean good night, and after I hit “submit” I will close my web browser to make sure of it. I again extend to you an offer to come to, but I have already warned you that you will very much dislike my weblog and the experience of having to read it.

  45. feartheseeds says:

    In order for Tucker to continue working he has to have an audience. Talk shows that are reasoned, thoughtful and quiet have no audiences, which is why they’re all on PBS or TVO. Tucker, like any other talk show host who relies on emotional responses, will continue saying things that invite reactionary responses until people stop responding. Which is unlikely to ever happen. Because he has nice graphics, and his guests have to yell overtop of his speaking to get their point heard, which means what they say must be important because, otherwise, why bother with the yelling? I say we support him and his program, because if he’s ever cancelled (again) chances are he’ll wind up at some fifth-rate community college teaching some poor kids about his version of Journallism. And no one needs that.

  46. Neko says:

    hahaha, humans are funny.

  47. ifrancesco says:

    this post is very good!

  48. the angry black woman says:

    I just woke up, and will have better things to say later. However, I must point out:

    1 – My progressive or leftist ideals don’t come from a book, they come from how I feel about my life and experiences at this current time. I don’t claim any authority as a progressive, I don’t claim any progressive ideal is ‘true progressiveness’. Therefore, you’re just frantically building a strawman.

    2 – No where on this website have I ever said my position on evolution. Therefore, the arm of the strawman you’re using to beat me over the head about Darwin? You can stop that shit right now. Never claimed to believe him, never claimed to even know what it is he said.

    I guess you assume I worship at the altar of Darwin because I appear to be against Christians. That’s so ignorant it’s funny.

    This is also funny: “I say we support him and his program, because if he’s ever cancelled (again) chances are he’ll wind up at some fifth-rate community college teaching some poor kids about his version of Journallism. And no one needs that.”

    hahahahahaha! True.

  49. dailymuse says:

    I want everyone to know that I thought very long and hard about my previous comment.

  50. Charlie Weis's Small Intestine says:

    This blog is to funny. The only thing you forgot to add is that you as a black person have had more chances and opportunity, through white guilt, than white kids. AS a black person I just chuckle and feel a little ashamed at your idiot categories.

    Did you waste your free chances? I hope not, with all of the repressed white anger, you might be able to work some more of their guilt

  51. talullah says:

    Congrats on being a top blog ABW. I would join into the convo but I’m seeing some ignorance and it’s too early right now. *looks @ Charlies comment* SMH.

  52. examicostudent says:

    this whole thing becomes very confusing when so many people are commenting your blog. but what seems to stick out at me the most is- yes that guy was being utterly stupid and completely ignorant when he said that black churches are essentially not christian churches, but i have to say i admire black people, and probably have more respect for them and their race than my own. i am white and i see people saying that white people have it hard too…well we all have it hard, but you have to understand, we werent slaves for hundreds of years we dont have that kind of unity. we’re the ones that were fighting against each other while they were banding together in the civil war. and so it seems to me that its always white against white and not white and against black or black against white or black against black. of all the people i know and admire spiritually id say that more than half of them are black. those black gospel churches are the best because i love music, they use music to really let the spirit administer and lead them..its truly amazing to see that looking from the outside in. but honestly there is one more thing that is bothering me. i know, abw, that you have expressed a dislike for non denominational christian churches, and that is what i attend but you might be interested to know my music pastor has felt the need to leave our church in order to worship in a more “black” manner. he is currently planning with another black minister to start and inter-racial christian church. and that is what i find that saddest, that whites must leave their churches because their congregations deem it innapropriate to worship as the blacks do. and i love it. i am currently attending a school for the arts, and we were learning in my music theory class how essentially all american music stemmed from the negro spirituals, and so our supposed “white church music” which im growing to dislike more and more” is just a bad attempt to copy what you all brought to the table. i really dont have i guess an amazing understanding of this whole spectrum of comments because i had 40 mins before class and i really just didnt have the time to devote to reading it all, but i see some very interesting very controversial and some very contradictory comments from both sides of the argument. i kind of chuckled everytime i saw a swear word all the while debating church and christianity. anyways i guess thats all i have for now and i would really like to know what you all think…do i have the right idea?

  53. Charlie Weis's Small Intestine says:

    Shut up Tallula, ABW is obviously dumb or stupid. Could be both. Thanks for setting our race back 10 years

  54. examicostudent says:

    i also wanted to just say something to healthland, i know more where your coming from than abw but i dont agree with you at all. you know the radicals somewhat seemingly above the two of us who stand on a street corner with megaphones and pamphlets screaming “repent” that is the tone that i got from everyone of your comments. you, with so much knowledge of the bible, should know that we are called to speak to one another in love. now i have to tell you something, i am only 14 years old and believe that i may have a better understanding of this than you only because you havent even stopped to look at it from a different perspective, and i dont think its wrong for black people to wanna worship together, because how welcome are they in our churches? how many black families choose to go to your church? and now think about why.

  55. trixieintransit says:

    This line of conversation is getting too long but I have enjoyed reading it. Just wanted to let you know I visited and will do so again.

    Have a nice week.

  56. examicostudent says:

    and charlie wsi is a jerk and i feel very sorry for you your the ignorant one, the one who doesnt care about your ancestors and the one who claims pride cuz you supposedly took advantage of white sympathy all your life…what a way to live.

  57. Ensayn says:

    Booyah!!! ABW I got your back. I have read the Bible, I have studied Coine Greek not Classical Greek, as Coine Greek is the language of the Bible and also Aramaic the language Yeshua spoke on a daily basis. So now that thats clear I will assist you if you don’t mind with this healtheland person. He has read the Bible cover to cover and has not been able to decipher the fact that the person he worships is the liar Paul, as he quoted the books Collosians and Galatians. Mr Paul, who’s name means “a small thing” is in perfect opposition against the one people like healtheland call “Christ”! So, those who profess christiantiy (in spirit the healtheland exudes) scares me since one of their members is the now Prez Mr Bush, a killer like his father in the spirit Moses. Yean, check Exodus again healtheland and see the killer your boy Moses is. I hope you will do more than just read the bible, next you talk about one of the persons that loved Darwin was Adolf Hiter who killed countless Jew and many Black German citizens in the late 1930’s. But, since again you know only the edges of past events you should know that Hitler only carried on the practices of the United States when they instituted their eugenics program of the 1920’s, you may have heard the saying “if you’re Black get back, if you’re brown stick around and if you’re white you’re alright?” Most, folk do not want to delve into the truth they are happy with their little comfort zone. Sistah, angry you have the right! The European came here to our lands and islands and destroyed our civilizations, customs and society. We Black people created the idea of a figure that would assist us in redeeming our virtue. But never this warmed over mistranslated crap the Romans have been feeding us until this day and people like healtheland have swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker and shows us he is a real christian since he chooses to attack you rather than bring some HEALING!!!!

  58. somebody somewhere says:

    This is obviously an attempt to make issue of Obama’s race as he enters the presidential arena. You’re right, the church he belongs to has nothing to do w/ anything really. This man is just trying to appeal to the long held idea in this country that a black president may not have the interests of all Americans at heart. They did it to Jessie Jackson, and it worked. But it won’t work with Obama.

    People like Carlson are astonished that so many non-black Americans like Obama and they want to do everything they can to make him seem unfit to lead the country. Since they have nothing real to rely on at this point (or ever for that matter) they’re falling back on ‘good ol’ fashioned racism’ without trying to seem like they are the racists.

  59. Phoenix Woman says:

    It’s not just Tucker Carlson.

    As Steve Gilliard pointed out yesterday, certain Democratic activists like Kara Vanderslice just don’t see blacks or Hispanics or anyone but white racist Fundies when they think of “religious voters”.

    They just don’t understand that white racist Fundies won’t vote for Democrats because Democrats are considered the black people’s party. Period. (That’s also why Fundies aren’t into economic justice or taxes: They can’t stand to think of black people getting gummint money, ever.)

  60. thelonedrifter says:

    Okaaayyy… that last guy was just messed up… where do people get some of that stuff? Oh… that’s right, I’m sorry, he’s delusional. (by the way, buddy, you might want to learn how to properly use some English grammer and punctuation before you start studying Greek.

    The post… well, I can see what Tucker Carlson was trying to do. I mean, really, he’s on MSNBC, which about five people watch, so he needs to stir up some controversy. But I don’t necessarily think he was saying that black churches aren’t Christian any more-so than me saying that churches who don’t entirely agree with my doctrine aren’t Christian. This “black soldier” movement seems a little ridiculous to me, but I guess as a white, Christian, male, conservative, I don’t understand what it means to be criticized for who I am. Honestly, I’ve only been blogging for a short time, and I’ve seen far more racist comments about white people than about black people.

    Also, could people please stop trying to make me feel guilty for the sins that my ancestors MIGHT have committed. They didn’t own slaves because most of them weren’t even here yet and the ones that were lived in the North. During the Civil Rights movement they lived in Wisconsin and Michigan, which were hardly the centers of racism. I didn’t do anything to your ancestors or to you anyways, so quit feeling sorry for yourself and do like Charlie Weis’s small intestine suggested.

  61. thelonedrifter says:

    A couple posts came on since mine… so the wacked-out dude I was referring to was 56, ensayn.

  62. Pingback: A Little Republican Bashing « Idle Ramblings of the LutherPunk
  63. Trackback: A Little Republican Bashing « Idle Ramblings of the LutherPunk
  64. John says:

    “. those black gospel churches are the best because i love music, they use music to really let the spirit administer and lead them.”

    Yeah, I like black gospel churches as well. Pastor Fred Luter who is the pastor of Franklin Ave. Baptist Church has one of the most moving, energetic, spirit-filled congregations I’ve ever seen. He is a wondeful, God-filled pastor. I prefer attending Pastor Luter’s church than my home church.

  65. musings says:

    Oh the wonders of religion.

    Who cares what religion he has or whether it is “Christian” or not. None of that should matter.

  66. Ensayn says:

    Yeah well me know nuff bout tings dem missa lonedrifter two no you don’t no wha me know so ya jus attack a few lil errors but wha i sed is facks n u caan refute dem. Sure yo fam didn’t own slaves but they came hurh n binifited frum da systim dat wuz set up fo dem n ya caint git round dat!!!

  67. somebody somewhere says:

    ““There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”

    Unfortunately this country has not practiced that policy. As a result, whites in America have held an unfair advantage for centuries. The playing field is being leveled, thanks to groups like the NAACP and other,multi-racial anti-discrimination groups. For whites to cry unfair is just another attempt to keep others from achieving similar prosperity. Most white (males especially) are fully aware of this and do it anyway. Sometimes it has less to do with racism and more to do with greed. This, of course, is speaking in general terms.

    And, there is nothing wrong with any ethnic group wanting to see their culture survive and thrive. Some blacks in this country are plagued with unfair laws that target them specifically (with vague language), negative stereotypes, and poverty. Sometimes, those that do not have a real understanding of politics, American history,psychology, and cultural issues blindly believe that one traditionally disenfranchised group saying they support their own as well as humanity at large is racism. This is not always the case. Cultural context is needed to examine and understand the motives of any such group. It is not hypocrisy to want the betterment of a traditionally disenfranchised group that you belong to. This goes for gender as well.

    If not for the continual actions of many such groups, such as the Anti-Defamation league, this would possibly disintegrate. This is apparent whenever such groups slow down or go through changes–television shows lose much of their diversity, the rates of college acceptance of minority students goes down, etc. Sometimes, those that live in all-one-race neighborhoods forget that there is a whole world of different experiences and diversity out there. In the case of white, middle and upperclass Americans that own or operate many of the large corporations and universities in this country, this sometimes means employing and accepting into schools people that look and think like they do–sometimes this stems from racism, sometimes it is just habit and not knowing. Until the habits and instincts of human beings change, such policies are necessary. Things are changing,but slowly, and there are still so many that would rather see others suffer than admit there are problems in the world that need to be fixed.

  68. Marta says:

    I agree that churches should not specify one way or the other about their congregation. My church is 99% black, but that isn’t because we strive for it to be that way, it is because white people who visit don’t seem to stay…at least that’s the only reason I can see, because we certainly treat them the same as we treat all sinners, we just want them to be saved.

  69. examicostudent says:

    omgoodness 56 ensayn use i little grammar if you want to make a point what youre doing is essentially useless

  70. kingcobraphx says:

    What would Jesus do? Sigh and say, I died so that these may live, yet they do not know me.

    Mat 7:12 “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
    Mat 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

    That’s pretty simple and it doesn’t mention race – granted, history is replete with examples of this NOT being done, by people of any color.

    Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

    Hm. That points to me like not everyone who calls themselves “Christian” gets a backstage pass to the Concert. And the prescription is pretty plain: Do the will of My Father.

    I didn’t see a racial caveat – must be white, black, green, purple, etc.

    Mat 7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

    Here is what those who follow Christ are supposed to do:

    Mat 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
    Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

    Pretty simple… too bad we all have tainted beautiful words with sin..

  71. otismofo says:

    I’m glad when bigots are moronic enough to state their opinions. I wish all the politicians would take some kind of truth serum and really say what is on their minds.

    Though I do agree with your sentiment here and got a kick out of your allusions to “south park”, I find it amusing that you condemn a person for his racism and then turn around and use a tag called “angry at white people.”

    That general bigoted statement makes you equally moronic.

  72. somebody somewhere says:

    Some interesting responses to this post, I have to read some other blogs.

    Healtheland (again),
    ‘As a matter of fact, its intent was to advocate the notion that only the white race would survive and the rest would die out, just as all the rest of the “lesser evolved species” died out.’

    Actually, if I remember correctly, that was not his point at all,however it was used by others to justify such a racist stance. Darwin himself was talking about all of evolution, not a specific race. His interest was that within any race, species, etc., the ones better able to reproduce and adapt would be the ones to survive. This applied to all species and to humanity as a whole. Unfortunately, his theories, like just about anything else worthwhile, were twisted by others.

  73. bereans says:

    I’m black as the ace of spades and agree with Tucker 100%.


  74. the angry black woman says:

    Hey everyone! If you want to argue about stuff having nothing to do with this post, you can go over to the Open Thread. Otherwise, carry on.

    71 already? damn.

  75. Blog says:

    “Sistah, angry you have the right! The European came here to our lands and islands and destroyed our civilizations, customs and society.” I’m sorry to tell you Ensayn but uh…North america wasn’t, ahem , “your” lands…I understand it to be historical that the Native American’s were the ones whose land was taken, whos civilization and customs destroyed. Which, is a very confusing and sensitive subject anyways, due to the fact that the Native American belief system is that no one person can “own” land. I do not condone or believe that what happened to the Native Americans to be in anyway correct or justified, I just view it as history. Now if your talking about White Europeans taking over African territories, I do believe that present day Africa is independant of any European control. If you know/find otherwise, please inform.

  76. Pingback: “Religious Voters” « Mercury Rising
  77. Trackback: “Religious Voters” « Mercury Rising
  78. thelonedrifter says:

    How did my ancestors who were in Germany during the slave period benefit from the system? How did my few ancestors who were in the North and fought (and died) for the Union (oh, and for freedom for black people) during the Civil War benefit from the system.

    Blog is completely right. Would people kindly grow up??!! WE didn’t take your lands.

  79. Hi-Lo Tone says:

    This is aimed primarily at healtheland, but others may find it useful:

    We don’t practice our faith in a vacuum. We practice our faith in context to the world in which we live, so we must have a framework for applying those principles in everyday life. We decide on that social context based on our personal motivations and critical thinking. We’re no different than the early Christians (or early adherents of any religious faith), in that sense.

    Your personal taste can be based on a spiritual interpretation, but so can mine. After we’ve read the Bible “this many times,” how do we decide on which interpretation to follow? — based on our personal motivations and critical thinking. That’s the tiebreaker, since none of us are reliable when it comes to claims of spiritual enlightenment.

    Not even those of us who get a blue ribbon for reading the Bible “this many times.” You may claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but even if that’s true, you are still prone to errors in judgment. Things can get “lost in translation.” Lies can be told. We fall back on our personal motives and critical thinking, to help ourselves arrive at the proper social context.

    If we didn’t put faith into social context, our faith would lack meaning. If faith is comprised of principles governing how man relates to God and each other, how do you not put it into social context? Are we not judged by our works, not our words?

    When I read as a child that whites used scripture to justify slavery, I didn’t object on spiritual grounds. I objected because I felt slavery was antithetical to basic ideas of human freedom, and was unjustifiably injurious to the happiness of my fellow man (and to my ancestors). In fact, Titus 2:9 in the NIV reads:

    “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.”

    Does that statement not beg for social context? Our would the Christian version of shari’a law be justified in America? Do we follow Leviticus and put gays to death? Why not?

    Obama’s church, therefore, has the right to live their faith in social context. If you disagree with how Obama’s church puts its faith into spiritual context, that is based on your personal distaste and motives, however you arrived at them critically. Do not confuse your personal taste with spiritual enlightenment.

  80. Hi-Lo Tone says:

    Ps — the link to my blog is incorrect as posted in the above comment header. It is

  81. Mike White says:

    Just passing through. This post makes me think about churches in general. I am a devout Catholic, and I am very, very religious. Yet I have not been to church in 6 years. I think that church has stopped being a spiritual experience and become psychosocial programming of large groups. And this is completely independent of socioeconomic situations. The modern church is used as a means of, to put it in Matrix terms, “plugging us in.”

    You don’t need church to find religion. I have always believed in God, and being absent from church has only strengthened my spirituality. A Buddhist proverb says, “If you do not the temple in your heart, you will never find your heart in the temple.”

    My point is, church is no longer truly religious. Tucker may have a point in his argument but he should have limited it to black churches. All modern churches have become a form of group control. True religion requires your own soul searching.

  82. Albino Hayford says:

    Tucker should have read my post, explaining why churches of predominantly one race are not automatically racist

    But churches should preach the Gospel of Jesus, and, if they aren’t doing that, should become a political organization.

  83. GranDiva says:

    Tucker is simply illustrating the overwhelming simplification of all things “Black” that most ignorant people (particularly those who play his politics) espouse in their diatribes about the Black experience in America. It’s along the same lines of, “Slavery was so long ago. Can’t you just move on.” Quick answer: No. Longer answer: It’s important to remember our history–good and bad. No one has issues celebrating “Old South,” or whistling Dixie. People need to understand that they don’t get it. They need to understand that not getting it is okay. They need to understand that nothing is superior to anything else, except maybe reason and intellectual honesty over the perpetuation of ignorance.

    Quite frankly, I’m not sure why this is even shocking to any readers.

  84. Hi-Lo Tone says:

    GranDiva, we can go even further and say, no, we can’t forget slavery just yet because we’re still feeling its direct effects in our everyday lives. Get rid of the effects, and we can drop it tomorrow. Let this be a warning to the next set of conquerors who’d like to forcibly gather and repatriate peoples to suit a selfish ambition.

  85. caffinna says:

    I don’t pay attention much to tucker any more. I find too much of the time he sets out not to find the trueth, but only to find evidence to support his views!

    As a white woman I do not find a church that fights for black freedom as racist, even if its members are predominately black.
    The only people who can truly fight for freedom of any given group is the actual members of that said group. In other words, a predominately white church fighting for black freedom is racist where as a predominately black church doing the same thing in fact is not!

    You go on!

  86. healtheland says:

    Hi Lo Tone:

    I never said that I was perfect. If I was, then why would I need a Saviour? And as far as this “reading the Bible in a social context” thing, that is quite broad. What, pray tell, prevents people from deciding that their social context demands their interpreting the Bible in a manner that requires all black people be killed? As a matter of fact, were not the people who used the Bible to justify all manners of evil only “reading it in their social context and not practicing it in a vacuum”? Keep in mind: such people lived in morbid fear of black people, believing that given the slightest opportunity blacks would go on a rampage of rape, murder, and mayhem. They legitimately felt that Jim Crow and similar protected not only whites from blacks, but blacks from other blacks. Civil rights leaders have not been above exploiting such fears, by the way. Remember the debates over welfare reform in the mid 90s? Jesse Jackson predicted that if welfare reform was enacted, there would be large scale riots! So just because it was not true did not mean that people did not strongly believe it, and therefore interpreted (or should I say IGNORED) what the Bible plainly says in response to very strong fears that they honestly did have.

    I for one am not the least bit pleased that Jim Crow supporters read the Bible according to their experiences, values, and social contexts. I think that everyone would have been better off had the Christian Jim Crow supporters stuck to the plain text and context of the Bible where it says “love thy neighbor as thyself.” And you know what? I say this not for the sake of the blacks who were victimized by Jim Crow. Why? BECAUSE VICTIMS ARE BLAMELESS! I am actually more concerned about the fates of the white Jim Crow supporters. The people who disobeyed the “love thy neighbor” commandment specifically given and emphasized by Jesus Christ will have to face a righteous God who will judge them for their sins. And that is the meaning of “the first shall be last and the last shall be first.” The black victims of Jim Crow were last on earth, but their victimhood status on earth means that they will not be judged as victimizers when it is time to enter into eternity. The white perpetrators of Jim Crow were first on earth, but they will enter into eternity as victimizers. Now considering that eternity is, er, quite a bit longer than our life on earth, whose shoes would you rather be in? This whole desire to “apply social context” to stuff is from people who care more about this life than the next one. It was particularly poignant for the Jews of the time of Jesus Christ, who were suffering far worse treatment at the hands of the Romans than blacks in America are today. One of the reasons why they rejected him as their Messiah was because he refused to be a political and military leader who sought to free them from their exceptionally brutal Roman subjugation. When he told them “my kingdom is not of this world”, they left him. Seems to me like Obama’s church is doing the same: more concerned with having a nice house and a black mayor in this life than a crown in the next.

  87. WhoreChurch says:

    Great post.

    I predict Tucker will eventually say something like: “I know you’re black, but don’t you wish you’d been born white? I mean, if you could choose your race, you’d certainly choose to be white, right?”

    ABW: This is my first visit to your blog, but it will not be my last. You certainly deserve the Whore Church Seal of Approval–display it if you choose or not, it’s up to you. Either way you get a Pointy Pope’s Hat Tip from me.

  88. Calm and Happy White Dude says:

    You should be ashamed, ABW. Haven’t you learned the most important lesson? It’s easy to mistreat those who mistreat you…it’s much harder to choose character when others fail you.

    What I read here is that, because blacks in America have been mistreated, you feel justified in suggesting that it’s okay for blacks to mistreat others. This is stupidity, of course.

    You either have character or you do not. In this case, it’s clear that you do not. Rather than lash out at others for their failures, how about giving them a good example to follow? As a wise person once said:

    “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind”.

  89. coyote says:

    Fantastic post.

    When Obama announced his candidacy, I wondered how how many people* would vote for him so they didn’t have to vote for Hilary… and vice versa.

    *dumb racist and sexist people, probably white

  90. Hi-Lo Tone says:

    hearttheland, I reply:

    You wrote: “What, pray tell, prevents people from deciding that their social context demands their interpreting the Bible in a manner that requires all black people be killed?”

    Nothing prevents them from drawing that conclusion. So what? My point wasn’t deciding which social context is right or wrong. It’s understanding that the context was chosen for personal reasons and motivations, and not as a result of any spiritual enlightenment. If anything, your above cited example proves that. Who would argue that placing the Bible in that context represents enlightenment? No one. My point.

    You wrote: “As a matter of fact, were not the people who used the Bible to justify all manners of evil only “reading it in their social context and not practicing it in a vacuum”?

    I would argue that those people passed themselves off as enlightened. You’re not going to win mass converts by saying, “Here’s what works for me, but maybe not for you.” That’s what a person who accepts that their faith is a product of personal choice and motivation, as opposed to divine enlightenment, would say.

    You wrote: “Now considering that eternity is, er, quite a bit longer than our life on earth, whose shoes would you rather be in?”

    And you know that … how, again? Or is that what you belief? Who is to criticize if I disagree? I would rather be in my shoes.

    You wrote: “This whole desire to “apply social context” to stuff is from people who care more about this life than the next one.”

    And rightfully so, since this is the only life that we know we can control. You cannot kill people in this life and then hope to get a mulligan in the next. Faith without works is dead. What we do in this life directly affects any of our hopes in the next.

    If I conduct ourselves honorably in this world, I can leave the more subjective judgments about the afterlife to God, not men. That is my belief.

  91. Hi-Lo Tone says:

    I grin when people suggest we should forgive and forget.

    Slavery disrupted the cohesion of black families, prevented us from accumulating wealth, prevented us from building institutions and traditions, prevented us from building political power on par with others, prevented us from gathering the advantages of collective, compounding prosperity and esteem that whites overall have enjoyed since the founding of the colonies.

    The consequences of these disruptions are directly related to many social ills among blacks in society today. “Can’t we all get along,” therefore, is not an appropriate response to this issue, as that has the tendency in reality of hiding the issue under the rug for the comfort of others. That won’t cut it.

  92. the angry black woman says:

    Calm and Happy White Dude, wtf? Where do I say “because blacks in America have been mistreated, you feel justified in suggesting that it’s okay for blacks to mistreat others”?

    I mean, sure, I may smack somebody around for being ignorant, but that’s on an individual level. I don’t ever remember saying what you said I said. Quit being crazy, dude!

  93. psydetect says:

    The first thing i want to ask is : ” what is the true meaning of being Christian?” i was born as being a christian. And im trying to do what are the laws and life’s rules according to the holy scriptures. And a sudden answers comes to me at that very moment: We are still a student of this life under the christian faith.

  94. newhoosier says:

    Racism may equal Christianity but Racism (and thereofre Christianity) doesn’t necessarily equal Godliness.

  95. jeremiasx says:

    Ann: I would like to see one shred of evidence of this…

    Has not the white Christian church condoned, and pardoned, from the pulpit, the following atrocities:

    -Slavery (I’ll concede this one, many churches preached “slaves obey your masters” during the time of slavery as a justification for the institution of slavery, and they were wrong for that.)
    -Mass gang rapes against black women and black girls during slavery and Jim Crow segregation
    -Lynching, castration, torture, immolation of black men. Selling of their charred remains body parts as souvenirs

    Your claims are as imflammatory as they are patently false. Please come back to reality.

    Many leaders of white Christian churches in the South didn’t do ENOUGH to condemn these types of actions, but I know of NO organization that actually promoted them, not even the KKK (even though it was obviously a matter of practice for many of their membership)

    I pray that a spirit of understanding and tolerance may calm the wrath of those who feel wronged. ALL races and cultures have suffered atrocity and subjugation throughout history. Why do we give up our hearts to the past? Probably because we feel powerless about the present. We are not powerless…we are more powerful than we can ever imagine.

    Peace be with you all.

  96. "Sir" Charles says:

    How many of you christians have accomplished Acts 2:38 per the Reasons called out at Matthew 6:33 and Matthew 16:19???

  97. WhoreChurch says:

    Hey “Sir” Charles:

    Since you appear to be a fundy idiot, let’s see how you do on some of these Biblical requirements:

    Matthew 5:48 – Perfection, as perfect as your Heavenly Father

    John 6; I Cor 11 – Passover every year, women must wear head covering

    John 14:12 – You must do greater things than Jesus did. Feel free to leave a list.

    Or just shut up. This thread is not a Bible study.

  98. healtheland says:

    Hi-Lo Tone:

    ‘”You’re not going to win mass converts by saying, “Here’s what works for me, but maybe not for you.”’ To the contrary, that position has always been extremely popular among people, whether Christian or not. The second most offensive part of Christianity is that you should treat everyone after the manner that you wish to be treated. Everyone truthfully wants to be treated better than they want to treat everyone else and dedicates their life to justifying that thinking and their actions that result from it in their own minds and to others. What is the most offensive part of Christianity? The notion that you must love God more than you love yourself. Everyone wants a God that will love THEM more than God loves Himself, and will therefore break his own word and transgress his own righteousness in order to accommodate your desire to do whatever pleases you. Even people who “dedicate their lives to serving others” do so because helping others makes them feel good (or righteous) or in pursuit of their own personal agenda or beliefs, not out of a legitimate love for God, and especially not out of a desire to uplift another human to equality with yourself in your eyes. A manifestation of this is how many white church people will spend tons of money and energy on charity and political capital on helping black people overseas, but actually oppose efforts to help black people in America. Why? Because you can dump $100 billion in some of these countries, and the status of the vast majority of those people would be far lower than that of the average white person. But spend $1 billion over here on blacks, and that means that many more black doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc. whose status would be made equal to that of white people. But you know what? Black people can’t really judge white people for that. Why? Because the truth is that we don’t care about blacks in Africa. If we did, we would do something about the problems over there other than put on kente cloth and give our kids funny names. It’s like “Sure, there are real problems in Africa, and they really do need help and someone to advocate for them, but first I want to talk about my problems and what I want.”

    And is that any different from Satan himself? The Bible says that Satan rebelled because he wanted to receive the praise that was going to God. In that same manner, man will not love God with all his strength and will not love his neighbor as himself because he would rather receive love than give it. And that is true for all people, times, races, ethnicities, religions, societies, etc. Denying it is no use, and neither is trying to justify one’s craven selfishness. All that we can do is admit our nature, and then discuss what can be done to save us from it so that we can please God.

  99. Kasey Skala says:

    I actually agree with Tucker on this

  100. blueollie says:

    Interestingly enough, came out with an Ann Coulter quote which questioned if Obama were “black enough”.

    In reference to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Coulter said that “the first black president should be an American black, and a Republican.” Coulter’s comment recalled, in part, a claim by columnist Stanley Crouch in the November 2, 2006, New York Daily News that “Obama did not — does not — share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves.”

    These wingnuts have to get their stories straight: is Obama “too black” or “not black enough”??? ;-)

    Yes, I know, some ultra conservative types don’t consider the UCC as a whole to be “Christian enough” (i. e., too liberal with theology, too comfortable with gays, etc.)

  101. Hi-Lo Tone says:

    healtheland: You rarely win converts by saying, “It might not work for you.” Nobody wants to hear that. That’s not good marketing.

    You sell and win converts by saying, this works for me and it WILL work for you, too.

    But too many religious leaders take it a step further and say, this will work for you and you must accept it, or you are damned.

    There is a clear difference between saying something may not work for you, and saying, it WILL work for you and you MUST accept it, or you WON’T go to heaven.

    Sometimes it’s couched in pleasant terms for purposes of conversation — religious marketing, if you will — but if you believe in a fundamental view of any religion, that is the inescapable upshot.

    Otherwise, there would be little need to spread the word, if salvation under certain basic terms weren’t thought to be a predicate for reaching heaven. If that were the case, many of these posts so far might not exist, because we wouldn’t have any pretext for disagreement, in terms of what is the correct way to practice one’s faith.

    Whatever you feel that the Bible says about Satan, man or anything else you can conceive, it doesn’t rebut the logic that Obama’s church can practice their faith into whatever social context they please, and that we either agree or disagree with it based on our personal tastes and motives, not due to any superior religious understanding or enlightenment.

    You can believe whatever you want, as that is your right. I don’t have an interest in bashing people of any faith — not your faith, not his, not hers. You have a constitutional right in the United States to practice as you see fit, so long as your interests do not conflict with a compelling societal interest (e.g., you can’t sacrifice humans, ever).

    I simply want people of all faiths to be more realistic about their motives for believing as they do. If we are honest about these motives and remove the hypocrisy of divine right and enlightenment from the religious debate, we can have more honest conversations about our religious differences — and perhaps build an ecumenical society less hell-bent on killing and harming each other because we are Protestant, evangelical, Catholic, Shia, Sunni, Hindu, skeptic, what have you.

    … and we won’t have stupid stories on MSNBC knocking Obama for supposedly breaking his egg on the round end as opposed to the narrow end, for example. Doesn’t Tucker have a war to cover?

  102. Rolf & Pnolf says:

    re: Tucker Carlson


  103. lizadilly says:

    how blatantly hypocritical! christians call on other christians to collaborate in activism all the time. is that SEPARATIST, tucker? that he is debating whether obama’s sect of christianity is good enough to qualify him as a christian politician is what’s discriminatory.

    people who have specific causes are focused, not exclusive. black americans have been excluded hundreds of years, pushed to the margins of society and told to undo the repercussions of slavery and racism on their own by yanking at their bootstraps like everyone else. a church tries to implement some values for achieving that, and all the sudden they’re racist.

    it may be racial, but not racist; there’s a difference. to force a group of people into a racial problem, and then call them racist for working on a racial solution — well that is some despicable spin.

    and this is nothing new. the white mainstream has always feared, smeared, and undermined the solidarity of black citizens and other disenfranchised groups. tucker carlson willingly joined that shameful legacy.

Comments are closed.