Scott Freeman

This Guy Can Rock The Mike

January 4th, 2008 | by Scott |

I’m in.

119 Responses to “This Guy Can Rock The Mike”
By Robin on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

Oh happy day!
By len on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

I was expecting “Ice, Ice Baby” when I saw the headline.

When can we expect your next analysis of the candidates and their chances?
By Politics & Culture on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

The ability to give a good speech does not necessarily mean that one is a good leader.

I’m just sayin…..
By Justin on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

It really doesn’t matter if a candidate is telling you what they are going to do… just that they look good and sound good while not saying anything of substance.

I’d love to see a Ron Paul v Obama debate on monetary policy, the war, taxes. He’d get trounced.

But I will admit, the man can make a stump speech.
By Scott on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

Len, I don’t know. This is sort of a trial balloon to see if I can even suggest voting for a democrat and have a fruitful discussion about it. We shall see.

Jeff, really? Maybe we should try having someone who gives bad speeches and see if he makes a good leader.

Justin, is there anyone that Ron Paul wouldn’t trounce?
By Politics & Culture on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

Justin — I saw a Ron Paul interview the other night, and I am on board! I don’t agree with everything he stands for, but he makes so much sense. I wish the rest of the GOP (and the American people) would listen close to what he has to say.
By R-Liz on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

I heard someone say the other day that Ron Paul doesn’t have supporters, he has missionaries.
By Tracy on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

R-Liz - that is a perfect quote! I’m all over that. I seriously don’t remember the last time I saw more obnoxious followers.
By Justin on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

Seriously p and c? that’s great.

I disagree about immigration, or thought I did till I heard his more nuanced version. But a lot of people don’t agree with everything he says. Its just refreshing to hear a politician speak with clarity about what they believe, and have the record to back it up.

And tracy, I believe last night obama supporters rushed the stage in new hampshire after having booed hillary. that’s not obnoxious… or rude?
By Politics & Culture on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

Tracy –

Missionaries = obnoxious?

Actually, it seems that anyone who gets a bit too caught up with supporting their candidate can be obnoxious.

The most obnoxious I’ve ever seen (by far) were the Howard Dean supporters in 2004.

I’ve found Paul supporters (and Obama supporters) to be very excited about their candidate, but not really obnoxious.
By Jonathan on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

If we’re going to parse the fine nuances of “obnoxious” in the context of the supporters candidate A or B, then we’ve already popped the trial balloon.
By Jonathan on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

I think it would be interesting to discuss the concerns Robin and others have about Obama’s church (Trinity United Church of Christ), especially if we could include someone who isn’t largely ignorant of the perspective of that community.

From the conservation Robin and I’ve had:

Jonathan wrote:

About what you wrote about TUCC on Chris’ wall (”Obama’s church doesn’t have Christ as the center”)…

From the first paragraph of their mission statement: “Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of “who we are” and “whose we are,” call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!”

I guess we could split hairs about whether or not that is the mission statement of a church with Christ at its center, but rather than judge them I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Robin shared a link

TUCC info check out -
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/barack-obamas-church-ultra-left-and-afrocentric

Jonathan wrote:

I’ve read that stuff on the TUCC’s web site, and it doesn’t show me that Christ is not the center of that church nor do I believe it reflects negatively on Obama.

Yes, there is a major racial component to its identity that may seem strange to us. However, it is generally a positive message and one that is understandable given the historical context. Next time you get the chance, talk to Lisa about how her perspective has changed after interacting with one of her professors at SVSU.

Jonathan wrote:

I can imagine two scenario’s that might make Obama’s connection to the TUCC particularly disturbing.

1 - if someone was highly sensitive to issues of race such that anytime his family or friends said anything with racial overtones he was highly offended such that he couldn’t help but call them on it…then I could understand that he might be highly offended by this too

or

2 - if this was another piece of evidence that supported an overall picture of Obama being a divisive figure regarding race or anything else, then it would be disturbing as part of that bigger picture. However, Obama is the opposite…someone whose message is one of unity and healing, not division.

Otherwise, I can understand that the TUCC might seem strange and mildly disturbing but not that it is somehow a major stain on Obama’s reputation.

Robin wrote:

If that is true then he should distance himself from that church. Their statements of belief does not center around Christ. It centers around promoting the black race. It sounds more like a black panther handout. Go to my church’s website and there is nothing about promoting the white race. It is all about Christ.

Jonathan wrote:

I disagree.

I assume that their perspective is that their commitment to community, family, work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect, liberation, fight against oppression, brotherhood regardless of social class, etc. is how they are living out the love and mission of Christ in this world…with Christ at the center. That’s believable. Their emphasis on the blackness of that mission is, admittedly and not surprisingly, something that doesn’t resonate with me personally but is not, in my opinion, inherently un-Christian. Because most of the ministry of most churches is generally quite local, the mission churches in mostly homogeneous communities will necessarily mostly be to that community…regardless of whether or not they explicitly include that emphasis in their mission.

You say your church is all about Christ. I think TUCC would say the same. You may differ in the emphasis and scope of your ministries and missions, but I’ll take both of you at your word.

Robin wrote:

Well - I disagree. Our church mission statement says nothing about promotion of the white race. That is my point. TUCC specifically outlines the promotion of the black race as their purpose. That is their mission - not bringing salvation through Christ to all people. No different than the black panthers or the naacp.

Jonathan wrote:

You say “promotion of”, I say “minister to”. If “promotion of” has negative connotations to you, then I think “minister to” is a better description of what is actually going on. Some churches have a special focus on college students. Some have a special focus on on international/immigrant communities. Some focus on inner city youth. Some focus on the black community. Some focus on the middle class white community. Some focus on missions in foreign countries. Some focus on young professionals. All do so as an expression of their love for Christ. None of these is a scandal.

What I’m saying is that I believe/suspect that the fact that their emphasis seems strange to us is mostly a function of our lack of understanding of the culture, history, and perspective of that community and not a fundamental flaw in the emphasis.
By Scott on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

Jonathan, I think you are right on. It seems to me that these are a people who are attuned to their heritage just as I see in many southern denominations in America.
As an African-American, and the most successful African-American presidential candidate in US history, I’m afraid that there will be a great deal of push-back on issues such as this. Especially as he moves closer and closer to securing the nomination.
By Politics & Culture on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

I think I understand Jonathan’s argument — but I still don’t like the statement. IMO, it’s not something Dr. King (or Jesus for that matter) would want to affirm. It seems to be in opposition to Galatians 3:28.

And things like this could hurt him in the general election.
By Scott on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

The statement doesn’t bother me. I don’t have to agree with every aspect of it just as I don’t agree with every traditional position in my own heritage. But I do see the value of knowing your audience.
I agree that these things could hurt him, they will continue to be mined throughout the campaign. That’s the sorry state of politics.
By len on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

Scott,
I just noticed the words “I’m in” below the video. Are you saying that Obama is your man? Weren’t you pretty excited about Edwards not that long ago? What changed your mind?

As for keeping the discussion civil, I know we can do it.

I will say that I am not totally comfortable with Trinity’s statement personally, and that is more from a Christian than a political perspective.
By Scott on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

I like Obama. I would be happy with either one.
By Doug Freeman on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

Man, I would like to weigh in on this but i made a resolution to avoid getting involved with my opinions.It might come to me to vote for the Huck on anyone other than Obummer.
By len on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

That’s interesting Doug. I have voted Republican in every presidential election in my life, and I am now 40. Thus far, Obama is the only one of the current crop of democrats whom I would consider voting for.
By greg on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

I like Obama above all, but I’d go with Edwards if he was the one. There’s really nobody on the other side I’d want to vote for.
By Scott on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

Great article about TUCC from Christian Century:

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3392
By Shane on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

I like Obama. I like Ron Paul. Strangely, I like them for similar reasons. They seem less phony than the rest. I don’t like anyone enough to vote for them, however. Not yet, at least.

And give Ron Paul supporters a break. Those of us with even a hint of a Libertarian bent are so used to being ignored, we can’t help but get excited when someone actually understands what it means when they talk about small government.
By jasonk on Jan 5, 2008 | Reply

The UCC churches in Tulsa are universalist. Christ is A solution, but not THE solution. They do not believe that the Bible is the final authority in terms of God’s revelation. Is BHO’s church cut from the same cloth?
By Robin on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

Jonathan - I find it interesting that you have chosen to print here our facebook “conversation” without consulting me first. However, I guess if it is on the internet it is free to print anywhere. So, let’s talk about it.

First off - I can read. No matter what spin you choose to put on Obama’s “church” it is a racist organization. You can twist and spin that it is a mission - that I don’t relate because I am not in their culture, I am white, etc. Please remember my husband has worked as a police officer in a major metropolitan city that is predominantly black for the last 28 years. I might know more about the real balck community than you think I do. I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s in a white community and had no preconceived notions as to who black people were. People just like me I assumed. I still give everyone the benefit of the doubt on that statement until they prove me wrong. Unfortunately I have been proven wrong many times and my views in the last ten years have changed.

It worries me that a candidate for President of the United States aligns himself to a “church” that considers it’s allegiance to Africa - the motherland, not America. Everyone is this country except for native americans came from another country - but I’m sure the majority consider themselves to be Americans.

“Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

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

Those so identified as separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”

This comes from Obama’s church website. What does this mean? Does the black community think the middle class of this country is killing blacks off? What is this doing in any “christian church” statement of beliefs? Obama states what an impact his faith has on him and the way he lives his life. A statement such as the above distresses me to be connected with perhaps the next President of the United States. Doesn’t it you?

I don’t care what color Obama is. If this was a white candidate affiliated with a white supremist “church” everyone would be appalled, and rightly so.

I watched the New Hampshire debates last night and the only democratic candidate that made any sense or answered the questions directly was Richardson. Obama, Hillary and Edwards did not give direct answers, solutions to any problems, what lay out any plan they have for the future and skirted many of the questions. If I hear the word “change” one more time I’m going to puke. Change to what? What TUCC is? That’s scary.
By Justin on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

I’m gonna have to go with Robin here, kinda. I don’t know that its a racist organization, but I believe that that type of separatism is not appropriate for a church in light of there not being “jew or greek, male or female”

Now are there going to be churches that are mostly black or white or jewish or hispanic etc? Yeah. Because for all intents and purposes our cultures are different which means our expression of worship will be different.

But the fact remains that saying a church is focused on its african heritage or something like that is unchristian.

Can anyone here imagine what would happen if a group of white folks wrote in their churches mission statement that they are unashamed of their European or Caucasian heritage?
By Scott on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

Justin writes:

“Can anyone here imagine what would happen if a group of white folks wrote in their churches mission statement that they are unashamed of their European or Caucasian heritage?”

No, but I can imagine a church that emphasizes it’s Greek heritage, or Polish, or Chinese. As a matter of fact, churches do that all the time. One of my good friends describes himself as Irish Catholic. That doesn’t make it unChristian.

I like what Monroe Anderson wrote in his piece on the church for the Chicago Sun-Times:
“If a white church plainly and proudly pronounced its whiteness, Hannity, Carlson and company would be right. But if it was the Holy Trinity Polish Church on Chicago’s North Side, proclaiming its Polishness, who’d care? This is how African Americans find ourselves in a trick bag. We’re defined racially even when we’re acting like any other of this nation’s ethnic groups. Issues knee-jerkily become black and white when in reality they may be African American and Irish American. Or Serbian American and African American. Remove black and substitute another American ethnic group so that Trinity’s Concept No. 6 reads: “Adherence to the Mexican Work Ethic.” Does that still sound separatist? Or racist? Of course not. But, if you’re insincerely espousing color blindness, while holding the race card up your sleeve, you know you can easily trump African-American ethnic pride every time.”

Martin Marty, a theologian I respect also wrote a piece about Trinity. He is friends with the lightening rod pastor of the church and emphasizes that it is not Anti-white. Martin Marty is from the university of Chicago and has had the religion center named after him.

His take?

“So Trinity is “Africentric,” and deals internationally and ecumenically with the heritage of “black is beautiful.” Despite what one sometimes hears, Wright and his parishioners — an 8,000-member mingling of everyone from the disadvantaged to the middle class, and not a few shakers and movers in Chicago — are “keepin’ the faith.” To those in range of Chicago TV I’d recommend a watching of Trinity’s Sunday services, and challenge you to find anything “cultic” or “sectarian” about them. More important, for Trinity, being “unashamedly black” does not mean being “anti-white.” My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed.

Heretical? Hardly. Harriet and I sometimes come home reflecting and remarking that Wright sounds almost literalist about biblical texts when he preaches. The large-print texts are before the worshipers, and Wright, taking up the Gospel message line by line, applies it to personal, cultural, social, and political life. He turns much focus on the family. Of course, he can be abrasive. Why? Think of the concept of “unashamedly”: tucked into it is the word “shame.” Wright and his fellow leaders have diagnosed “shame,” “being shamed,” and “being ashamed” as debilitating legacies of slavery and segregation in society and church.”

When you consider that the church is located on the South Side of Chicago we must understand that it has a target audience somewhat different than our own. It seems that those closer to the situation are able to give a clearer picture than those who haven’t been there.
By Jonathan on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

Robin,

Sorry about posting the conversation here without asking first. That wasn’t smart of me. I guess I didn’t think about it carefully enough since you’ve been an active participant here, since you’re essentially anonymous here, and since I had no doubt that you would have said the same thing in a conversation here…but still it wasn’t wise of me to do.
By jasonk on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

What I don’t understand is that if BHO is a believer, how can he support the slaughter of innocent human lives through the process of abortion?
By P & C on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

I could very well be wrong on this, but I think he uses the old Bill Clinton justification that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”
By Jonathan on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

It’s on now! The comment totals have been reset and greg’s insurmountable lead erased!

We continue to be on our yearly cycle. As another example, see the Jan 2007 discussion about how a Christian could possibly support a candidate that does not take an anti-abortion stance:

http://scottfreeman.info/2007/01/20/the-2008-presidential-race/

I guess it’s not necessary to rehash (instead, re-read that thread), but let me remind that even GWB supports the slaughter of innocent human lives if it results from rape or incest…or are collateral damage when we go after a bad guy.

The article Scott linked from the Christian Century is a good one in explaining what TUCC is about. And what the negative connotation to middle-classness is about. And the history of how that culture was pressured to sublimate itself in deference to the dominate white culture. Just because “our” churches don’t explicitly profess that we promote “our” culture doesn’t mean we don’t do it. We do. That’s OK, but should we be offended when someone else does the same?

And it’s not fair to say, “what if we replaced black with white in those statements?” There is no equivalence between the two. These people’s ancestors were brought here by force and they and their culture were brutally oppressed for most of our country’s history. That shouldn’t be dismissed.

In the end, I’m not saying I’d promote the TUCC’s approach, but I think I understand enough and know there’s enough that I don’t understand that I’ll give them the benefit of my doubt.

For Obama the presidential candidate, it isn’t relevant whether or not he is associated with a religious group that has some views that differ significantly from mine. What is relevant is if that association is scandalous or evidence of a major character flaw. To me, it clearly isn’t but is a convenient tool for people to use as a smear of his character.
By Justin on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

Be careful with that opinion. You never know when someone might question your Christianity saying, “I don’t see how [leader] could be a christian when he kills innocent people in a war.”
By Scott on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

I’m trying to forget that conversation from a year ago. That was a supernova of participation along with the non-violence posts the likes of which has never been approached again.
I agree, Jonathan, it’s a non-issue ala Swift Boat. Jeremiah Wright has made the statements that it is a different perspective not one of superiority but of difference. Much ado about nothing.
Alas, I fear this is such a deep and bitter divide that not much productive can take place in these discussions unless we are able to truly get to the issues at hand. I guess a series on “Why I Am a Democrat” is in order. :O
By greg on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

“Jeremiah Wright has made the statements that it is a different perspective not one of superiority but of difference. Much ado about nothing.”

I think that’s important to note, especially since it appears the church is being equated with a white supremacist church.
By greg on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

“Be careful with that opinion. You never know when someone might question your Christianity saying, ‘I don’t see how [leader] could be a christian when he kills innocent people in a war.’”

I was thinking along the same lines. Does it depend on who the innocent is (or from what country) before their death is offensive? In the past I’ve heard some suggest the “greater good” defense of collateral damage deaths during war. Is it possible that the “greater good” of all involved could be served in a given case of abortion?
By Scott on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

Here is Obama’s take on it (from Chicago Tribune):

In an interview late Monday, Obama said it was important to understand the document as a whole rather than highlight individual tenets. “Commitment to God, black community, commitment to the black family, the black work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect,” he said. “Those are values that the conservative movement in particular has suggested are necessary for black advancement.

“So I would be puzzled that they would object or quibble with the bulk of a document that basically espouses profoundly conservative values of self-reliance and self-help.”

In his published memoirs, Obama said even he was stopped by Trinity’s tenet to disavow “middleclassness” when he first read it two decades ago in a church pamphlet. The brochure implored upwardly mobile church members not to distance themselves from less fortunate Trinity worshipers.

“As I read it, at least, it was a very simple argument taken directly from Scripture: `To whom much is given much is required,’” Obama said in the interview.
By greg on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

(just trying to keep up with jonathan…)
By Justin on Jan 6, 2008 | Reply

Whoa. The comments reset for the year.

It feels weird to be out of second.
By greg on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

then you can imagine how I feel . . .
By Robin on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Scott - I found this interesting website. It promotes American and family values, Christianity and the promotion of the white race. http://www.kkk.bz/vision.htm

Certainly in reading this page there are things that the average person would agree with and would stand for. But to affiliate yourself with this organization? That would be very, very different.

As you state above, Obama picks out certain tenants that he agrees with that his church puts forth. Very good ideals indeed. I could pick out the things that this other organization promotes that I like. However, if I were to affiliate myself with this organization I would immediately be labeled a racist regardless of what I believed. TUCC is no different - except it is under the guise of christianity - the same guise that the KKK uses to promote it’s agenda.

Why does Obama get a pass. Would you give the same pass to a presidential candidate that was affiliated with the KKK? I recall David Duke was demonized.

I do not agree with the KKK, but use it as an example to make my point.
By Scott on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

I believe it is completely different. Although there is probably no way we come to common ground on this, I think it’s important to point out that the KKK seeks to demonize and discriminate. TUCC seeks to minister to a group of people. They are not saying that the white man is the devil and that the only way to purity is to rid the world of them.
To compare the two is a gross mis-characterization.
By Scott on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

I think there might be a need for a new variant to Godwin’s Law as my buddy Phil suggests.
By Robin on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

But you said Obama picks out certain tenants that he agrees with at TUCC so therefore it is okay. But that why can’t the same thing be done with the KKK?

I think some things TUCC has on it’s website are very divisive and creates an atmosphere for the black community that continues to separate them and makes them different. Sure some of the things ring true to promote the family, but why does it continually say black family, black community and not just leave out the word black.

Because it is a black church it gets a pass.
By Scott on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

It includes the word because that is the milieu in which they minister. Contextualization is absolutely essential if you are going to be effective as a church and as a ministry. Last night I passed out to my vision team a demographical breakdown of our community. If we were to develop a Chinese ministry we would be wasting our time. But there is a great opportunity to minister to single mothers.
It has to do with context, audience and intent.
The KKK seeks to demonize, TUCC is seeking to minister to a body of people where they have been located. The KKK preaches racism, TUCC is preaching empowerment. The two just don’t equate.

Now, understand, I don’t adhere to their way of doing things. Black theology is as foreign to me as hispanic and feminist theology. However, I acknowledge that they are viable ways of approaching ministry.
I wouldn’t do it that way and I probably wouldn’t feel comfortable worshiping there. But that’s ok. The ministry is not directed to me. And there are a lot of churches where I would not feel comfortable worshiping. That does not make them less of a church. And it sure doesn’t make them racist by having a target audience.
By greg on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

I’ve been to enough “white” churches to know that there’s not a significant difference - they just don’t put it in print.
By Belinda on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

John Edwards is still my candidate!

Justin, from the research my husband and I have done on Ron Paul, as scary as it sounds, we believe he may be even worse than GWB. He seems to believe all the problems of the world are due to blacks and Jews.
By Scott on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Uh oh.
By Politics & Culture on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Belinda,

Nice. Throw a grenade in the room and run away.

You got anything to back up those allegations?
By greg on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

“uh oh”

Exactly.

“run away”

Who’s running away? I think she’s here pretty regularly. Do you want her to sit at her computer and hit refresh until someone responds? Patience.
By greg on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

(although I do agree that’s a pretty strong statement.)
By Jonathan on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

I thought we had agreed to a yearly loop cycle, not a monthly one…

Belinda made roughly the same comment on Dec 6
http://scottfreeman.info/2007/12/05/the-scott-freeman-republican-caucus/#comment-44016

She never provided any substance that time. I assume she’s referring to the racist content in his newsletter from decades ago. For example, see this summary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

Paul’s explanation is that the controversial content was written by a ghostwriter and doesn’t accurately reflect his views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy
By len on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Unfortunately, in politics most people have their minds made up ahead of the fact. If you are a Democrat, you will find not find much to be concerned about with TUCC. Republicans will want it to be racist.

I personally don’t think Obama is racist, but the more in front he gets the more this can/will be an issue.
By Jonathan on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

I think a big part of the disconnect regarding TUCC is that some believe it is always wrong to “promote” (work for the benefit of) a particular racial group. I don’t. Let me explain.

We know that in God’s kingdom there are neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, rich nor poor, educated nor uneducated, Mexican American nor African American, Republican nor Democrat, Irish or Polish, etc. All of God’s children are loved completely by Him.

For better or worse, sub-groups of humanity do exist (coincidentally, I recently read the story of the Tower of Babel), and it is not uncommon for the members of a certain sub-group to feel a kinship, shared experience, a stronger community with other members of that group. This may lead them to focus positive efforts aimed at progress and promotion of that group.

A few non-racial examples:

Given what we know about God’s kingdom, what right do Christian camps and schools have to promote patriotism, American culture, etc? We know that God doesn’t love Americans more than the citizens of other countries. Why is it OK for Christians to buy American, to call for jobs to stay in the US rather than being exported to foreign countries, etc.? Americans aren’t better than foreigners.

Given what we know about God’s kingdom, why is it OK for me to promote my children over others? My children are not more loved by God than other children. Why should I focus my attention on them, promote their education and well-being, etc.?

Common sense tells us that it is good for me to promote the well-being of my family in positive and constructive ways…reading with my kids, building their self-esteem, paying for piano lessons, helping them learn to hit a baseball…in ways that I don’t for other children. I might even teach my kids that the Moores have a code, a work ethic, a way that they treat others and that we do things the Moore way. On the other hand, I cross a line if I promote my kids by sabotaging or harming other kids, if I promote my kids as being intrinsically superior or more worthy than others, if I poison a member of the high school football team to make room for my kid.

This to me is the difference. As Scott emphasized earlier, the TUCC is “promoting” their “family”, their “club”, their “country” by working for the benefit and improvement of that community in positive ways without attempting to tear down other groups. The tactics the KKK uses to promote it’s group cross the line of propriety because they seek not only to build up their community but also to tear down, often with violence, others.
By Justin on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

I wouldn’t ever argue that they are racist, just that

1. There’s a double standard

2. I don’t agree with Christian schools, or groups in General, promoting patriotism. For the exact same reason.
By greg on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

“Americans aren’t better than foreigners.”

What????

just kidding. well said, jonathan.

As len said, I think there’s no doubt that people on either side will try to make small issues and/or non-issues into huge issues when there’s little, if anything, there. This is one of those cases IMO.
By len on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Here is my cheap, non-productive post for the purpose of upping my count. Hey, others are doing it…..
By greg on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Anyone have any idea how “black churches” came into existence in the first place?
By Scott on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Jonathan, great take. I hope we can move past the point where the Swift Boat approach to politics is recognized for what it is. This is a subject that, as Len says, won’t see any capitulation from those who don’t like Obama.
At this point there isn’t much else that can be said. I’m ready to move on from this and get onto the issues at hand.
By Jonathan on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

greg asked:

Anyone have any idea how “black churches” came into existence in the first place?

I assume it’s a result of churches, like the rest of our societies social institutions, being mostly segregated for most of our history. Growing up in NC in the 70’s and 80’s, I was bothered that there was a “black church” just down the road from ours and wondered why we were (by then likely for mostly historical/benign reasons) separated.

Robin and Justin said that there’s a double standard. I agree that there is probably a double standard. A “white church” would probably draw more heat for saying exactly the same thing. I would argue that 1) comparing TUCC to KKK is not a valid example of that double standard (for reasons described above) and 2) a double standard is justifiable in some situations given the historical context regarding the (at times in the past brutally) dominant culture and historically oppressed one.
By Jonathan on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Issues at hand? You mean like whether or not I can hang with greg in the comment totals?
By Jonathan on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

I can.
By Scott on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

One word of caution however: it’s a year long process. Slow and steady wins the race.
By len on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

So
By len on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

can
By len on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

I
By Justin on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Where’s Belinda?
By greg on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

jonathan, that was my point. I thought the talk of double standards, getting a pass and painting this church as racist was ironic considering the history of this country. White Americans have benefited from double standards and ‘getting passes’ for centuries, but suddenly it’s a big problem when they consider themselves the victim.

I agree that, in an ideal world, we’d treat each other as equals and such double standards things wouldn’t exist. And they shouldn’t. But again, considering our history and the fact that I’m white, I’m not going to complain as loudly, particularly on something like this, which I just don’t see as anything remotely resembling a huge injustice.

(I was going to post each word of this comment individually to build up my lead again, but decided against it. I figured it would be too difficult to follow. Maybe next time I have a one liner…)
By Doug Freeman on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply

Wow, whoever came up with the idea that it is wrong for a christian school to promote patriotism must have just crawled out from under a rock.
By Jonathan on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

greg,

you left the tags off your comment and I’m too dense to pick them up myself.
By Jonathan on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

The tags I was referring to were irony tags but my faux html mark-up was stripped out of my comment.
By Justin on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

I thought you weren’t going to weigh in Doug.

“My first allegiance is not to a flag, a country or a man. My first allegiance is not to democracy or blood. Its to a king and a kingdom”

-Derek Webb
By Doug Freeman on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

I was not going to comment until I found out here that my sixty four years as a christian and also being a patriot of my country has all been in vain. I am so thankful that God is my judge and to him i am faithful along with my country.Also for 37 years I have devoted my life to Christian education where we teach respect for God and Country. Don’t tell me this is in violation of God’s word.
By Scott on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

Let’s make sure that we read the complete comments that people leave and seek to understand their intent before responding.
I’m confident that we can discuss issues of disagreement in a positive and productive manner.
By Justin on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

Doug,

Is it possible that you were wrong? I sure was. I was all about promoting patriotism for a while in my life. I got goosebumps whenever we invoked God while talking about the USA.

I don’t feel that way anymore. I think the bible is pretty clear that God doesn’t show favoritism, and if he doesn’t, then why should we?

In Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek, male or female. All are one in Christ.
By Scott on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

Again, I don’t think that was Jonathan’s point, although I can’t speak for him.
I don’t think the issue was meant to be about patriotism and that’s a direction I don’t want this discussion to go.
Let me caution for cooler heads to proceed from here.
Jonathan’s original thought had to do with what I would define as understanding our sphere of influence over/above our sphere of concern. As Christians we are concerned with the wellbeing of all people. There is neither Jew nor Greek.
But when it comes to our influence then tribe and affiliation does matter greatly.
By Jonathan on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

Yep, my point was to give that as an example where most Christians routinely approve of “promoting” one group of God’s children over another. That is, it is common practice and, IMHO, a practice analogous to some of TUCC’s activities. That is, “I know what TUCC does may seem weird/wrong to you, but try to judge them fairly by keeping in mind some of the things that we consider OK for us to do.”

A different question is whether that common practice is admirable. I wasn’t trying to raise that question. My opinion is that it’s probably fine in moderation. Of course, my allegiance is first to Jesus…and then it’s a matter of conscience whether or not that leaves room for secondary allegiances.

I’m sure Justin would be glad to discuss the issue further on his blog or by email.
By Scott on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

I think that it is an admirable practice if you keep it in the proper perspective. I like using the sphere of concern/influence differentiation. In ministry it is impossible to not have a sphere of influence that you operate in. The problem is when you conflate the two spheres.
What so often happens is that our concern becomes solely what we influence. My sphere of influence, for example, begins with my family. For me to make that my sole concern and to valuate them over above other families is a misuse of my familial allegiance.
By len on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

I went to Jamaica twice last year on missions trips. In their churches they blatantly promote their desire to spiritually influence their nation. I think it is only natural for people to be proud of where they are from and let that be a primary concern. Hopefully we can accept that a group being pro-America, pro-Jamaica or pro-black does not mean they are anti something else. If that is the intent of TUCC then I can certainly accept that. The fact that my first loyalty is to the Kingdom does not mean that I am without other concerns. Paul’s desire was for Israel to be saved, but that didn’t keep him from ministering to Gentiles.
By Belinda on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

I’m here! Actually I usually read this during my lunch break - once a day. I can’t blog all day from my work computer. “Facts” are home - let me see what I can come up with and get back with you.
By Doug Freeman on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

With all that is said, I will promise not to make any more comments. I realize that all your knowledge and expertize far outweighs anything I can offer. I am thankful that I am a follower of Christ and have a deep faith that sustains me. Again I am also thankful for the roads I have been down of which many have been unpaved. I can go to bed tonight with a good conscience and with a good report from my doctor today. I am also sorry that I have offended some. Please forgive.
By Scott on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

Dad, this is my blog and you are welcome and encouraged to post a comment at any time. I am convinced that we can have a civil discourse here. I don’t think that you have offended anyone. There is just a wide array of opinions voiced here.
Glad you got a good report.
By Robin on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

This issue will come up in this election if Obama becomes the nominee. Shawn Hannity mentioned it today on his radio show.
By greg on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

The same Sean Hannity who, when speaking to Mitt Romney about those who’ve raised concerns about his Mormon faith, said:

“And it’s really troublesome to me, because it seems like they are creating for you a religious litmus test. And I will tell you, fundamentally, I view this as unfair.”

I guess he’s changed his mind…
By Robin on Jan 8, 2008 | Reply

Just telling you what I heard.
By Belinda on Jan 9, 2008 | Reply

Here is some suggested reading:

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-paul-and-anti-semitism.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

http://robertsteely.townhall.com/g/4c5af802-6fc5-4029-bbea-000032e1de7e

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

http://poligazette.com/2008/01/09/ron-paul-disavows-racist-newsletters/

I hope these work correctly. Mr. Paul blames a lot of his quotes - or misquotes - on a staffer. That may be true. As a Jew, I believe where there’s smoke, there’s fire. The Jewish people have went through too much - they don’t forget. There’s just too much doubt in my mind to think this man is the answer we need in America.
By Scott on Jan 9, 2008 | Reply

I am as opposed to a Ron Paul presidency as you can get. Yet, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It’s all moot at this point anyway.
By Robin on Jan 11, 2008 | Reply

Check this out on youtube.

Rev Jeremiah Wright’s Message
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

This is Obama’s spiritual mentor.

Judge for yourself.
By Jonathan on Jan 11, 2008 | Reply

The youtube link is broken but I assume it’s the one referenced in the Christian Century article Scott linked to:

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3392

From that article:

A sympathetic profile of Obama in Rolling Stone quoted this jeremiad from one of Wright’s sermons: “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run! . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God . . . And. And And! Gawd! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!” This may be the kind of passion that Obama now finds a bit embarrassing. The sermon was actually delivered as part of the inauguration of a new dean of the chapel at Howard University, whom Wright was encouraging to take on a prophetic role, not just a priestly one. But all that was posted on YouTube was a video of Wright shouting the words above.

Ironically, Wright says that in that part of the sermon he was quoting white evangelical preacher Tony Campolo, who has long railed about social ills in front of evangelical audiences. One of Campolo’s signature rhetorical gestures is to use colorful language and tell his listeners that he fears they are “more concerned that I said ’shit’” than with racism in America. When Campolo makes this move, he’s regarded as a prophetic figure. When Wright does it, his opponents call him a militant.

Frankly, this just proves how hip Wright is, not some scandal about Obama. Take issue with his policies or his lack of political experience or whatever, but this TUCC sh*t is weak.
By Jonathan on Jan 11, 2008 | Reply

Just remembered about one of my spiritual mentors who used the word sh*t and I bet everyone here has the book in your library:

http://www.jeffwofford.com/2006/11/wading-in-skubala.html
By Robin on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply

Again you miss the point. The point isn’t the word “shit” even though it is inappropriate coming from a so called minister’s mouth. It is the content of his message. We started AIDS is just one of his statements. Is he taking conspiracy theory classes from Rosie O’Donnell? His whole message is divisive.

You might think this TUCC shit is weak, but I think alot of people will be concerned. It concerns me. It is the same old story of the black leadership of this country continually preaching to keep black people down, keep them separate, make them all believe that all whites are white supremisits, that there is a grand conspiracy out to get them and so there is something to fight about. If there wasn’t the continuation of this mind set, the black leadership of this country wouldn’t have jobs or a reason to raise money.
By Jonathan on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply

No doubt it will be an issue. There was a letter to the editor in our paper yesterday.

Anyway, Obama doesn’t fit the pattern you describe in black leadership. If he did, I would be concerned too.
By greg on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply

zzzzzzzzzzz…
By Jonathan on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply

Obama’s Plane Strikes Parked Plane on Runway

judge for yourself
By greg on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply

I assume the other plane was full of white people?
By Justin on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply

I love that this blog just went to PG 13.

Robin, why shouldn’t a minister say shit in certain contexts. I mean, Paul said it, and some of you bible scholars might be able to help me out, but I’m pretty sure the f bomb is dropped in the OT.

There is nothing inherently wrong with cursing, besides lack of creative vocabulary. If you use a curse word in a derogatory way against another person, I could see how that is unchristian, but no more unchristian than calling someone an idiot. Seems like Jesus said something about calling someone fool, and I don’t hear messages from the pulpits of America railing on people for nananana boo boo type name calling.

We, as human beings, have a tendency to make issues black and white when they aren’t. We also like to trade sins for other sins that are easier to hide. (to quote derek webb again). When you make Christianity about not cursing or not committing sexual sin, but you ignore greed, lust, and uncaring attitudes towards the poor, its really not Christianity. Its moralism.

Anyway, this thread is ridiculously off topic as it is, so I’m gonna sign off.
By Scott on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply

“Anyway, this thread is ridiculously off topic as it is, so I’m gonna sign off.”

Amen to that. How did we get here from there? I swear one of these days I’m going to start moderating comments.
By Jonathan on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply

I take full credit.
By Justin on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply

Yeah, Jonathan is trolling Robin. It is funny though.
By Robin on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

Again the point is missed. It is the content of the youtube speech, the true purpose of TUCC not the one word.
By Robin on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

Again the point is missed. It is the content of the youtube speech, the true purpose of TUCC not the one word. Laugh all you want. I’m glad you’re enjoying this.
By Jonathan on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

Robin,

The youtube link you posted was incomplete, so we couldn’t watch it…and therefore have to guess what the content was. I’d probably miss the point anyway but at least this time I have an excuse.
By Jonathan on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UL8r8wLdg48

That is quite the rant. Wright will never be elected president.
By greg on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

jonathan, is that the one that is taken from a speech from Howard U?
By Scott on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

With the competing emails I’m getting I’m really confused if Obama is a Muslim or a racist Christian. I’m so confused. Hopefully the Swift Boat will let know exactly which one.
I imagine God has to be sick of this kind of politics as well.
By Jonathan on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

greg,

Based on the description in the Christian Century article, it does sound like some audio from the Howard speech.
By Jonathan on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

Robin,

I doubt anyone here is wholly comfortable with Wright’s message, but I just don’t think it’s a scandal nor a negative reflection on Obama’s character as the smear-mongers would have us to believe. Yes, the AIDS conspiracy theory is not credible, but there are no shortage of conspiracy theories on the right either…not the least of which is that God has a conspiracy to smite the evildoers using AIDS. I would be alarmed if Obama advocated such a theory, but HE DOESN’T.

Huckabee actually wrote (link):

Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.

That’s interesting. It’s good to know. Do I really think he believes that the impact of environmentalism on society is akin to abortion and pornography? No, so you won’t see me trying to foment a controversy about it as if that was an accurate representation of his views. I’m sure there are some people who do, but Huckabee probably isn’t one of them.

Then there’s Ron Paul’s newsletters. Do I really think he holds those racist views? No, I don’t. It’s interesting, probably represents some poor judgment on his part, but doesn’t represent what he’s about.

It’s a shame that the political conversation can’t be dominated by substantive discussions rather than empty slogans calling for change and swiftboat-style smears.
By Justin on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

I think it does represent what both Obama and Ron Paul believe, but I don’t think its that they believe these things.

We live in a free society. In a free society, people are allowed to have differing viewpoints, even if we find them offensive. Sure racism, conspiracy theories, etc can be bad and crazy and hurtful. But what is worse… allowing people to share their views, even if you disagree or even worse are offended by them, or censoring any mention of anything that might offend. Sometimes the truth is offensive (not saying that anything mentioned is true) so when we try and get rid of anything that might be offensive, we are on the road towards being intellectually dishonest. Running for political office brings up all these issues, but you must weigh them against the candidates prevailing philosophy. Ron Paul is as anti collectivist as a person can be, and he is also a proponent of non violence. Does what was said in his newsletter jive with that? Nope. Obama is a person who wants to unite people with a common purpose. Nothing else in his life leads me to believe that he subscribes to everything his pastor stands for.

Most churches that are available for me to attend are not universalist, don’t preach non violence, etc. But that’s not what I believe. I do believe in many of the things taught at most evangelical churches, and so I continue to attend. Would it be better if Obama didn’t go to church at all? Would it be better if Ron Paul never allowed dissenting voices in his newsletter? I don’t know. I do know that people who respect others rights to free speech and thought are people that I would like to have in political office.
By Jonathan on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

Justin,

I don’t follow what you meant by this sentence:

I think it does represent what both Obama and Ron Paul believe, but I don’t think its that they believe these things.

Anyway, I don’t think anyone here has been advocating censorship but rather that some of the things that have been freely said are disturbing and reflect poorly on those that are associated.
By Justin on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

Its that they believe that, even when people’s viewpoints are offensive, we should still allow them to be heard. Or that just because you disagree with someone, even if its extreme disagreement, that’s no reason for them not to be your brother, for we are all part of a community that is trying to move in the direction we think best. And we need to hear all ideas, even ones we disagree with.

I guess I’m having trouble putting into words what I mean. If that doesn’t make sense, then I need to retire from commenting.
By greg on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

Scott, Obama is really a radical Muslim. He’s just posing as a racist Christian for political reasons.

The “he’s really a muslim” and “was sworn in with his hand on a Koran” emails must be making a comeback. I’ve gotten it twice in the last 3 days.
By Justin on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

My dad sent me one of those “obama is a muslim” emails the other day, but he asked me to find out if it was true, cause he’s figured out that most forwards are inaccurate. Now when he gets one, he sends it to me asking if its true. He never remembers how to get to snopes.com
By Jonathan on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

I’ve got my dad trained to check snopes first.
By Scott on Jan 13, 2008 | Reply

I just heard that Obama didn’t really serve in Vietnam. What gives?
By Jonathan on Jan 14, 2008 | Reply

UCC Head Denounces Political “Attacks” on Obama’s Church

“Not only does Trinity not exclude anyone from membership or attendance based on ethnicity but … the conference minister of the Illinois Conference of the UCC (Rev. Jane Fisler Hoffman) and her husband (both white) are members of Trinity,” a statement from Trinity said.

Thomas said the Chicago congregation is the UCC’s largest, with 8,000 members and is also the largest donor to the church’s national and international missions.

“Contrary to the claims made in these hateful e-mails, UCC members know Trinity to be one of the most welcoming, hospitable and generous congregations in our denomination,” Thomas said.
By Scott on Jan 14, 2008 | Reply

What are the odds that the talking head that made a big deal out of Obama’s church, who shall remain nameless, issues a retraction of even acknowledges this report?
By Jonathan on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply

From an article in the Baltimore Sun: link

On Sunday morning - amid intensified crossfire between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama over the use of race in the Democratic presidential campaign - Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message.

and then

Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton “because her husband was good to us,” he continued.

“That’s not true,” he thundered. “He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.”

and then

In a statement released by his campaign last night, Obama responded to questions about Wright’s comments on Sunday.

“As I’ve told Reverend Wright, personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church,” he said. “I don’t think of the pastor of my church in political terms.

“Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree,” he said. “But as he prepares to retire, that doesn’t detract from my affection for Reverend Wright or appreciation for the good works he has done.”
By Politics & Culture on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply

“He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.”

I love it! I respect that man more than I did before. Preach it, Rev. Wright!
By Scott on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply

Go Obama.
By len on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply

With super Tuesday a week away can we look forward to some good political posting from you this week? Which candidate are you backing now? Still Edwards? I’m curious as to your opinion on how ugly things are between Billary and Obama.
By Scott on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply

Yes. And no, I’m no longer backing Edwards.

As far as dirty politics: I hate it.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.

This Guy Can Rock The Mike

119 Responses to “This Guy Can Rock The Mike”

Narratives and Metaphors

Planned books:

Current books:

Recent books:

Twitter Updates

Newspaper in One Hand

Community

This Site's DNA

Archives

Categories

The Conversation

Cohort Comments