Obama: U.S. Ready for Black President

[tu_holmes]

I don't believe I am being too literal. Literal is what is called for. My point is that you took a legitimate organization and discredited & tarnished it's name,  by lumping it with a bunch of kooks. That's like saying the current US Administration is X because David Dukes or (insert KKK member here) says X. The KKK does not speak for America, and they don't speak for this presidential administration, though they may claim to. By the same token, race baiters and poverty pimps do not speak for all blacks nor do they speak for the NAACP. The NAACP is a separate and distinct organization that is very real, and is NOT a metaphor, and should not be used as a metaphor... especially not for something that bears absolutely no resemblance to what it is all about.

What's a legit org? The NAACP?

[24KT]

What's a legit org? The NAACP?

yes

[tu_holmes]

yes

You mean in that they are a real organization that exists or in that they do good work... I would disagree with the latter... some years ago, I would have agreed, but not today.

[24KT]

You mean in that they are a real organization that exists or in that they do good work... I would disagree with the latter... some years ago, I would have agreed, but not today.

I won't debate that part with you, but my point is you can't take one person's position and paint it as gospel for the masses, sanctioned from on high. That's not the case. Those who are screaming Obama is not black enough are those looking to position themselves on the radar screen ...pure & simple.

[tu_holmes]

I won't debate that part with you, but my point is you can't take one person's position and paint it as gospel for the masses, sanctioned from on high. That's not the case. Those who are screaming Obama is not black enough are those looking to position themselves on the radar screen ...pure & simple.

Oh I agree... although I'm still pissed that race even fucking matters... That in and of itself makes me disgusted.

[24KT]

Oh I agree... although I'm still pissed that race even fucking matters... That in and of itself makes me disgusted.

I agree with you there.

[Tre]

Oh I agree... although I'm still pissed that race even fucking matters... That in and of itself makes me disgusted.

Science tells us that humans have an innate desire to 'classify'. 

Religion, however, is to blame for racism.

[Dos Equis]

Science tells us that humans have an innate desire to 'classify'. 

Religion, however, is to blame for racism.

How so?

[Dos Equis]

Isn't BeachBum an African American? 

I heard he was Chinese.

[Tre]

How so?

Because 'the scriptures' tell us so.

I don't know much about the non-christian religions, but christianity is filled with lots of references to tribal superiority being based upon divine instruction ("god told us we should smite you", etc).

[Dos Equis]

Because 'the scriptures' tell us so.

I don't know much about the non-christian religions, but christianity is filled with lots of references to tribal superiority being based upon divine instruction ("god told us we should smite you", etc).

I disagree.  The Bible talks about not being a "respecter of persons," which is the antithesis of racism.  And I definitely don't think racism in America was caused by Christianity. 

[24KT]

I disagree.  The Bible talks about not being a "respecter of persons," which is the antithesis of racism.  And I definitely don't think racism in America was caused by Christianity. 

However Christianity was historically used to support & justify it.

[tu_holmes]

However Christianity was historically used to support & justify it.

This is true... even going so far as to say that the "Mark of Cain" was the skin color... There's a way to get white Angelo-Saxon Christians to think slavery is good... label the difference as "God's Wrath".

[Dos Equis]

American slavery was evil.  It was neither justified nor endorsed by Christianity.  What you had was some so-called Christians who tried to use the Bible to justify slavery.  Never worked.  There is nothing in the Bible that supports American slavery.   

[tu_holmes]

American slavery was evil.  It was neither justified nor endorsed by Christianity.  What you had was some so-called Christians who tried to use the Bible to justify slavery.  Never worked.  There is nothing in the Bible that supports American slavery.   

The KKK did use and still uses the Bible to say that Blacks are an inferior race.

[Dos Equis]

The KKK did use and still uses the Bible to say that Blacks are an inferior race.

No, they misuse the Bible to say blacks are an inferior race.  The Bible doesn't say any such thing. 

[tu_holmes]

No, they misuse the Bible to say blacks are an inferior race.  The Bible doesn't say any such thing. 

Please see my previous post... you can call it "misuse" if you wish... "misuse" is still a use.

[Dos Equis]

Please see my previous post... you can call it "misuse" if you wish... "misuse" is still a use.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.  Are you suggesting the Bible supports American slavery, the alleged inferiority of blacks, etc.?  I say it doesn't and it doesn't matter who says it does (KKK or whomever).  Some bigot saying the Bible supports slavery doesn't make it true. 

There are a number of churches that used to practice segregation.  You won't find that in the Bible either.   

[24KT]

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.  Are you suggesting the Bible supports American slavery, the alleged inferiority of blacks, etc.?  I say it doesn't and it doesn't matter who says it does (KKK or whomever).  Some bigot saying the Bible supports slavery doesn't make it true. 

There are a number of churches that used to practice segregation.  You won't find that in the Bible either.   

Why is it when Christian's pervert bible text to implement policies that then became the standard operating procedure for their churches, it is not considered Christianity's doing, ...but when Muslims pervert the Koran to justify the acts of a few... it is acceptable to preach this perversion represents the true face of Islam?

[Dos Equis]

Why is it when Christian's pervert bible text to implement policies that then became the standard operating procedure for their churches, it is not considered Christianity's doing, ...but when Muslims pervert the Koran to justify the acts of a few... it is acceptable to preach this perversion represents the true face of Islam?

Jag I have never read the Koran, but I think the difference is with Christianity you had (and have) individuals doing bad things and using nonexistence passages from the Bible to justify their actions (e.g., the mark of Cain changing his race), whereas the Koran apparently has some language that calls for things like Jihads, etc.  Nordic could explain the Koran a lot better than me.   

[24KT]

Jag I have never read the Koran, but I think the difference is with Christianity you had (and have) individuals doing bad things and using nonexistence passages from the Bible to justify their actions (e.g., the mark of Cain changing his race), whereas the Koran apparently has some language that calls for things like Jihads, etc.  Nordic could explain the Koran a lot better than me.   

How can you say this while in the same sentence admit you have never read the Koran?

Your argument is merely baseless rhetoric on two fronts. The first being obvious, and the second, ...I don't think Nordic has any more knowledge of the Koran than you. I've seen him decimated enough times at the hands of Haider, CJ and even Toxie the atheist to lay stock in Nordic's interpretation of the Koran.

Do you really understand what Jihad is? What it actually is... not what a fear mongering, ratings seeking media
...or a perverse extremist element would have us believe it to be?

self-edit: I'm gonna stop here, because this is really veering off topic, and I don't want to see a good political thread moved to the Religion board.

[G o a t b o y]

Pretty much all religion sucks.  It's just a tool of control and/or a justification for our baser instincts.  Karl Marx might have been wrong about his economic theories, but he was right on target with his assessment of religion.

[24KT]

Pretty much all religion sucks.  It's just a tool of control and/or a justification for our baser instincts.  Karl Marx might have been wrong about his economic theories, but he was right on target with his assessment of religion.

That's why I have always drawn a distinction between spirituality and religion.

I have my faith and my spirituality, ...but I have no "religion"

[Dos Equis]

How can you say this while in the same sentence admit you have never read the Koran?

Your argument is merely baseless rhetoric on two fronts. The first being obvious, and the second, ...I don't think Nordic has any more knowledge of the Koran than you. I've seen him decimated enough times at the hands of Haider, CJ and even Toxie the atheist to lay stock in Nordic's interpretation of the Koran.

Do you really understand what Jihad is? What it actually is... not what a fear mongering, ratings seeking media
...or a perverse extremist element would have us believe it to be?

self-edit: I'm gonna stop here, because this is really veering off topic, and I don't want to see a good political thread moved to the Religion board.

Actually, I made a statement of fact and an assumption.  Here is a fact:  "with Christianity you had (and have) individuals doing bad things and using nonexistence passages from the Bible to justify their actions (e.g., the mark of Cain changing his race)."  Why don't you specifically explain why this is baseless rhetoric?   

Here is an assumption:  "whereas the Koran apparently has some language that calls for things like Jihads, etc."  I obviously don't know if this is true or not.  I'm relying on things I've heard, which is why this is an assumption.  And I would be willing to wager Nordic knows a little more about the Koran than you do. 

And forgive me for tying to answer your question.      

[24KT]

Actually, I made a statement of fact and an assumption.  Here is a fact:  "with Christianity you had (and have) individuals doing bad things and using nonexistence passages from the Bible to justify their actions (e.g., the mark of Cain changing his race)."  Why don't you specifically explain why this is baseless rhetoric? 

The above was not the part I was refering to  

Here is an assumption:  "whereas the Koran apparently has some language that calls for things like Jihads, etc."  I obviously don't know if this is true or not.  I'm relying on things I've heard, which is why this is an assumption.  And I would be willing to wager Nordic knows a little more about the Koran than you do.

That may well be true, ...but I have very little faith in his interpretation of it. 

And forgive me for tying to answer your question.      

You're forgiven,   
...but do try to differentiate between questions calling for an answer and those merely rhetorical in nature.   

ps - How's the hammock? We've been downright balmy today. Had a high temperature of minus 5,
and tomorrow, we're expected to reach a high of 0 degrees. It's beginning to feel downright tropical.