Black Christian 'Racialism' Challenges Faith in America

jeremyemilio »

Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hey pammie, good post.

I actually agree with much of what you say. My only quibble is that you buy into the conservative myth that there are a bunch of lefties out there with signs and placards lobbying for increased welfare payments for the lazy.

Let me preface by saying I’m very familiar with both sides. I’m a PhD student in English Literature and I’m also a very active member of the very conservative Pentecostal Church in Canada. Here’s the disconnect as I see it:

Conservatives view poverty in terms of charity (i.e. giving to people who are in need). Liberals view poverty in terms of social justice (i.e. leveling the playing field so that everyone can succeed). Thus, when Liberals demand we address poverty, conservatives assume they are calling for an increase in the amount and/or scope of charitable giving. In reality, though, liberals want to empower the poor to escape their situation. It is the conservative approach that leads to institutionalized poverty.

Don’t buy it? Here are a couple of examples:

1. Wheelchair access: I’m not that old, but I remember when this was a controversy. The left came up with the idea that if we made buildings, businesses, and transportation accessible to the physically disabled they would be empowered to achieve their own success. The right, though, insisted this was unreasonable. Not everyone is able to do everything. Besides, if you’re disabled you have a good excuse so don’t worry; that’s what charity is for. It sounds far fetched in hindsight, but that’s how it went.

2. Subsidized childcare: This one is still playing out. The left believes if we provide free childcare, single mothers will be empowered to support their families, rather than being forced to stay home to care for their children and collect welfare. The right has a different solution: workfare. If you make single mothers work for their social assistance they'll be forced to find someone to care for their children (maybe a schizophrenic grandma, or a drug dealing brother… they’re not doing anything). It’s not our responsibility to pay for the care of your children (until they’re 18, when their upbringing catches up with them and we have to foot the $50,000 per year bill for keeping them in prison).

This isn’t an indictment of the right, though. The liberal approach has problems as well. Go to a liberal institution and tell them your family is homeless and they’ll lobby the government for low cost housing. Go into a church and they may well build you a house.

Christians need to apply both perspectives. We must work to relieve immediate hardship through charity (something the Church is good at), but we must also work to empower the poor through social justice (something the Church is just catching onto now).

Black Christian 'Racialism' Challenges Faith in America

jeremyemilio »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

cont. (for real this time)

To clarify: you can’t begin with a premise (“scripture is important”) and then drop the premise when it works against you (“scripture is not so important”) and then expect folks to stand by complacently when you pick the premise back up again to reiterate your original argument (“as I’ve stated, scripture is important”). Such tactics lead to blatant logical fallacies.

The bottom line is that Wilson’s thesis is wrong in its implication that one side is in keeping with scripture and the other side is not. The truth is the right is in keeping with scripture on issues like homosexuality, but out of touch with scripture on issues like poverty. Likewise, the left is in keeping with scripture on issues like poverty, and out of touch on issues like homosexuality. Thus, who to vote for is not a toss up between parties, but a toss up between not voting at all (because each side is wrong on certain Biblical issues) or being free to vote for either (because each side is right on certain Biblical issue).

On your final point, I confess that I am not an African American and it would seem that you are, so I certainly won't argue with your idea that race should not come before faith. As a long time Christian and the son of an evangelical pastor (not to mention my having an evangelical pastor as a wife) I concur. What I’m tired of is the idea that Christians (of any race) who lean left politically are somehow denying their faith while those who lean right are defending theirs. Like many, I’m a liberal BECAUSE of my Christianity, not in spite of it. That’s not to say that I don’t believe that it’s possible to be a Conservative Christian for the same reasons; just that Christians are hemmed in on BOTH sides by movements that attempt to appease us on some issues just so they can get a free pass from us on others.

Black Christian 'Racialism' Challenges Faith in America

jeremyemilio »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

cont.

Black Christian 'Racialism' Challenges Faith in America

jeremyemilio »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:54 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Cheala34life

We’re talking past one another here, so I’ll try one final response. You seem to want it both ways. With regard to homosexuality, you ask “How many scriptures does God have to give before something is considered wrong? Once.” With regard to scriptures concerning social justice, you make a direct about face and suggest “you cannot apply this scripture as a mandate from God.”

Moreover, you resist simply admitting your error in suggesting that scripture points directly to homosexuality as a key reason why Sodom was destroyed. If that were true, you’d be able to cite book and verse. (The key word in Ezekiel 16:50, by the way, is “Thus.” That’s a transitional word, you see; it points back to the previous sentence for clarification of the “abominations” addressed, and not off toward some vague sin that might be homosexuality.)

You say that scripture can’t contradict itself and I agree. You, however, (like many on the “Christian right”) have no problem whatsoever in contradicting yourself. The question wasn’t simply “Why should scriptures concerning homosexuality affect our vote?” but “Why should these scriptures affect our vote while scriptures concerning social justice should not?”

THIS is the contradiction at the heart of Wilson’s book, and at the heart of your argument. She implies Christians should be concerned about what the scriptures say and vote accordingly, rather than according to social justice. Then, when someone points out the many scriptures concerning social justice, you back-peddle and suggest that maybe scripture and politics don’t mix so well, then when homosexuality is brought into the mix you turn right back around and say that the Bible tells us it’s wrong and so we should vote accordingly. I’m getting dizzy.

Black Christian 'Racialism' Challenges Faith in America

jeremyemilio »

Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Cheala34life

“We could go round and round here…”

We sure could, especially considering the fact that this whole discussion began with you suggesting that Christians should vote in accordance with scripture and then, when I provide some scripture that might justify liberal voting, you jump through hoops to explain how this is not a theocracy and to suggest that some scriptures just don’t matter very much.

So why should scriptures concerning homosexuality (as few of them as there are) affect our vote? This is an inconsistency that I’m having some difficulty fathoming. My difficulty is compounded by the fact that you actually make up scripture concerning Sodom and Gomorrah suggesting that the Bible specifically states that the cities were destroy because of homosexuality. It doesn’t, you know. That’s a myth. You might point to the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape the strangers (God’s messengers) who visited Lot. However, not only does this incident occurAFTER the city has already been marked for destruction, but to suggest that homosexuality is the problematic aspect of this incident is to imply that had the men wanted to gang rape females it would not have been an issue. The real reason I don’t buy into the myth, though, is that the Bible DOES tell us EXACTLY why Sodom was destroyed and homosexuality is not even hinted at. Sorry to repeat myself, but it seems you didn’t get it the first time:

“this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." - Ezekiel 16:48.

Then you have the nerve to dismiss this verse stating that you are “pretty sure there were other sins going on besides homesexuality, but in the text God points to the behavoir of the men in sodom and Gomorrah” when I’ve just shown, through DIRECT REFERENCE to the text, that this common belief is a fallacy.

It is also shocking that anyone could be so single minded as to think that a law telling the Israelites to leave the gleanings of their fields for the poor and the wild animals has no bearing on people who do not own fields! Such verses, like all scriptures, give us a glimpse into the heart of God. I wonder if you think we should be this quick to dismiss scriptures about sowing seeds or finding sheep. We walk this treacherous path at our own peril and at the peril of Christianity itself.

Black Christian 'Racialism' Challenges Faith in America

jeremyemilio »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:27 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Cheala34life
“The point is don't let the social issue become the main issue. Scripture always has to have the last word.”
Actually, the point is that according to scripture “the social issue” IS the main issue. Of course, you won’t believe me, so in keeping with your own advice, I’ve decided to let scripture “have the last word.” Here is a VERY small sampling of what scripture says about social justice. (I’d love to see you match it with scriptural references to such issues as homosexuality, which you, Wilson, and the rest of the “Christian right” have deluded yourselves into believing are the primary tenets of Christianity.)
Exodus 23:6 - Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.
(Justice, eh?)
Exodus 23:10-11 - For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

(Hmmm… the land should be rested, the poor have a right to your fields, animals have a claim to your crop… environmental conscience, social conscience, and animal rights; never got that lesson in Sunday School!)

Leviticus 23:22 - 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.'

(Did that just say “alien”? Yup!)

Deuteronomy 15:1-4 - At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for cancelling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. 4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you

(Cancel debts every seven years! Eliminate poverty! Run away, run away, Stalin is coming!)

(I wonder what Jesus has to say?)

Matthew 19:21- Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

(Oh.)

(Last one… You’ll love this!)

James 2:12-13 - Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Black Christian 'Racialism' Challenges Faith in America

jeremyemilio »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"Instead, the largely religious African American population said its top concerns are social issues such as the war in Iraq, health care and the economy and jobs."

...Yeah, 'cause the Bible has nothing to say about any of these issues, does?

hmmmm, Cheala, why DIDN’T God spare Sodom and Gomorrah? Could it be that:

"this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." - Ezekiel 16:48.

Kinda hurts to find out you've been lied to all these years, huh?

Student Sues History Teacher Over Anti-Christian Comments

jeremyemilio »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

As a Christian teacher, I was quite displeased when I first heard about this. However, having taken a closer look, I have to say this is actually a bit more complex than it may seem. The trouble stems from the fact that this is an AP class. In other words, although it is offered in high school, it is meant to qualify as (and to simulate) a university course. Herein lays the problem: Students in a university class should be prepared to have their beliefs challenged, even if it means being subjected to the open biases of their professors. On the other hand, these are still high school aged students, most of whom are not equipped to recognize bias for what it is, let alone to resist and to counter it. So what's the solution? Perhaps the very idea of AP classes is too fraught with contradiction to work in practice. I don't know. What I do know is that it makes little sense to fire a teacher without first clearly defining the function of an advanced placement class and the role of a teacher within that class.