11.05.2004
Blacks Are Immoral?
Kevin McCullough, part-time "syndicated columnist" and full-time "no-talent assclown" has taken it to a new low. Kevin's previous comments can be found at the bottom of this post and perhaps you'd like to see how he predited the elction would turn out. Yes, that's right, he said Bush would "sweep" most of the blue states and win with something nearing 350 electoral votes. Such stupidity is common on the internet, I know, but few are actually "syndicated" in poorly-read, not-so-national newspapers.
Anyway, on to the story, Kevin has now said that thanks to their not voting for Bush and his "moral message," Black Churches are perhaps either ignorant or unimportant. Of course, living in New York City, I'm sure he's not surrounded by COGIC churches and their ilk. These evangelicals are fantastic, reverend and important to this country. I attended the largest COGIC church for almost three years, Temple of Deliverance. Home to the COGIC leader, Bishop G.E. Patterson, I can tell you that my time there was uplifting, fantastic and fun. It wasn't the perfect place for myself, a Methodist from a small town, to worship, but it broadened my horizons and I saw a whole new side of people. While their home page indicates that they've proclaimed marriage the union between man and woman, Bishop Patterson on several occasions indicated that he held nothing against people of a different sexual persuasion. He felt their actions "immoral," but also indicated that we were put here to love one another. I'm certain that he would have little problem with "civil unions," as have been suggested.
Again, I've strayed; back to Kevin's idiotic ramblings. Let's read his latest column:
Before the election, I predicted that President Bush would win roughly 30 states, that Latinos would back the president by about 40 percent or better, and that African Americans would support the president by 15-20 percent. "If these three predictions came true," I told my radio audience, "then despite the close poll numbers, the president would win decisively."
I was close, but where I was off is extremely discouraging.
As I awoke the day after the election, I was delighted – even thrilled – to see that the No 1 issue among many of the exit polls for a person's motivation for voting this year was "moral values." I had a strong suspicion that the "Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage" would pass overwhelmingly in the 11 states where it was on the ballot. I was pleased to see that even in Oregon, arguably one of the most liberal states in America, that it passed by nearly 60 percent.
Finally the mainstream press for a few days would be forced to discuss this phenomenon of "voting on values." So why my disappointment?
In the year leading up to the election, I had worked closely with African-American pastors from across the nation to help get the "values message" out. Knowing that the Democrats would use quite illegitimate messages to try and scare African Americans into voting for Kerry, it seemed to me that we had a chance at getting at least 20-25 percent of the community focused on the truth. And I was encouraged by what I saw.
On March 29, 2004, we gathered the largest gathering of clergy ever assembled at New York City Hall. The pastors came from across the five boroughs and at least half were old-school traditional pastors from the deeply steeped Democratic neighborhoods. Led by more prominent pastors like Bishop Roderick Caesar, and Harlem-based pastor Michael Faulkner, the large contingent of black pastors said that day that there would be no supporting candidates who sought to support the aggressively immoral agenda of radicals in society today. Only months later, many of those same pastors came together to again promote a public demonstration in support of the president's Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage.
But then I began to hear the rumblings.
Jesse Jackson – first in his own city of Chicago, and then across America as part of the Kerry campaign – began to go church to church and tell pastors to forget about the moral issues of our time.
"Get Bush out, then we'll straighten out the other stuff" was the message that my friends amongst the African-American clergy were told.
Jackson then departed on a whirlwind tour taking the message church to church. In Chicago, the pressure was enormous. I heard personally of 15 separate churches that were approached and told to "knock off" the protest on the same-sex marriage issue and "get on board." To my knowledge – and to their credit – none of them did.
That could not be said for all. James Meeks, pastor of Salem Baptist Church in Chicago, should have been a strong proponent to protect marriage. Instead he threw his support behind Barrack Obama, who by every measure is someone who supports the radical homosexual agenda, partial-birth abortion, and even born-alive abortion.
It was no wonder to me that when the analysis came down that showed Bush had received 11 percent of the African American vote that columnist and op-ed writers were also noticing that the biggest issue in the race was morality. Every pastor who knew better – who could have spoken out on what God says concerning morality and the crisis we face, but chose instead to pad their own agenda with additional access and power – had in essence betrayed the believers they shepherd.
The huge observation by those same op-ed writers is this: How could the election have ended up as the great debate between moral virtue and entitlements?
Maybe there is no shame in some circles anymore, but I talk to thousands of folks every day who tell me that they are now sad at this reality.
In the election that redefined the debate over morality and biblical virtues in our time – by and large – the African-American church could no longer count itself among the community of values.
Aha! So the devil himself is Barrack Obama, one who has openly supported "born-alive abortion"s. Of course, in this article, we see that while Alan Keyes harshly attacked Obama's stance on abortion, he ably worded his response:
The conservative former diplomat said Obama's vote against a bill that would have outlawed a form of late-term abortion denied unborn children their equal rights. Both candidates - one an outspoken conservative and the other a favorite of party liberals - are black.
"I would still be picking cotton if the country's moral principles had not been shaped by the Declaration of Independence," Keyes said. He said Obama "has broken and rejected those principles - he has taken the slaveholder's position."
Obama, who has been basking in national celebrity since delivering the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, suggested Keyes was outside the moderate mainstream of state Republicans.
Asked specifically about the phrase slaveholder's position, Obama said Keyes "should look to members of his own party to see if that's appropriate if he's going to use that kind of language."
...Obama said he voted against the late-term abortion ban as a state senator because it contained no exception to protect the life of the mother. He noted that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and federal Appeals Judge Richard Posner, both appointed by President Ronald Reagan, had voted to strike down laws banning late-term abortions.
Obama said he did not question the sincerity of those deeply concerned about abortion, but he said he believed there were many other issues on the minds of voters.
"As I travel around this state, I don't get asked about gay marriage, I don't get asked about abortion," Obama said. "I get asked, 'How can I find a job that allows me to support my family?' I get asked, 'How can I pay those medical bills without going into bankruptcy?' "
In an interview on WBEZ radio yesterday, Keyes defended his belief that gay marriage was wrong, brushing aside a suggestion from an interviewer that sexual preference might be biologically determined.
"We as human beings cannot assert that our sexual desires cannot be controlled," Keyes said. He said such an assertion would "consign us to the realm of instinctual animal nature - and we are not there."
Of course, it's people like Keyes who have made Obama only the fifth black senator ever, which is a travesty. But I digress. I suggest to Mr. Kevin McCullough that perhaps black voters have more on their minds than just "morals" as he calls it. First of all, perhaps they feel it's more important that we try to curb the spread of aids than concentrate our efforts on abortion, which takes far fewer lives per-year. Perhaps they feel that our country's current actions arent exactly "moral" either, and that their personal success has failed as a result. Or, perhaps they felt they were voting for Christ's "values":
...And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering, abandoned, deprived -- the scorned, the condemned people -- including Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a philosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that principle of Jesus Christ’s ministry.
Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of suffering among the poor and the outcast?
Thanks, Jimmy Carter. You've said it quite well. True faith allows one to look beyond those things which cannot be resolved immediately to those things which are most important. I don't think tax cuts for the rich are helping those poor people Jesus told us to elevate nor does killing kids in Iraq help them stop suffering.
Anyway, on to the story, Kevin has now said that thanks to their not voting for Bush and his "moral message," Black Churches are perhaps either ignorant or unimportant. Of course, living in New York City, I'm sure he's not surrounded by COGIC churches and their ilk. These evangelicals are fantastic, reverend and important to this country. I attended the largest COGIC church for almost three years, Temple of Deliverance. Home to the COGIC leader, Bishop G.E. Patterson, I can tell you that my time there was uplifting, fantastic and fun. It wasn't the perfect place for myself, a Methodist from a small town, to worship, but it broadened my horizons and I saw a whole new side of people. While their home page indicates that they've proclaimed marriage the union between man and woman, Bishop Patterson on several occasions indicated that he held nothing against people of a different sexual persuasion. He felt their actions "immoral," but also indicated that we were put here to love one another. I'm certain that he would have little problem with "civil unions," as have been suggested.
Again, I've strayed; back to Kevin's idiotic ramblings. Let's read his latest column:
Before the election, I predicted that President Bush would win roughly 30 states, that Latinos would back the president by about 40 percent or better, and that African Americans would support the president by 15-20 percent. "If these three predictions came true," I told my radio audience, "then despite the close poll numbers, the president would win decisively."
I was close, but where I was off is extremely discouraging.
As I awoke the day after the election, I was delighted – even thrilled – to see that the No 1 issue among many of the exit polls for a person's motivation for voting this year was "moral values." I had a strong suspicion that the "Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage" would pass overwhelmingly in the 11 states where it was on the ballot. I was pleased to see that even in Oregon, arguably one of the most liberal states in America, that it passed by nearly 60 percent.
Finally the mainstream press for a few days would be forced to discuss this phenomenon of "voting on values." So why my disappointment?
In the year leading up to the election, I had worked closely with African-American pastors from across the nation to help get the "values message" out. Knowing that the Democrats would use quite illegitimate messages to try and scare African Americans into voting for Kerry, it seemed to me that we had a chance at getting at least 20-25 percent of the community focused on the truth. And I was encouraged by what I saw.
On March 29, 2004, we gathered the largest gathering of clergy ever assembled at New York City Hall. The pastors came from across the five boroughs and at least half were old-school traditional pastors from the deeply steeped Democratic neighborhoods. Led by more prominent pastors like Bishop Roderick Caesar, and Harlem-based pastor Michael Faulkner, the large contingent of black pastors said that day that there would be no supporting candidates who sought to support the aggressively immoral agenda of radicals in society today. Only months later, many of those same pastors came together to again promote a public demonstration in support of the president's Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage.
But then I began to hear the rumblings.
Jesse Jackson – first in his own city of Chicago, and then across America as part of the Kerry campaign – began to go church to church and tell pastors to forget about the moral issues of our time.
"Get Bush out, then we'll straighten out the other stuff" was the message that my friends amongst the African-American clergy were told.
Jackson then departed on a whirlwind tour taking the message church to church. In Chicago, the pressure was enormous. I heard personally of 15 separate churches that were approached and told to "knock off" the protest on the same-sex marriage issue and "get on board." To my knowledge – and to their credit – none of them did.
That could not be said for all. James Meeks, pastor of Salem Baptist Church in Chicago, should have been a strong proponent to protect marriage. Instead he threw his support behind Barrack Obama, who by every measure is someone who supports the radical homosexual agenda, partial-birth abortion, and even born-alive abortion.
It was no wonder to me that when the analysis came down that showed Bush had received 11 percent of the African American vote that columnist and op-ed writers were also noticing that the biggest issue in the race was morality. Every pastor who knew better – who could have spoken out on what God says concerning morality and the crisis we face, but chose instead to pad their own agenda with additional access and power – had in essence betrayed the believers they shepherd.
The huge observation by those same op-ed writers is this: How could the election have ended up as the great debate between moral virtue and entitlements?
Maybe there is no shame in some circles anymore, but I talk to thousands of folks every day who tell me that they are now sad at this reality.
In the election that redefined the debate over morality and biblical virtues in our time – by and large – the African-American church could no longer count itself among the community of values.
Aha! So the devil himself is Barrack Obama, one who has openly supported "born-alive abortion"s. Of course, in this article, we see that while Alan Keyes harshly attacked Obama's stance on abortion, he ably worded his response:
The conservative former diplomat said Obama's vote against a bill that would have outlawed a form of late-term abortion denied unborn children their equal rights. Both candidates - one an outspoken conservative and the other a favorite of party liberals - are black.
"I would still be picking cotton if the country's moral principles had not been shaped by the Declaration of Independence," Keyes said. He said Obama "has broken and rejected those principles - he has taken the slaveholder's position."
Obama, who has been basking in national celebrity since delivering the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, suggested Keyes was outside the moderate mainstream of state Republicans.
Asked specifically about the phrase slaveholder's position, Obama said Keyes "should look to members of his own party to see if that's appropriate if he's going to use that kind of language."
...Obama said he voted against the late-term abortion ban as a state senator because it contained no exception to protect the life of the mother. He noted that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and federal Appeals Judge Richard Posner, both appointed by President Ronald Reagan, had voted to strike down laws banning late-term abortions.
Obama said he did not question the sincerity of those deeply concerned about abortion, but he said he believed there were many other issues on the minds of voters.
"As I travel around this state, I don't get asked about gay marriage, I don't get asked about abortion," Obama said. "I get asked, 'How can I find a job that allows me to support my family?' I get asked, 'How can I pay those medical bills without going into bankruptcy?' "
In an interview on WBEZ radio yesterday, Keyes defended his belief that gay marriage was wrong, brushing aside a suggestion from an interviewer that sexual preference might be biologically determined.
"We as human beings cannot assert that our sexual desires cannot be controlled," Keyes said. He said such an assertion would "consign us to the realm of instinctual animal nature - and we are not there."
Of course, it's people like Keyes who have made Obama only the fifth black senator ever, which is a travesty. But I digress. I suggest to Mr. Kevin McCullough that perhaps black voters have more on their minds than just "morals" as he calls it. First of all, perhaps they feel it's more important that we try to curb the spread of aids than concentrate our efforts on abortion, which takes far fewer lives per-year. Perhaps they feel that our country's current actions arent exactly "moral" either, and that their personal success has failed as a result. Or, perhaps they felt they were voting for Christ's "values":
...And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering, abandoned, deprived -- the scorned, the condemned people -- including Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a philosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that principle of Jesus Christ’s ministry.
Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of suffering among the poor and the outcast?
Thanks, Jimmy Carter. You've said it quite well. True faith allows one to look beyond those things which cannot be resolved immediately to those things which are most important. I don't think tax cuts for the rich are helping those poor people Jesus told us to elevate nor does killing kids in Iraq help them stop suffering.
