Why should he? The church isn’t debating here. See, the way debates work is that the first guy makes an argument, with which others may agree or disagree. Pasting a menu from a restaurant or a bulletin from a church doesn’t constitute making an argument.
Since it is relevant information (not everyone knows what policies the United Church of Christ stands for) I don’t see what is wrong with pasting it in. It’s the same as citing it using a link but more convenient.
No, it’s “code” for “economic parity”. Basically that the economic situation for the black community should be on par with that for the nation as a whole. Is this something you think is a negative goal?
Are those your words, or did you copy them from somewhere? That’s what attributions are for.
Heh, yeah he was. I’m not really the church going type, but I would really like to go to Trinity sometime.
I was watching Faux last night, does anyone still take them seriously anymore? They have become a parody of themselves. We should now be concerned about Obama because of the guest Priest of the new Pastor that replaced the old Reverend?
Any one know if Kevin Bacon has ever been a guest speaker at that church?
They’re broadcast on BET on Sunday morning. I believe it is 6:30 AM central time. Probably the previous week’s sermon.
Oh, here we go. :rolleyes:
No surprises here. Here’s a list of GD threads started by What the … !!!. I won’t say it’s impossible, but you have to look really hard to find one that isn’t based on an utterly retarded premise. Especially in 2008.
It’s a wonderful goal. The issue is what you plan to do about it. There are many ways to attack this problem-- not all of them good.
Churches set goals in broad, moral terms; we don’t expect them to provide detailed policy analysis.
Senator Obama’s church would be listed in the negative column for me. I was brought up in a “melting pot” mindset in all aspects of my life. His church is clearly interested in promoting a “diversity” theme complete with 60’s era racial baggage.
As opposed to a non-diversity theme complete with founding-of-the-country era racial baggage?
What is the essential conflict between “melting pot” and “diversity”?
There you go again… typical reaction to a debat you don’t want to have.
What is retarded about holding a candidate responsible for the beliefs of the congregation that he has chosen to be a part of for 20 years and continues to defend?
One is a merging of people, the other is an island mentality of individual cultures.
And you think TUCC wants to perpetuate the latter? I don’t get that from anything yet published by or about them. They’re just making the best of deeply entrenched social conditions wherein AA’s are an island culture willy-nilly.
You still haven’t explained what is wrong with the core beliefs of the church itself as expressed on its website. Is it a debate you don’t want to have?
And Magiver hasn’t answered my question.
Haven’t you even read the posts in this thread?
It’s retarded because (1) there is absolutely nothing objectionable about those beliefs as such, including those you’ve posted, and (2) in any case that would be like identifying a Catholic candidate with every point of Church doctrine or policy however controversial.
From the Trinity website:
And from the North Phoenix Baptist Church
Wow, I mean those are about as different as apples and apples.
“They” are? As in “those people”? I don’t know who the cart is or who the horse is in the relationship but Wright’s antiquated message of cultural diversity is purchased by his congregation.