Whitey Lawful
You can call me Wesley ... (dickgentile© is my 'blog (pen) name (a.k.a. Whitey Lawful©) 11/29/2009
View My:
Pics
| Videos | Playlists
| Gifts
Get Flash now!
In order to listen or view this content you will have to upgrade your version of Flash.
Whitey Lawful's Interests
General My hobbies are bird-watching, hiking and weblogging.
Some info relating to our social world...
Music I have some music i listen to in my favorites and some bands on my friends list.
Movies I do not watch movies, i do listen to radio such as F.M. Talk 97.1 to analyze...i dont recommend that to you ;especially if you dont know that neo-conservatives are a rationalization of the left and their policys. Of course Rush Limbuagh on K.M.O.X.
Television I do not watch T.V. its a false consciencness, and no subtitute for a social enviorment or interaction.
Books I read a occasional magazine...
http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf Heroes None, but i appreciate -
Whitey Lawful's Details
Status: Single Here for: Networking Orientation: Straight Hometown: Saint Louis, MO. Body type: 5' 11" / Average Ethnicity: White / Caucasian Religion: Protestant Zodiac Sign: Sagittarius Smoke / Drink: Yes / No Education: High school Occupation: Mostly yard mowing. Income: Less than $30,000
Whitey Lawful's Companies
(Transact cash - barter exchange, less then state & federal income tax requirements)
Employed all but winter.
Whitey Lawful Savages that joined civilization we homage,and give thanks for them leaving tribe and chief;as pilgrims bid farewell to kings,and welcomed indians to liberty. Posted at 8:13 AM Nov 26
view more
Whitey Lawful's Latest Blog Entry
[Subscribe to this Blog ]
On this day Nov. 21 1999
(view more )
From Church
(view more )
Dare, to be - square?
(view more )
inequality
(view more )
Antipas speaks.
(view more )
[View All Blog Entries ]
Whitey Lawful's Blurbs
About me: Greetings i am Sean Wesley Mcgranor; instead of passing out pamphlets i invite you here, i am from the previous system, the one hippies overthrew as now their wigger children bankrupt. I am on the internet for civics and i write paleo-conservative amateur prose here and there. As a transient i do not have a house and car to hide in; so social-science is my everyday. I notice it is standard that white man(kind) be put on drugs in front of the t.v., but i declined for a contiousness and its self that my opposition find inequal; even in my economic state. Still the alpha male that i am - remains. I appreciate MySpace because its gives me a opportunity to get you hip, if youre not allready. My prose and its poetry is designed to engage your cognizance. The articles on the profile are a brief introduction to my 'blog.
NA·TIV·ISM
noun
1.A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants.
OTHER FORMS:
nativ·ist (Noun), nativ·istic (Adjective)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres some info: Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is an anti-communist, anti-authoritarian right wing movement based primarily in the United States that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity. Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture — an identity that is both collective and personal.” Paleoconservativism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.
Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often focus on their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, foreign wars, and welfare. They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the therapeutic managerial state, the welfare-warfare state or polite totalitarianism. They see themselves as the legitimate heir to the American conservative tradition.
The paleocons use the suffix conservative somewhat differently from some American opponents of Leftism. It refers specifically to their stated desire to restore the culture and heritage of Christendom. Paleocons reject attempts by Rush Limbaugh and others to graft short-term policy goals — such as school choice, enterprise zones, and faith-based initiatives — into the core of conservatism.
Moreover, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming and some other paleocons de-emphasized the "conservative" part of the "paleoconservative" label, saying that they do not want the status quo preserved. Fleming and Paul Gottfried called such thinking "stupid tenacity" and described it as "a series of trenches dug in defense of last year's revolution." Francis defined authentic conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.” He said of the paleo movement:
What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones.
The earliest mention of the word paleoconservative listed in Nexis is a use in the October 20, 1984, issue of The Nation, referring to academic economists who allegedly work to redefine poverty. The American Heritage Dictionary (fourth edition) lists a generic, informal use of the term, meaning "extremely or stubbornly conservative in political matters." Outside of the United States, the word is sometimes spelled palaeoconservative.
The conservative heritage
Many paleoconservatives identify themselves as "classical conservatives" and trace their philosophy to the Old Right Republicans of the interwar period which helped keep the U.S. out of the League of Nations, reduce immigration with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, and oppose Franklin Roosevelt. They often look back even further, to Edmund Burke, as well as the American anti-federalist movement that stretched from the days of Thomas Jefferson to John C. Calhoun.
Paleoconservatives question the supposition that European culture and mores can ever be transplanted or even forced upon non-white cultures, due to separate cultural heritages. As a result, paleocons are most distinctive in their emphatic opposition to open immigration by non-Europeans, and their general disapproval of U.S. intervention overseas for the purposes of exporting democracy. They are also strongly critical of American neoconservatives and their sympathizers in print media, talk radio and cable TV news. Paleocons say they are not conservatives in the sense that they necessarily wish to preserve existing institutions or seek merely to slow the growth of liberalism. Nor do they wish to be closely identified with the U.S. Republican Party. Rather, they seek the renewal of "small-r" republican society in the context of the Western heritage, customs and civilization. Joseph Scotchie wrote.
Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers, and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries. Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can’t leave their own, hapless subjects alone. . . Empires and small government aren’t compatible, either.
By contrast, paleocons see neoconservatives as empire-builders and themselves as defenders of the republic, pointing to Rome (and sometimes Star Wars) as an example of how an ongoing campaign of military expansionism can destroy a republic.
On some issues, many paleocons are hard to distinguish from others on the conservative spectrum. For example, they tend to oppose abortion on demand and gay marriage, while supporting capital punishment, handgun ownership and an original intent reading of the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, paleocons are often more sympathetic to environmental protection, animal welfare, and anti-consumerism than others on the American Right.
A better guide than reason
Paleocons argue that since human nature is limited and finite, any attempt to create a man-made utopia is headed for disaster and potential carnage. They also see social democracy, ideology, and managerial society as malevolent attempts to remake humanity. Instead, they lean toward tradition, family, customs, religious institutions and classical learning to provide wisdom and guidance.
Thomas Fleming stated this opposition to abstract ideals in a way that critic David Brooks called a "startling crescendo:"
Among the most dangerous of our theoretical illusions are the political fantasies that can be summed up in words like democracy; equality, and natural rights; the principle of one man, one vote and the American tradition of self-government. No one who lives in the world with his eyes open can actually believe in any of this.
Historian W. Wesley McDonald explains the opposition to ideology this way:
In a humane social order, a community of spirit is fostered in which generations are bound together. According to [Russell] Kirk, this link is achieved through moral and social norms that transcend the particularities of time and place and, because they form the basis of genuine civilized existence, can only be neglected at great peril. These norms, reflected in religious dogmas, traditions, humane letters, social habit and custom, and prescriptive institutions, create the sources of the true community that is the final end of politics.
Along these lines, Joseph Sobran, in his "Pensees", argues that Western civilization relies on civility at the center of the society:
Civility is the relationship among citizens in a republic. It corresponds to the condition we call "freedom", which is not just an absence of restraint or coercion, but the security of living under commonly recognized rules of conduct. Not all these rules are enforced by the state; legal institutions of civility depend on the ethical substratum and collapse when it is absent. And in fact the colloquial sense of civility as good manners is relevant to its political meaning: citizens typically deal with each other by consent, and they have to say "please" and "thank you" to each other.
Paleocons often say that tradition is a better guide than reason. For example, Mel Bradford wrote that “certain questions are settled before any serious deliberation concerning a preferred course of conduct may begin.” This ethic is based in a "culture of families, linked by friendship, common enemies, and common projects." So a good conservative keeps "a clear sense of what Southern grandmothers have always meant in admonishing children, ‘we don't do that.’"
Thomas Fleming calls tradition "a body of wisdom and truth and a set of attitudes and behavior handed down from one generation to another. It is our parents’ respect for their grandfathers that we reflect when we refuse to think ourselves wiser than our ancestors and do not presume to condemn their shortcomings." By following tradition, Joseph Sobran said that society can maintain continuity with the past, through words, rituals, records, commemorations, and laws:
There is no question of "resisting change." The only question is what can and should be salvaged from "devouring time." Conservation is a labor, not indolence, and it takes discrimination to identify and save a few strands of tradition in the incessant flow of mutability. In fact conservation is so hard that it could never be achieved by sheer conscious effort. Most of it has to be done by habit, as when we speak in such a way as to make ourselves understood by others without their having to consult a dictionary, and thereby give a little permanence to the kind of tradition that is a language.
Furthermore, James Kalb argues that tradition succeeds where ideology fails because it includes habits and attitudes about things that are hard to articulate rationally. Many aspects of social life resist clear definition, so technocratic approaches to social policy deserve suspicion:
Our knowledge is partial and attained with difficulty. The effects of political proposals are difficult to predict and as the proposals become more ambitious their effects become incalculable. We can't evaluate political ideas without accepting far more beliefs, presumptions and attitudes than we could possibly judge critically.
Against abstraction
Many paleocons also say that Westerners have lost touch with their classical and European heritage to the point that they are in danger of losing their civilization.[48] Robert S. Griffin notes that paleocons fear the United States becoming a "secularized, homogenized, de-Europeanized, pacified, deluded, manipulated, lowest-common-denominator-leveled, popular-culture-dopified country" Clyde Wilson once remarked:
The decadence of a civilization by loss of faith and vigour can be observed more than once in history. What is extraordinary about the American situation is the stupidity. The Romans, such is my impression, did not become stupid and incompetent with their decadence. Americans have not lost faith in their cultural inheritance---they have been entirely separated from it. How this happened is one of the few topics still worth exploring in this Twilight.
Paleocons tend to dislike abstract principles presented without connection to concrete roots, like religion, heritage or traditional institutions. This distaste for universalism includes the doctrinal conclusions by socialists, neo-Thomists and Straussians. For example, Mel Bradford wrote in "A Better Guide Than Reason" (citing Michael Oakeshott) that:
The only freedom which can last is a freedom embodied somewhere, rooted in a history, located in space, sanctioned by genealogy, and blessed by a religious establishment. The only equality which abstract rights, insisted upon outside the context of politics, are likely to provide is the equality of universal slavery. It is a lesson which Western man is only now beginning to learn.
Some paleocons also profess a conservative value-centered historicism, which Gottfried defines as “the belief that historical circumstances set values.” This is distinguished from nihilism, postmodernism and moral relativism. Samuel Francis argued that this position is a “Burkean appeal to tradition.” For example, Edmund Burke wrote in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France."
I cannot stand forward, and give praise or blame to anything which relates to human actions, and human concerns, on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction. Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind.
Claes Ryn says that life has “an enduring purpose, but one that manifests itself differently as individuals and circumstances are different.” He writes:
For the conservative, the universal imperative that binds human beings does not announce its purpose in simple, declaratory statements. How, then, does one discern its demands? Sometimes only with difficulty. Only through effort can the good or true or beautiful be discovered, and they must be realized differently in different historical circumstances. The same universal values have diverse manifestations. Some of the concrete instantiations of universality take us by surprise. Because there is no simple roadmap to good, human beings need freedom and imagination to find it. Universality has nothing to do with uniformity.
Federalism
Federalism is another key aspect of paleoconservatism, which they use as an antitype to the managerial state. The paleocon flavor urges decentralism, local rule, private property and minimal bureaucracy.[56] In an American context, this view is called anti-federalism and paleocons often look to John Calhoun for inspiration.
As to the role of statecraft in society, Thomas Fleming says it should not be confused with soulcraft. He gives his summary of the paleocon position:
Our basic position on the state has always been twofold: 1) a recognition that man is a social and political animal who cannot be treated as an "individual" without doing damage to human nature. In this sense libertarian theory is as wrong and as potentially harmful as communism. The commonwealth is therefore a natural and necessary expression of human nature that provides for the fulfillment of human needs, and 2) the modern state is a cancerous form of polity that has metastasized and poisoned the natural institutions from which the state derives all legitimacy—family, church, corporation (in the broadest sense), and neighborhood. Thus, it is almost always a mistake to try to use the modern state to accomplish moral or social ends.
Russell Kirk, for example, argued that most government tasks should be performed at the local or state level. This is intended to ward off centralization and protect community sentiment by putting the decision-making power closer to the populace. He rooted this in the Christian notion of original sin; since humanity is flawed, society should not put too much power in a few hands. Gerald J. Russello concluded that this involved “a different way of thinking about government, one based on an understanding of political society as beginning in place and sentiment, which in turn supports written laws.”
This federalism extends to culture too. In general, this means that different regional groups should be able to maintain their own distinct identity. For example, Thomas Fleming and Michael Hill argue that the American South and every other region have the right to “preserve their authentic cultural traditions and demand the same respect from others.” In their Southern context they call on citizens to “take control of their own governments, their own institutions, their own culture, their own communities and their own lives” and “wean themselves from dependence on federal largesse.” They say that:
A concern for states' rights, local self-government and regional identity used to be taken for granted everywhere in America. But the United States is no longer, as it once was, a federal union of diverse states and regions. National uniformity is being imposed by the political class that runs Washington, the economic class that owns Wall Street and the cultural class in charge of Hollywood and the Ivy League.
In a similar fashion, Pat Buchanan argued during the 1996 campaign that the social welfare should be left to the control of individual states. He also called for abolishing the U.S. Department of Education and handing decision-making over to parents, teachers and districts. Controversies such as evolution, busing and curriculum standards would be settled on a local basis.
In addition, he opposed a 1998 Puerto Rican statehood plan on the grounds that the island would be ripped from its cultural and linguistic roots: "Let Puerto Rico remain Puerto Rico, and let the United States remain the United States and not try to absorb, assimilate and Americanize a people whose hearts will forever belong to that island."
Constitutionalism
A number of paleoconservatives believe the particular kind of federalism found in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution to be central to realizing paleoconservative goals. These people sometimes distinguish themselves as constitutional conservatives. The John Birch Society would be an example of this type of position.
(From Wikipedia.com) Neo-conservative vs. Paleo-conservative - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism
Who I'd like to meet: ... you .Heres some reading material.
CHRISTIANS BRUTALIZED IN HOLY LAND
By Mark Glenn
Some 200 Christian Zionist leaders, representing churches spread throughout America, Europe, Africa and Asia, gathered in Israelís Knesset to “beg forgiveness” for 2,000 years of “Christian persecution” of Jews.
The well publicized ceremony took place under the auspices of the “Knesset Christian Allies Caucus,” just one of a growing number of partnerships springing up in recent years between organized Jewish and Christian Zionist groups for the purpose of funneling Christian money and political support toward Israel. Part of the statement reads as follows:
“On behalf of millions of Christians, we repent before you for crimes committed against the Jewish people throughout history in the name of Christianity.…We have sinned against God and against you.… To you we
owe much.… Through you, God gave us the Holy Scriptures, and because of this we have a heritage, a destiny, a hope and a compass for living.…What a treasure you are in the sight of our God! You are His chosen and the apple of His eye.…”
But despite the fact that Israel was built (and continues to live) off of handouts from Christian countries—principally the U.S. and Germany—and for all the inherent groveling and breast-beating that this mea culpa was meant to convey, it obviously did not “cut the mustard” in improving Christian/Jewish relations in Israel, the birthplace of Jesus Christ and the 2,000-year-old religion created in His name.
Besides the fact that Israel has now become a haven for international gangsters—meaning rampant prostitution, drugs, human trafficking and money laundering to name a few—there are other indicators surrounding Israel’s political and social character as well that show she is anything but friendly to the morals and precepts of Christian teachings. Christian churches that were not taxed are now being sent heavy bills. Media outlets featuring Christian programming on television and radio are having their license renewal applications rejected.
More telling though is the fact that physical attacks on Christians, their symbols and institutions continue in Israel unabated, and not by “Islamo-fascists” (so much discussed by the likes of Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, John Hagee, Bill O’Reilly, et al.) but rather by a more fanatical sect that has nursed a hatred for Christianity since its inception, the people who collectively call themselves “the Israelites” and whom Christians are told to “bless.”
Pastor Hagee has been an avid supporter of the state Israel since his first visit there in 1978. “I went to Israel as a tourist and returned home a committed Zionist,” he said. His book says that Jesus did not come to Earth to be the Messiah. In what appears to be a growing trend these days, physical attacks on Christians, their churches and symbols are beginning to show a marked rise in Israel.
For nearly a century, since the invasion of Palestine began, Christians of all denominations have suffered bombings, shootings, arsons and wanton acts of senseless destruction of their sacred properties—and all of it by a horde
of Marxist/atheist invaders from Eastern Europe calling themselves “God’s chosen.” From the moment they arrived—announcing to the world “We’re baaaack” with all the fanfare that their grip over the Western media afforded them—they picked up where their alleged ancestors left off in attempting to erase the name of the hated Jesus from the Holy Land.
Mimicking the same kind of behavior their Bolshevik cousins exhibited during and after the takeover of Russia and using the “fog of war” as a smokescreen for their actions, Christian church properties have been bulldozed, blown up or burned down on numerous occasions, all of it chalked up to “collateral damage.” Since the Jews of Europe began reconstructing the nation that was destroyed some 2,000 years ago following the predictions of Jesus Himself, priests, pastors, nuns, churches,
cemeteries, Bibles, icons, stained-glass widows, all were all fair game as far as the Zionists were concerned when it came to maintaining its exclusively “Jewish character.”
Not long after Israel declared her statehood, legislation was passed outlawing Christians trying to convert Jews to the religion of Jesus Christ with a 5-year prison sentence attached for good measure.
Now, no longer limited to impersonal attacks done in the middle of the night with minimal chance of being caught, Jews (and particularly those in Jerusalem, the city of Jesus’s sham trial and murder by his enemies) are coming out in the open now and displaying their ancestral hatred for all things Christian without any evident fear of what kind of consequences might follow.
Out-in the-open physical attacks on priests, pastors, statues and Christian processions by extremist Jews is now more the norm than the exception. A recent case involving a Greek Orthodox clergyman involved a skullcap-wearing elderly Jew tapping on the window of the clergyman’s car and when the man opened his window, the Jew spat in his face, something becoming a daily occurrence in Israel. Only a few days later, a yeshiva student spat at the cross as it was being carried by the Armenian archbishop during a procession near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and did so under the watchful eye of his rabbi, who did nothing to impede him.
In another recent case, 13 bishops from Austria were barred from praying at Jerusalem’s Western Wall by a rabbi who oversees the site. The Christians refused to remove the crosses around their necks, which the rabbi considered “insulting.” Other Christians who have seen the increasingly bold and violent nature on the part of Israel’s Jews toward them and their faith in a manner up close and personal say that during Jewish religious festivals such as Purim (celebrating the hanging of Haman and the execution of 75,000 Persians) they stay inside and lock their doors, fearing their lives are in danger amid a band of rowdy, drunken and violent Jewish extremists.
One would think that, with all the lecturing taking place during the last half-century by organized Jewish groups when it comes to “hatred” and “intolerance” (not to mention the undeniable influence these groups have wielded in getting “hate crimes” legislation passed in most Christian countries), there would be more concern paid for this growing trend in the “headquarters” of Jewish values in the world—Israel.
With all the fear-mongering to which Christians are subjected on a daily basis when it comes to Islam that is inaccurately portrayed as inherently anti-Christian by the likes of John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Joseph Farah and other neo-cons, you would expect some attention given to this alarming business taking place in Israel. And yet, not a peep from any of them. Attacks on Christians by Jews Increasing in Israel, Palestine
A former schoolteacher fluent in several languages, Mark Glenn spoke at the AFP-TBR conference on the Middle East panel. He is a prolific writer whose provocative essays have been published worldwide. He and his wife Vicki and their eight children maintain a ranch in northern Idaho. His book, No Beauty in the Beast, can be ordered from TBR BOOK CLUB (1-877-773-9077) for $28 ppd.
(Issue #51, December 17, 2007)
Please make a donation to American Free Press
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
---------------
Myths of Martin Luther King
by Marcus Epstein
There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.
This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.
Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy. Jim Powell’s otherwise excellent The Triumph of Liberty rates King next to Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock as a libertarian hero. Attend any IHS seminar, and you’ll read "A letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a great piece of anti-statist wisdom. The Heritage Foundation regularly has lectures and symposiums honoring his legacy. There are nearly a half dozen neocon and left-libertarian think tanks and legal foundations with names such as "The Center for Equal Opportunity" and the "American Civil Rights Institute" which claim to model themselves after King.
Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero? The answer partly lies in the fact that the mainstream Right has gradually moved to the left since King’s death. The influx of many neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom were involved in the civil rights movement, into the conservative movement also contributes to the King phenomenon. This does not fully explain the picture, because on many issues King was far to the left of even the neoconservatives, and many King admirers even claim to adhere to principles like freedom of association and federalism. The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech.
In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism. He believes this made King even more admirable. He also deals frankly with King’s philandering and plagiarism, though he excuses them. If you don’t mind reading his long discussions about gangsta rap and the like, I strongly recommend this book.
Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.
This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled "Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind," where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision."
The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.
King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote,
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.
Predicting that critics would note that many whites were equally disadvantaged, King claimed that his program, which he called the "Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged" would help poor whites as well. This is because once the blacks received reparations, the poor whites would realize that their real enemy was rich whites.
Myth # 2: King was an American patriot, who tried to get Americans to live up to their founding ideals.
In National Review, Roger Clegg wrote that "There may have been a brief moment when there existed something of a national consensus – a shared vision eloquently articulated in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, with deep roots in the American Creed, distilled in our national motto, E pluribus unum. Most Americans still share it, but by no means all." Many other conservatives have embraced this idea of an American Creed that built upon Jefferson and Lincoln, and was then fulfilled by King and libertarians like Clint Bolick and neocons like Bill Bennett.
Despite his constant invocations of the Declaration of Independence, King did not have much pride in America’s founding. He believed "our nation was born in genocide," and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners.
Myth # 3: King was a Christian activist whose struggle for civil rights is similar to the battles fought by the Christian Right today.
Ralph Reed claims that King’s "indispensable genius" provided "the vision and leadership that renewed and made crystal clear the vital connection between religion and politics." He proudly admitted that the Christian Coalition "adopted many elements of King’s style and tactics." The pro-life group, Operation Rescue, often compared their struggle against abortion to King’s struggle against segregation. In a speech entitled The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King, Bill Bennet described King, as "not primarily a social activist, he was primarily a minister of the Christian faith, whose faith informed and directed his political beliefs."
Both King’s public stands and personal behavior makes the comparison between King and the Religious Right questionable.
FBI surveillance showed that King had dozens of extramarital affairs. Although many of the pertinent records are sealed, several agents who watched observed him engage in many questionable acts including buying prostitutes with SCLC money. Ralph Abernathy, who King called "the best friend I have in the world," substantiated many of these charges in his autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. It is true that a man’s private life is mostly his business. However, most conservatives vehemently condemned Jesse Jackson when news of his illegitimate son came out, and claimed he was unfit to be a minister.
King also took stands that most in the Christian Right would disagree with. When asked about the Supreme Court’s decision to ban school prayer, King responded,
I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in god. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right.
While King died before the Roe vs. Wade decision, and, to the best of my knowledge, made no comments ..ion, he was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood. He even won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and had his wife give a speech entitled Family Planning – A Special and Urgent Concern which he wrote. In the speech, he did not compare the civil rights movement to the struggle of Christian Conservatives, but he did say "there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts."
Myth # 4: King was an anti-communist.
In another article about Martin Luther King, Roger Clegg of National Review applauds King for speaking out against the "oppression of communism!" To gain the support of many liberal whites, in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965 Playboy that there "are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida." This was a bald-faced lie. Though King was never a Communist and was always critical of the Soviet Union, he had knowingly surrounded himself with Communists. His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed.
King’s sympathy for communism may have contributed to his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he characterized as a racist, imperialistic, and unjust war. King claimed that America "had committed more war crimes than any nation in the world." While he acknowledged the NLF "may not be paragons of virtue," he never criticized them. However, he was rather harsh on Diem and the South. He denied that the NLF was communist, and believed that Ho Chi Minh should have been the legitimate ruler of Vietnam. As a committed globalist, he believed that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective."
Many of King’s conservative admirers have no problem calling anyone who questions American foreign policy a "fifth columnist." While I personally agree with King on some of his stands on Vietnam, it is hypocritical for those who are still trying to get Jane Fonda tried for sedition to applaud King.
Myth # 5: King supported the free market.
OK, you don’t hear this too often, but it happens. For example, Father Robert A. Sirico delivered a paper to the Acton Institute entitled Civil Rights and Social Cooperation. In it, he wrote,
A freer economy would take us closer to the ideals of the pioneers in this country's civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized this when he wrote: "With the growth of industry the folkways of white supremacy will gradually pass away," and he predicted that such growth would "Increase the purchasing power of the Negro [which in turn] will result in improved medical care, greater educational opportunities, and more adequate housing. Each of these developments will result in a further weakening of segregation."
King of course was a great opponent of the free economy. In a speech in front of his staff in 1966 he said,
You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism.
King called for "totally restructuring the system" in a way that was not capitalist or "the antithesis of communist." For more information on King’s economic views, see Lew Rockwell’s The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Myth # 6: King was a conservative.
As all the previous myths show, King’s views were hardly conservative. If this was not enough, it is worth noting what King said about the two most prominent postwar American conservative politicians, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
King accused Barry Goldwater of "Hitlerism." He believed that Goldwater advocated a "narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude." On domestic issues he felt that "Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century." King said that Goldwater’s positions on civil rights were "morally indefensible and socially suicidal."
King said of Reagan, "When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events."
Despite King’s harsh criticisms of those men, both supported the King holiday. Goldwater even fought to keep King’s FBI files, which contained information about his adulterous sex life and Communist connections, sealed.
Myth # 7: King wasn’t a plagiarist.
OK, even most of the neocons won’t deny this, but it is still worth bringing up, because they all ignore it. King started plagiarizing as an undergraduate. When Boston University founded a commission to look into it, they found that that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation was stolen, but they insisted that "no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree." In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as "I Have a Dream," were plagiarized, as were many of his books and writings. For more information on King’s plagiarism, The Martin Luther King Plagiarism Page and Theodore Pappas’ Plagiarism and the Culture War are excellent resources.
When faced with these facts, most of King’s conservative and libertarian fans either say they weren’t part of his main philosophy, or usually they simply ignore them. Slightly before the King Holiday was signed into law, Governor Meldrim Thompson of New Hampshire wrote a letter to Ronald Reagan expressing concerns about King’s morality and Communist connections. Ronald Reagan responded, "I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed, to them the perception is reality."
Far too many on the Right are worshipping that perception. Rather than face the truth about King’s views, they create a man based upon a few lines about judging men "by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin" – something we are not supposed to do in his case, of course – while ignoring everything else he said and did. If King is truly an admirable figure, they are doing his legacy a disservice by using his name to promote an agenda he clearly would not have supported.
January 18, 2003
Marcus Epstein [send him mail] is an undergraduate at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA, where he is president of the college libertarians and editor of the conservative newspaper, The Remnant. A selection of his articles can be seen here.
Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.
COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.
It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
http://www.1215.org/index.html
----------------------------------
I have no heroes, allthough i admire a few including Our First Anti-King President.
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND DEISM
Deists have a great example of toleration, perseverance, and integrity in the person of fellow Deist George Washington.
Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.
Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."
In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."
On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, "often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."
Like truly intelligent people in all times and places, Washington realized how very little we know about life and the workings of the universe. He wrote that the ways of Providence were "inscrutable." Yet he DID the very best he could in all aspects of his life. When things were dark and it looked like the Revolution would be lost, he never gave up. Even when people in his own ranks were turning on him and trying to sink him he persevered because of his deep heartfelt Deistic belief in Providence.
George Washington coupled his genuine belief in Providence with action. After the American defeat at Germantown in 1777 he said, "We must endeavor to deserve better of Providence, and, I am persuaded, she will smile on us." He also wrote that we should take care to do our very best in everything we do so that our, "reason and our own conscience approve."
Washington's toleration for differing religions was made evident by his order to the Continental Army to halt the observance of Pope's Day. Pope's Day was the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes' Day in England. A key part of Pope's Day was the burning of the effigy of the Pope. In his order, Washington described the tradition as, "ridiculous and childish" and that there was no room for this type of behavior in the Continental Army.
The altruism and integrity that Washington possessed is made evident by his restraint in his personal gains. At the successful conclusion of the American Revolution he could have made himself dictator for life. Or he could have allowed others to make him king. Yet, like the Roman General Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus before him, Washington refused to do either.
Preacher Weems has written that on Washington's death bed, "Washington folded his arms decently on his breast, then breathing out 'Father of mercies, take me to thyself,' - he fell asleep." Like almost all of what the Christian fundamentalists have written about Washington, this is not true.
Tobias Lear, Washington's secretary, was with him when he died. The following is his account of Washington's death.
"About ten o'clk he made several attempts to speak to me before he could effect it, at length he said, -'I am just going. Have me decently buried; and do not let my body be put into the vault in less than three days after I am dead.' I bowed assent, for I could not speak. He then looked at me again and said, 'Do you understand me?' I replied, 'Yes.' 'Tis well,' said he.
"About ten minutes before he expired (which was between ten and eleven o'clk) his breathing became easier; he lay quietly; - he withdrew his hand from mine, and felt his own pulse. I saw his countenance change. I spoke to Dr. Craik who sat by the fire; - he came to the bed side. The General's hand fell from his wrist - I took it in mine and put it into my bosom. Dr. Craik put his hands over his eyes and he expired without a struggle or a sigh!"
Like other Deists such as Paine, Jefferson, Voltaire, Franklin, and Allen, Washington did not fear death but looked at it as just another part of nature. Though he didn't speculate much on an after-life, he was comfortable to look at his own death as part of God's design.
George Washington offers us a tremendous example of altruism and positive action. His actions tell us stronger than any words could possibly do to persevere in the face of all obstacles. To never give up and to always combine our sincerely held beliefs with action.
©Deism.com
___________
Newsweek Celebrates Christianity's Decline
Written by Charles Scaliger
Thursday, 09 April 2009 11:30
Share this
Mister Wong Bookmarks.cc Digg Del.icio.us Slashdot Netscape Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Googlize this Blinklist Facebook Wikio DiggitaPrintE-mailTags
NewsweekChristianity
Ever anxious to create controversy, Newsweek, in its April 13 cover story, has proclaimed “the decline and fall of Christian America.” The number of Americans who consider themselves Christians has fallen 10 percentage points in two decades, Newsweek’s Jon Meacham reported with scantily-disguised glee. “Our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago,” Meacham wrote. “I think this is a good thing — good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance.”
Fair enough. But Meacham and Newsweek (not to mention ideological fellow-travelers like atheist Christopher Hitchens — mentioned approvingly in the Newsweek article — and crusading secularists of many stripes) do not share the Founding Fathers’ enlightened detachment. As decades of militant secularism have shown, today’s apologists for a religiously and morally neutral commons are not merely interested in ensuring minority religions and unbelievers have an equal voice. They want to wipe Christian religion and culture from the American landscape and replace it with a sort of diluted, nonthreatening, big tent spirituality that embraces everything from Native American shamanism to New Age earth worship.
All of these alternative spiritualities have in common a rejection of “binding authority,” pointed out R. Albert Mohler, Jr., the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Newsweek. “The post-Christian narrative is radically different,” Mohler said. “It is based on an understanding of history that presumes a less tolerant past and a more tolerant future, with the present as an important transitional step.” To which Meacham, with a rhetorical smirk, responded that “the present, in this sense, is less about the death of God and more about the birth of many gods.”
Actually, Meacham is more correct than he is probably aware. What would now be acclaimed as exemplary tolerance was a conspicuous feature of polytheistic religion in pre-Christian classical Greece and Rome. Many polytheistic belief systems maintained (and maintain) that unknown gods from other faiths are perfectly acceptable, inasmuch as they may simply be one’s own gods by different names. In this way were foreign cults, such as those of Isis, Cybele, and Mithra, easily introduced into the classical world.
A recurrent theme in the narrative of Roman history after the advent of Christianity was the Romans’ difficulty with the notion that there could be only one true God. The deity of the three monotheistic religions has never brooked any spiritual competition, something that the pagan mindset has always been unable to grasp.
But then paganism (speaking in general terms; there are of course exceptions) has always been less about a unifying moral authority than about pageantry and transcendence. There are no Ten Commandments for Hindus or Zoroastrians, any more than there were for their counterparts in the ancient world. The unifying, normative force characteristic of monotheism is very dilute in pagan societies: there are no churches are such; there are only the gods, and they are to be venerated but not acknowledged as purveyors of moral order. That role, in the pagan world, is relegated exclusively to the state.
State and religion in the pagan world have always complemented and reinforced one another, whereas in the Judeo-Christian tradition, they have usually been perceived as rivals, the state seeking ever to encroach on the prerogative of the church or to absorb it altogether.
American Christianity in particular was religion born of dissent — minority faiths like the Puritans who wanted no truck with established churches. Even Catholics in early America — like the original American ancestor of this writer — typically came not from majority-Catholic countries but from parts of Europe where they had become a persecuted minority. Consequently, most of the Founders were robustly opposed to the mingling of sectarianism and government, although several states had established churches until decades after independence.
But Meacham, like so many of the secularist persuasion, confuses sectarianism with morality. It is one thing to assert that government ought not to impose doctrinal conformity — to insist, for instance, that only the sacraments of a particular strain of Christianity be acceptable. It is quite another to inveigh against a moral code that has its origins in religious belief, as those now crusading on behalf of so-called “same-sex marriage” are doing. In point of fact, all morality, even outside Christian civilization, has its roots in religious belief of some sort; for unless there is something spiritual, divine, or transcendant in man, what possible basis can there be for moral behavior? The very word “culture” comes from Latin cultus, “religion,” and, as Spengler, among others, has observed, all of the world’s high cultures originated with religious belief. The very notion of “secular culture” is therefore a contradiction in terms.
So, on the eve of Easter weekend, what are we to make of Newsweek’s latest screed? Only that Christian religion, morality, and culture are indeed in decline in contemporary America, in no small measure because of decades of tireless effort on the part of entities like Newsweek to persuade Americans that Christianity is a moribund belief system associated with a false and ineffectual god.
But America — like her parent European nations, at least formerly — is predominantly a Christian nation, in the moral if not necessarily the doctrinal or sectarian sense. Those of other faiths, or no faith at all, who reside here, have always enjoyed the benefit of living under a system of laws and institutions that arose from her Christian foundations. The very notion of a separation of church and state, though not the strict separation so exaggeratedly celebrated and exploited by the enemies of faith, is a profoundly Christian idea, even though seldom put into practice before the inception of the United States. For it was Christ — not the Buddha, not Confucius, and not Ashoka — who counseled his followers to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” It was the God of Israel who warned his people against idolatry, including worship of the state. And it was Christ who upheld religion as something liberating, whose sweet truths had the power to free men from bondage — a notion that would-be secular autocrats still find abhorrent.
Christianity may be in decline, but America is still a far more Christian society than most of old Europe. While Newsweek and its epigones are doing their utmost to marginalize believers and even to extinguish belief, the flame of faith still burns brightly in many hearts. This may not be evident from the secular environs of Washington, D.C., New York City, and Hollywood, but it is very much on display on Main Street America where — as in my modest home town — church bells still ring every morning, noon, and evening.
© The New American Magazine.
_____________
Obama and the Decline of White America Beneath the Radar
By Gary Younge
This article appeared in the October 26, 2009 edition of The Nation.
October 7, 2009
During the Democratic primary, Chris Rock famously joked that George Bush had "fucked up so bad that it's hard for a white man to run for president." Some took him seriously. In August 2007 Esquire ran a cover of John Edwards with the question: "Can a white man still be elected president?" That the headline made any sense at all is a testament to the assumptions that prevail about who is entitled to the job. Of the seventeen presidential candidates in both main parties, fourteen were white men--32 percent of the population, 82 percent of the candidates, 100 percent of the past presidents. These are the kinds of odds that would make Kim Jong Il's election agent smile. Back then, with Obama trailing Clinton and both trailing Giuliani in the polls, the lash had not yet been wielded. But the backlash was already beginning.
Today it is in full swing. Right-wingers have turned up at Obama's events carrying guns. Facebook recently pulled a poll asking, "Should Obama be killed?'' with choices of yes, no, maybe and "If he cuts my health care.'' This was clearly anticipated by Apollo Braun, a Manhattan store owner, whose "Who Killed Obama?" T-shirts were his most popular even before the election.
In between came gun-toting protesters at town hall meetings and official events. One of them carried a placard saying, "It is time to water the tree of liberty"--a reference to Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." It's the same quote Timothy McVeigh was wearing on his T-shirt when he was arrested for bombing the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. From the time that Obama declared he was running, the primary concern among African-Americans was the same as the one expressed by Alma Powell as her husband, Colin Powell, contemplated running in 1996--assassination. Now it appears that those dark fears have become, in some quarters, white fantasies.
_______________________________
Traditional vs. Contemporary Services
Question:
East Baptist Church of Denison, Texas says that it's "..a Traditional Southern Baptist Church".
What does this mean?
Answer:
This is a very good question. We're happy you asked! Worship styles can affect everything from the music choices and selections, as well as how and with what instruments they are played with. Worship Styles are also affected by how the preacher, pastor or minister present God's Word or the message. In the "world of worship" services, there are basically two types of worship styles. "Traditional" and "Contemporary"
Here's a breakdown of the two:
Contemporary:
This means that there is most likely no choir involved. Instead you'll have a "praise & worship team". This team will usually consist of a singer or two, a guitar or keyboard, a set of drums, and in larger churches all of the above. The music will usually consist of newer styles written by newer artists. Often the verses will repeat several times. On occasions "oldies" are included. In larger churches overhead screens will display the lyrics to assist the congregation in singing. The preacher, pastor, or minister will speak afterwards. Also, the terms preacher, pastor, and minister are interchangeable. This is also true with Traditional styles. After the preacher speaks sometimes an invitation or opportunity to speak with the pastor or a member of church staff about what you heard will be given. This is your opportunity to ask Christ into your heart with the ease of having a knowledgeable member of the Christian Faith with you.
Traditional:
In a Traditional Worship service you will typically have a choir and a choir leader or director. The choir will typically sing in unison with the congregation using hymnals. The hymnal, by the way, is that book which is usually sitting right next to you or directly in front of you during the service. The song selection can vary, but will usually consist of more traditional hymns. Some that come to mind are "I'll Fly Away", "Amazing Grace", or "Just As I Am". A piano, organ, or keyboard will assist as an accompaniment. Again as stated before, the preacher will present God's Message afterwards. When he is finished, he will call the Invitation. It's called the Invitation because you are being invited either to accept Christ into your heart, to join the church, or in some cases rededication of your life to God and Christ.
Which type of Service reflects EBC?
East Baptist Church of Denison, Texas is a Traditional Southern Baptist Church. We have a choir, a choir director (named Mike), and a pianist (named Ilene). We, as in the congregation, sing traditional hymns with the choir. As a member of the congregation you have access to a hymnal to follow along and sing. After the choir has finished singing, we then have "Special Music". Basically, this is just a solo sang by a member of the choir. It can consist of something more traditional or contemporary. Afterwards, our pastor, Bro. Brett Castle, preaches. When he's finished we have our Invitation. Afterwards we adjourn for the either the afternoon or evening.
We've chosen to remain with this style of worship because we feel it best reflects the overall tone of our congregation and the average church goer. There's nothing wrong with a contemporary service, but we feel that remaining with the Traditional Style helps us in the long run by maintaining close relationships and ties between our members. Plus, many churches that have chosen to go the "Contemporary Route" have seen dramatic swings in attendance from members and visitors which enjoy the easy going music and sermon, but are afraid to lock into a steady, consistent relationship with the church.
©2009 - East Baptist Church - Denison, TX.
Oops! In order to view this, you will need to enable JavaScript and install Adobe Flash 10 or greater. Get Flash now!
Whitey Lawful's Friend Space (Top 40)
Whitey Lawful has 1410 friends.
Online Now!
