The Democrats do a great job at welcoming diversity to the American polical process. I find it interesting that the Republicans have dropped the ball. After all the GOP is the party of Licoln. What has happened to both parties? If we check our history, both parties have changed stands over the past 100 years. At one time the Democrats was the home of racists. You remember the kind that would hide under bed sheets. Now the Republicans do look like they have become the party of whitey (ie. anti-immigration, anti-social justice). Unfortunately we've still have a long way to go. The reason I say this is look our foreign policy. Any time our country intervenes in another country, it is when money is involved. We always seem to "help" countries that are kind of white and we refuse to help countries that are a "little" dark. What is wrong with this. I really believe that it could be the best of times for this country and people of faith if Mr. Obama is elected. If Mr. McCain is elected I believe it might not be much difference than the past 100 years. What ever happens, rather, whoever is elected, the Church must continue to be the Body and minister in His name.

Blessings,

Ken

Posted by: Ken | September 3, 2008 4:54 PM

I actually noticed that as well. I wasn't looking for it, but as I watched the convention, I suddenly realized I only saw white faces in the audience.

I don't know why this is--is it because most Republicans are white? Is it because only white people happened to be voted as delegates? Is it because the Obama candidacy pulled more minorities into politics than ever before? I don't know.

Posted by: squeaky | September 3, 2008 5:03 PM

Squeaky, I think it's fair to say that most Republicans are white. Doesn't mean that everyone in the GOP is racist, just that they haven't found a way to speak to issues of concern to the African American community. And many African Americans who I know personally regard the party as hostile to minorities.

Posted by: carl copas | September 3, 2008 5:10 PM

Here in Ohio, the Republican party is trying to limit opportunities for newly-registered voters to vote absentee.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have had a history in this state of trying to limit voting. Four years ago our Republican secretary of state Ken Blackwell tried to limit voting by rejecting applications for registration that were printed on card stock less than 60 pounds weight.

Now the Republicans are complaining that our current secretary of state Jennifer Brunner (a Democrat) is not enforcing state voting law by allowing newly registered voters to vote absentee immediately instead of waiting the required thirty days before casting their ballots. The law isn't being skirted, because all absentee ballots have to be checked for proper registration before the vote can be counted; by that time, the thirty day wait would be long since be fulfilled.

This issue isn't directly related to diversity, but this attempt to stonewall new voters does tend to affect minority voters disproportionately since many of the community activists who are registering people are looking for new voters in minority neighborhoods and at minority events.

Some of the more cynical commentators I've heard address this issue believe that the Republicans' concerns with new registrations is related to this fact and to the perception that these newly registered voters would tend to vote Democrat rather than Republican.

In either case, this stonewalling, I would think, would tend to drive minority voters (and the activists working to register them) away from the Republican party.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 3, 2008 5:26 PM

Well, it may have something to do with the ticket this year too.

If there was a time when African Americans would be reluctant to show their Republicanness, it would probably be this election. I heard a story on it a few months back on NPR that was very interesting.

The few people they interviewed felt implied pressure to support "the first black president" and certainly didn't want to be the reason why he wasn't elected.

I do think the parties are merging more and more, so some of the diversity may even out a little more. But I do think it sad when there isn't diversity.

I'm also curious about what races are just less involved in politics. I'm not hearing (nor do I ever see on this site) how Asian Americans fall in the party system.

I wouldn't say Republicans are anti-immigration; they would be anti-undocument immigration. Not anti-social justice, they just define the term social justice differently than the Democrats.

Posted by: frankie | September 3, 2008 5:34 PM

These questions are extremely important on both sides. It all translates to votes, which is the lifeblood of any party.

If Coke isn't reach an entire people group, you can bet they'll target them one way or another.

They also say that people tend to vote like their parents more than any other things we do like our parents. I don't know if that is still true, but it seems like it.

Posted by: U TOO | September 3, 2008 5:39 PM

"You make the fatal mistake of believing that they don't think for themselves now."

I think there is a lot of pressure for those groups to toe the Democratic party line. I think this will change. You think I'm wrong, which is fine.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 3, 2008 6:11 PM

"The left goes insane whenever a prominent minority or woman establishes his or herself in the Republican party (see: Palin, Sarah)." Kevin S

I guess that that statement would be true if you equate "insanity" with asking clearly legitimate questions about Sarah Palin's credentials.

"I think this will change." Kevin S.

Yes, it probably will, when the Republicans lose a few election cycles and actually start advocating policies that benefit these groups.

Posted by: JamesM | September 3, 2008 6:22 PM

So - just because there is a lack of something in a group automatically means that they have to be against it? There are many people that are working for the advancement of people that are handicapped - there are not too many 'handicapped' people in some of these groups does that mean that they are ineffective?
There is a lack of one armed paperhangers in the union - they do not like people with one arm?
There is about 6% minority teachers in our district and about 38% overall minority students in the district. Does that mean that they are not willing to hire minority teacher? Keep in mind that most colleges and universitiea that about 4% minorities in their education program that will become teachers. Little difficult to get what is not there. Progress takes time. Like I said before - a minority conservative will have a more difficult time with their own than with the party.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 3, 2008 6:30 PM

Kudos Squeaky and Big Guy for asking good questions and not rushing to judgement.

Don, seems your allegations claims illegal action by the GOP. Please be careful in painting a party as criminal. Plenty of allegations of fraud occur on both sides. I find these deplorable and wish them prosecuted to the full extent of the law IF found guilty. Please refrain from wild rumors that rush to judgement. If you have convincing evidence please submit it to the proper authorities for a fair trial.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 3, 2008 7:34 PM

Quotas are the reason for the Democrats so-called diversity. Labor unions, teachers,and minorities are given a certain number of delegates.

Posted by: Gary Patterson | September 3, 2008 7:40 PM

Posted by: Cads | September 3, 2008 6:20 PM

Cool observation - had not thought about that one.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 3, 2008 7:56 PM

Posted by: Peter S. | September 3, 2008 7:43 PM

I tend to agree. Had coffee with a friend of mine a few days ago and he said more of less the samething. My friend said that he will be voting for McCain and his wife for Obama - OH, not that it matters but, he's black.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 3, 2008 8:08 PM

Jim, After 21 posts it is clear that most commenters do not agree with the shrouded premise of your article. Better luck next time in painting Republicans as racist. Posted by: Peter S.

This post reminds me of the story of the defendant who was allegedly out of town when his wife got killed. When the police finally tracked him down and told him that his wife got killed (but providing no details as to how!), he blurts out: "Who shot her?!" establishing culpatory knowledge and, hence, guilt. Just a thought.

Posted by: JamesM | September 3, 2008 8:23 PM

Re: establishing culpatory knowledge and, hence, guilt
JamesM | September 3, 2008 8:23 PM

So am I to infer that you think I am racist by my analysis of this article? Is your comment some kind of takes-one-to-know-one shot?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 3, 2008 9:45 PM

Peter S. and Armed 2 Win,

I think you are reading into his article far more than he intended. All he did was make an observation--the same one I myself made--very few non-white faces are amongst the delegates at the GOP convention. This was true.

The next step is to then interpret that fact. Why are there so few non-white people at the GOP convention? Wallis doesn't ask that question, nor does he try to speculate as to why this is.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that he thinks the GOP is racist? All he did was point out the fact and say that diversity is important in our political parties and in our churches. Hardly a statement that says the GOP is racist.

As I said in an earlier post--the GOP would do well to make the same observation and ask the hard question of why this is the way it is. In a nation that is becoming more and more diverse with each passing year, if they hope to retain power, they need to know why it is they are not connecting with minorities.

Peter S--after your plea to Don at 7:34, I would think you would be more careful not assume the intent behind Wallis' statements.

Posted by: squeaky | September 3, 2008 10:59 PM

"No, I don't think you're wrong -- I know you are. "

Natch.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 3, 2008 11:57 PM

The ideology of diversity

There is a deep and inerasable ideological problem with Jim’s argument that racial and gender—and by extension—cultural diversity is a commitment Christians and everyone else should actively promote. The ideological issue is that many on the right do not support diversity. In effect, it is mostly a left or liberal point of view. So, by holding that multiculturalism is something we should value, one assumes what has yet to be proven to the satisfaction of many on the right.

A first response to this argument is that it invalidly conflates race and gender diversity to a subset of multiculturalism. What is advanced here is that there are no sharp divisions among these factors. For more blacks to join the Republican Party they would have to acculturate themselves to its dominant values (e.g., de-emphasis of affirmative action; market solutions to most things, etc.) or the dominant center of the party would have to move in their direction. For more, say, feminist women to join the party, they likewise would have to either adjust to its right to life plank or the latter to the former. In short, people are complex constellations of race, gender and culture that one separates at one’s peril.

To be or not to be multicultural is itself a central point of contention in the culture wars. Lou Dobbs, for example, rejects the “salad bowl” metaphor as a model that the US should pursue in sustaining what it means to be an American. He prefers the older “melting pot” metaphor wherein people assimilated to the anglo-saxon-protestant definition of Americanism. Everyone, he believes, should learn English tout suite and all documents should be in English. Pat Buchanan believes that multiculturalism is an attack on “our heritage”, one managed by politically correct elites who believe multiculturalism trumps “traditional” Americanism. D’Sousa contends that multiculturalism undermines the universal values of our Western tradition. Thus, university courses such as black history or Indian studies are centrifugal forces that undermine the essential cultural unity necessary for the proper functioning of modern nation states. Many individualistically oriented liberals and feminists argue that individual and gender rights are more important than any group or ethnic or racial emphasis that suppresses these rights.

What we have here is not a problem but a mess that has no solution in any final sense. At bottom are the issues of unity vs. diversity, difference vs. sameness, individual vs. group rights. What, for instance, is the solution to a sect that cloisters itself from its monogamous environment and preaches and practices polygamy? To what extent, if any, should gays be allowed to marry?

One can choose one pole over the other. When this is the decision, one view becomes privileged and the other marginalized. If one tries to forge compromises between diametrical opposites the center of each point of view ceases to exist in its prior form (Buchanan’s point). As Yeats lamented, “the center cannot hold” and our self-identities change as the old center dissolves and we become other than what we were. This is overly traumatic for many.

In the confused and confusing matter of multiculturalism there are a host of issues to sort out. And it is unlikely that “solutions” can be found such that significant tensions will not obtain. At most, it seems that only a modus vivendi can result if difference is allowed to exist in any substantive way. Yet, many of us do not really want its opposite either: a homogeneous society where everything’s a singsong monotony of sameness.

In sum, diversity is not a shared value across the political landscape. Arguments must be made to convince the doubters. A large part of these arguments will depend on what parts of the spectrum of diversity can be tied down to the satisfaction of interested parties. But is also probably just part of the “human condition” that across the board agreement will never be achieved. And many will say this is not a bad thing. For if we were perfectly diverse we would be mere homogenized blobs of boring likenesses.

Posted by: Brent | September 4, 2008 12:51 AM

The conservatives are trying to be more diverse from a package and bow standpoint with this selection of Sarah Palin. She is certainly a red meat old-fashioned ultra conservative who gave a very well written speech at the convention full of shock and awe style attacks. Palin's timing and speech style were top knotch as you would expect, since she was a media employee. Wonder how she gets by with attacking the media?

Most of her red meat attacks were bearing false witness against Obama. How does her Penecostal fundamentalist background with Assembly of God square up with that? The Democrats' candidates and party leaders don't know how to go on the attack because it just must not be in their DNA.

Since Tony Perkins of the FRC was mentioned in an earlier column I wonder how he stands with this family problem of having the unmarried teenage pregnant daughter and boyfriend stand together on stage mocking the idea of marriage? Will he now tone down his rhetoric about liberals destroying marriage?

This is going to be a most interesting political season as all the hypocrisy plays out and we wonder if the voters recognize any of it.

Posted by: Steve | September 4, 2008 7:21 AM

Since Tony Perkins of the FRC was mentioned in an earlier column I wonder how he stands with this family problem of having the unmarried teenage pregnant daughter and boyfriend stand together on stage mocking the idea of marriage?

According to a column by Ellen Goodman appearing in this morning's paper, Tony Perkins praised Bristol Palin for "choosing life in the midst of a difficult situation."

Goodman goes on to skewer Sarah Palin (and the Republican platform) for supporting abstinence-only sex education. As Squeaky mentioned earlier, Brandy's "baby bump" is really none of my business. But Goodman has a point when she points out this disconnect between personal behavior and public policy.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 7:46 AM

After reading the comments on this subject, I had to go back and reread Jim's original post. Nowhere did I read where he made any accusation about the Republican Party being racist. He merely compared the diversity of the two parties.

Now, although Jim made no accusations, I will merely make some observations and comments.

It seems to me that the party of Lincoln would be a natural home for African-Americans. After the Civil War, there were actually black representatives in Congress and for years, Southern Democrats were the oppressors. However, beginning in 1948, under the leadership of men like Hubert Humphrey, the Democrats began reaching out to minorities. In response, Strom Thurmond (D-SC) ran for president as a Dixiecrat and actually won several states.

In 1954, Earl Warren and the Supreme Court reversed the Plessy vs Ferguson ruling which invalidated "separate but equal"; this action caused Eisenhower (the man who appointed Warren) to declare that his appointment of Warren was the worst mistake he had ever made. Still, little progress was made in advancing the cause of civil rights during the 1950s, largely due to the coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans.

Finally, during the 1960s, under the leadership of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, substantive progress began. What was the result? Lifetime Democrats like Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican Party and many who did not were replaced by Republicans. I was in SC during the early 60s and if a politician was running for office, all he had to do was to mention that his opponent was acquainted with John or Robert Kennedy, and he was pretty much assured of being elected. In my church, I heard guarded conversations from ushers on what they would do if a ni**er dared to show up for one of our services.

The party of Lincoln welcomed these racists. (Jim didn't say it, but I will.) Nixon called them the "Silent Majority." Falwell and Robertson called them the "Moral Majority." Reagan would have to believe that blacks are all welfare queens. Jesse Helms used racist ads against his black opponent. John McCain was one of the few senators who voted against the MLK holiday - an action that he now realizes did not advance his political career. To people like Strom Thurmond and his ilk, black people were ok to have sex with, but not to extend equal rights to.

Now, if you were a black person and you had witnessed what the Republican Party has done for the past 50 years, which party would you support? Could that possibly be an explanation why there are so few black faces at their convention? You decide.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 4, 2008 8:20 AM

"Goodman goes on to skewer Sarah Palin (and the Republican platform) for supporting abstinence-only sex education. As Squeaky mentioned earlier, Brandy's "baby bump" is really none of my business. But Goodman has a point when she points out this disconnect between personal behavior and public policy."
--By far the dumbest discussion to come out of this. What if Bristol received comprehensive sex ed? Most students in Alaska do. What if it came out (heaven forbid) that she and her fiance used a condom? Would that then spark a conversation about the evils of comprehensive sex ed and how condoms don't work? Do you think everyone who goes through comp sex ed only becomes pregnant when they get married? You can find single cases to support any point of view.

Posted by: jesse | September 4, 2008 8:57 AM

DITE: "African Americans and American Indians, the two minority cultures that...feel most comfortable still embracing the role of a victim..."

Don't forget white conservative males. When Rush Limbaugh rails about how unfair our country is, it's patriotism, but when an African-American does, it's whining and playing the victim. Don't you guys ever get tired of bringing out the same canards year after year?

Posted by: I and I | September 4, 2008 10:26 AM

Palin's speech was interesting -- since I had no idea who she was before this. I'm all for women in office, but I'm not crazy about the pit bull reference. That's not the kind of woman I want to be.

How does an engaged couple on stage mock marriage? I hold marriage in very high regard and hate teen pregnancy (and even teen marriage if you want to go there)but I don't see how their presence mocks marriage.

Another real issue that was mentioned last night (again, I'm independent and have not made my choice yet) was her addressing the needs of special needs children. While democrats preach a commitment to the least of these, I've not heard them ever mention those with special needs. And with autism on such a drastic rise -- like 1 in every 150 births -- there can easy be 2 votes in every family (like a parent and grandparent or aunt) who could make a decision based on that issue alone.

Whatever you think about McCain, I will say his choice for VP beats the heck out of Chaney.

Posted by: frankie | September 4, 2008 10:44 AM

It is meant as an additional exhibit in the body of evidence levied against Republicans by the left. Posted by: Peter S.

It seems to me that it wouldn't have hit such a raw nerve unless there was some basis in fact...

Posted by: JamesM | September 4, 2008 10:56 AM

Peter, I never said that. I don't know you. But it does sound to me like something is troubling you. Only you can answer that question.

Posted by: JamesM | September 4, 2008 4:29 AM
_____________________________________

James, something IS bothering me. It is the constant assertion that any crowd, group, party, committee, gathering, club, commercial, magazine, brochure, company, church, pow-wow, or campfire MUST contain some ethnic and/or gender mix that may or may not be relevant or even possible to avoid being assumed insensitive.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 11:03 AM

A REQUEST FOR EVERYONE!!!

This has been bugging me for a long time. When you respond to someone, please indicate who you are responding to. Many here would like the context of the conversation, and sorting through 50+ posts to find the original, especially if it is one sentence embedded in a paragraph, is difficult.

To make things even easier, put the time stamp on the response--but I'd just be happy with the name of the poster you are responding to.

Thanks!

Cheers!

Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 11:17 AM

Peter S,
Well, I disagree. It seems to me there are many who see racism everywhere. But there are also many who see the accusation of racism everywhere.

I'm pretty pro-Democrat myself, and when I made the observation, I did not think "sheesh, those Republicans must be racist since there are so few minorities in that crowd." My thought was "why aren't more minorities who are Republicans?" Certainly, someone could accuse me of thinking the Republicans were racist for making the observation, but they would be wrong. I think you are wrong to do that to Wallis, especially since he gave them kudos for choosing an under-represented person as the vice presidential nominee.

It isn't racist to point out that the Republican Party apparently doesn't appeal to minorities. Nor is it racist to point out why the Republican party doesn't appeal to minorities. There is a history that the Republican Party needs to acknowledge if it hopes to attract more minorities into the party.

So, when the disparity is pointed out, we can either cry "racism", or accuse the person who pointed it out as interpreting the reason for the disparity as racism, or we can own up to the hard fact and ask the hard question "why".

Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 11:28 AM

" But Goodman has a point when she points out this disconnect between personal behavior and public policy."

What point is that? Were Bristol Palin and her boyfriend unaware that condoms reduce the likelihood of pregnancy? I find that difficult to believe.

Further, if we are assuming Sarah had the ear of her daughter as it relates to reproduction, it's pretty clear that she lost it at some point, at least temporarily. There is no disconnect at all between this circumstance and Palin's policy initiatives. It's just an excuse for Goodman to gossip about the issue.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 4, 2008 11:37 AM

But the question is, WHAT, in our history, led to the reaction you describe above? And is that "WHAT" present now?

If you understand the WHAT, you might also understand the WHY, and although it may not make your beef any more palatable, it might help you understand the perspective of those who insist on it.

Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 11:33 AM

-------------

Squeaky, You and JamesM seem to think that I need to be laying on a therapist couch. I don't. I just refuse to be made to feel guilty for something in history that I did not do, condone, or befriend purely on the basis of my skin color. As for other's perspective--I choose to treat others how I would like to be treated. I would not want to be sought after for inclusion based on the value that my skin color adds to negate someone else's perceived intolerance or guilt.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 11:54 AM

The thin-skinned reactions of conservatives on this thread speak volumes about why there are so few African Americans at the RNC. Until conservatives stop getting angry at the person who raises the issue, and begin to address the issue itself, the GOP will continue to be--as Big Guy inadvertently suggested--a white people's party.

Posted by: carl copas | September 4, 2008 12:02 PM

Peter S--I see you skillfully avoided answering my questions. They are serious questions, and I asked them expecting an answer, not a diversion. They are questions designed to get to the heart of the issue and get beyond the surface--questions any critical thinker would tackle with great abandon.

Please try again.

Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 12:12 PM

" then why is he even bothering to attend the convention in St. Paul? "
Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 12:02 PM

Don, Maybe, The same reason that I would go to both if I could. Maybe the same reason that all the pundits go to both. Maybe the same reason that I come to this blog. I don't think that his attendance is a convincing argument for his neutrality. I watched as much as I could of the DNC even though I disagreed with a lot of it. I want to know all the issues and positions on both sides. The difference is I don't have a ministry and followers, and I don't come back and publish faux-neutral essays on my "observations".
---

"Or are you so absolutely certain that Wallis is such a left-wing, radical, socialist, Marxist that he can't possibly mean what he has written?"

Don, I actually do think that Jim espouses these ideologies with a Christian twist. I'll write more later if you like. I don't throw these terms around lightly. However in the modern era of free speech he should not fear these terms if they are indeed the basis of his beliefs. The only problem I have is that he is not honest with his intent re the future of the US Govt and it's control aspiration.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 12:27 PM

Peter, all Marxists are socialists. Not all socialists are Marxists. Marxists are philosophical materialists and argue that violent class conflict is inevitable. Many socialists are pacifists and believe in a higher power; indeed there are Christian socialists.

Has Wallis urged the abolition of private property and the redistribution of wealth? Not that I'm aware of. Does he argue for an expanded welfare state and regulation of privately owned business? Certainly, but so did Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, and Jack Kennedy, and none were socialists.

Posted by: carl copas | September 4, 2008 12:52 PM

Peter--

Jim Wallis asked for the following:

"But we all should affirm the central importance of racial reconciliation in the life of the church, to racial diversity in our parties and political processes, and to the inclusion of all Americans in our political discourse."

I affirm.

Do you??

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 4, 2008 1:15 PM

RE: carl copas | September 4, 2008 12:52 PM

Carl, Thanks I do know the progression, relationships, and definition of all those terms. I fear that the true left will drop Wallis like yesterday's trash once he has delivered the liberal christian base into the social collective state. As you know there is no room for God and religion in true Communism...

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 1:30 PM

"I fear that the true left will drop Wallis like yesterday's trash once he has delivered the liberal christian base into the social collective state. As you know there is no room for God and religion in true Communism..."

Do you really believe we are approaching communism in this nation?!

If not, why make such a brash statement?

Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 1:37 PM

Wallis has disclosed his friendship with Obama in previous articles.

Denmark is socialist and they still have a state church, also known at the Church of Denmark. They have religious freedom too -- they just want you to be aware that they have their church and don't apologize for it.

I'm not saying we should model after them, but I am saying that they are socialist without being communist. Yes they have a healthcare system, yes they have a great welfare system and yes, they have a very vocal homeless community. But there it is obvious that the homeless choose to be that way, since there's plenty of government help available to them. You can still meet the needs in your country without loosing all the freedoms we hold dear.

Posted by: frankie | September 4, 2008 1:48 PM

I'm still waiting for your answer to my other questions, by the way.
Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 1:33 PM
-----
S, Please reiterate. I do not remember your 'other questions'. Sorry.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 1:56 PM

S, Please reiterate. I do not remember your 'other questions'. Sorry. Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 1:56 PM

They are here:
Posted by: squeaky | September 4, 2008 11:33 AM

Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 2:20 PM

Peter said:
"I believe that there are whose who are pushing with everything they have to make this a reality. Those who promote ever-increasing federal government, taxes, and control under the guise of "social justice"."

Me:
I have two words for that. Paranoid delusion.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 4, 2008 2:25 PM

"We value...
Transethnicity, enabling us to value beauty in diversity and relate to one another as a multiethnic, multicultural, multi-gifted blend of God’s people whose focus is not on social, economic, ethnic or gender distinctions, but rather on the beauty of expressing the creativity of God through a diverse body of believers."

Naive. Even the early church in Jerusalem had to grapple with diversity issues.

on the face of it, it looks like you are wanting me to say that slavery, injustice, etc in our past caused the need for these policies and reconciliation.

Well, that's the truth.

Posted by: Rick | September 4, 2008 2:48 PM

I have two words for that. Paranoid delusion.
Posted by: Payshun | September 4, 2008 2:25 PM
-------
thanks for the diagnosis doctor. What meds should take for this? Maybe some Kool-aid?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 3:06 PM

As I said it is real and it works in our church of over 2,000 in a former slave state. We are 50/50 black and white and working together in love. This is not 'the early church' it is the end-times church.

You're dodging my question. FWIW, I too attend an integrated church and have done so in the past, so I understand the dynamics. Let me rephrase the question: Are your black members heard or told not to "rock the boat" with issues of institutional racism?

That's important because one poster who attended Vineyard Church in Columbus, Ohio, complained that the "Justice Revival" that Jim Wallis held there earlier this year split the church into factions that previously didn't exist. Another poster who also attended countered that it was indeed focused on Christ, however, and I was forced to conclude that the "revival" exposed divisions that had always been there but never acknowledged or even recognized.

That kind of thing happens when we assume that all Christians regardless of background nevertheless think alike, which may not be the case; a woman from the singles ministry I attend saw me on TV at the opening of the local Clinton campaign headquarters in 1992 and was stunned -- she said to me days later, "I thought all Christians were Republicans!"

Posted by: Rick | September 4, 2008 4:05 PM

Victim-hood is an important reason why some minorities are attracted to the Democratic party and repulsed by the Republican Party. Personal responsibility doesn't play well if you want society to be the bad guy. African Americans and American Indians, the two minority cultures that have a past of injustice done to them by America and feel most comfortable still embracing the role of a victim, vote overwhelmingly Democratic. The other minorities are much more moderate. DITE

Appalling. You don't know me or the majority of AA or Native Americans. Your comments are scurrilous and inflammatory. I am no one's victim. I am not a Republican because I don't much like the people who represent the Republican party. My grandfather was a Republican. Many of my father's extended family were prominent Black Republicans. My step-mother WAS a Republican. What we don't care for is the anger, viciousness and blanket generalizations of people of color from many (including you) in the party. Frankly, the people who attended the convention look like the land-of-the-dead, they just don't know it. Your comments are disgusting.

James, something IS bothering me. It is the constant assertion that any crowd, group, party, committee, gathering, club, commercial, magazine, brochure, company, church, pow-wow, or campfire MUST contain some ethnic and/or gender mix that may or may not be relevant or even possible to avoid being assumed insensitive.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 11:03 AM

Since the GOP is putting forth candidates to represent and govern us all, then they SHOULD contain some ethnic and/or gender mix. If you want to talk about social groups, I don't care if it is monolithic but there is US law that says that you cannot discriminate in employment, housing, and who your business serves. Since God doesn't care about color (since He made us to look the way we do), churches should be the last place to exclude people. I've never been to an all-black church that excluded anyone. My husband is white and I've dragged him to many black functions and churches and no one has said a thing or given him a funny look.

By the way GOP was created to stop slavery, then Lincoln accomplished it.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 11:23 AM

What a specious argument! The US doesn't look anything like it did in 1863 and neither does the GOP.

Posted by: Nuttshell | September 4, 2008 8:07 PM

"What a specious argument! The US doesn't look anything like it did in 1863 and neither does the GOP."

Pretty weird, huh? There was a lot of that at the convention last night. I doubt Lincoln would feel welcome in the GOP now, but "reminding" us of why the party was formed is how some Republicans dodge serious conversation about their party's insensitivity to race. Funny, a lot of those same Republicans think it's completely okay for a southern state capitol to fly the confederate flag. Go figure.

Posted by: I and I | September 5, 2008 11:29 AM

Among the fair questions in a democracy is "Which party looks representative of America?" and "Which party is most likely to hear - and listen to - the diverse voices in this country?" and also "Which party is poised for the future, not the past?"

I recently left my 97% white church to find a new church home that welcomes and embraces a more diverse membership. I have found an exciting number of non-denominational young churches that are much more alive and in tune with the Holy Spirit than the one I left.

Posted by: Pat | September 7, 2008 8:31 AM