Is there a negative inference in that you're saying people are racist, yes and rightly so!
It's not a nice word, because its not a nice thing! The goal isn't to make people feel warm and fuzzy. The goal is to point to the the sin of racism! That's not nice!
I believe part of the problem is that most people don't know what a racist is. Case in point, the indigenous leader who suggested the change to diversity and the readiness of white people to accept it. Why, because it felt/ sounded better? Who did the research to determine the difference or sameness of the two terms? Are they interchangeable?
I suggest a one day workshop offered by our denomination to explain terms and basic history (Canadian or U.S.A.). Its very easy to have misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and resentments when we're starting with flawed definitions and/or definitions based on biased perceptions, not facts.
Sir you are right he taught and preached non-violence. Yet he lived and walked among us as a non-perfect black man. He lived in a country that literally hated him and told him so everyday.
He lived in a country that cursed him, threw things at him, and spat at him everyday and when they weren't doing these things they were threatening to do them; not just to him, but to his wife and small children. So eventually he, Martin Luther King Jr., the non-violent activist was murdered by that country.
Malcolm X and Dr. King had very different views of how to go about challenging the status quo in the beginning. However, they did not ever disagree on the problem or the perpetrator of the problem in America. As tine went on and the protests grew and the death toll of blacks grew as well as the injustices suffered both of these great black men began to turn toward the other literally and figuratively. So as both their theories begat more non-solutions their perspectives and strategies grew closer and closer. As a matter of fact it was this burgeoning relationship that terrified white America, more and more towards the end more specifically "The FBI" and other law enforcement agencies. Because a Martin Luther King Jr. that might riot or pick up a weapon or more importantly tell others it was time to, was something they could not allow to happen... (or a Malcolm who used his skill as a orator instead of inciting violence)
Dr. King like every good leader hoped and prayed for the best.
We who lived then or whos parents lived then knew because he was a great leader he would know when no amount of tactics/ strategies coupled with even more and armloads of love. hope and prayers would stop our children from being slaughtered like animals. Had Dr. King lived long enough and gotten to that point ALL OF US would have followed.
But ask yourself this question what movement, protest or rally ever in history sir, where a people group was oppressing another people group and it has not ended up in rioting, in violence, in death? When has it not started a revolution, a battle or a war? For the record, in this country it was usually Christians on both sides! So when you say don't take things out of context...
I'd ask, what context and whose? Dr. Kings' or the context neatly situated in White Americas' revisionist history view of him, his ministry and his God given mission.
For that to happen then and now white people must do more than pray and have faith. White people in this country have to allow it and if they don't allow it either black people will continue to be complacent and continue to take it or they'll pray plan and eventually when one more murder is one too many, they'll act. In love they will protest, in love they will rally, in love they will riot...Love for the children buried and the children yet born! The love of God already in the hearts of believers and the love for God not yet manifested in the hearts of those to come!
Posted in: Isn't "anti-racism" negative?
Anti-racist is by strict definition, not racist.
Is there a negative inference in that you're saying people are racist, yes and rightly so!
It's not a nice word, because its not a nice thing! The goal isn't to make people feel warm and fuzzy. The goal is to point to the the sin of racism! That's not nice!
I believe part of the problem is that most people don't know what a racist is. Case in point, the indigenous leader who suggested the change to diversity and the readiness of white people to accept it. Why, because it felt/ sounded better? Who did the research to determine the difference or sameness of the two terms? Are they interchangeable?
I suggest a one day workshop offered by our denomination to explain terms and basic history (Canadian or U.S.A.). Its very easy to have misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and resentments when we're starting with flawed definitions and/or definitions based on biased perceptions, not facts.
Posted in: Beyond Thoughts and Prayer
Sir you are right he taught and preached non-violence. Yet he lived and walked among us as a non-perfect black man. He lived in a country that literally hated him and told him so everyday.
He lived in a country that cursed him, threw things at him, and spat at him everyday and when they weren't doing these things they were threatening to do them; not just to him, but to his wife and small children. So eventually he, Martin Luther King Jr., the non-violent activist was murdered by that country.
Malcolm X and Dr. King had very different views of how to go about challenging the status quo in the beginning. However, they did not ever disagree on the problem or the perpetrator of the problem in America. As tine went on and the protests grew and the death toll of blacks grew as well as the injustices suffered both of these great black men began to turn toward the other literally and figuratively. So as both their theories begat more non-solutions their perspectives and strategies grew closer and closer. As a matter of fact it was this burgeoning relationship that terrified white America, more and more towards the end more specifically "The FBI" and other law enforcement agencies. Because a Martin Luther King Jr. that might riot or pick up a weapon or more importantly tell others it was time to, was something they could not allow to happen... (or a Malcolm who used his skill as a orator instead of inciting violence)
Dr. King like every good leader hoped and prayed for the best.
We who lived then or whos parents lived then knew because he was a great leader he would know when no amount of tactics/ strategies coupled with even more and armloads of love. hope and prayers would stop our children from being slaughtered like animals. Had Dr. King lived long enough and gotten to that point ALL OF US would have followed.
But ask yourself this question what movement, protest or rally ever in history sir, where a people group was oppressing another people group and it has not ended up in rioting, in violence, in death? When has it not started a revolution, a battle or a war? For the record, in this country it was usually Christians on both sides! So when you say don't take things out of context...
I'd ask, what context and whose? Dr. Kings' or the context neatly situated in White Americas' revisionist history view of him, his ministry and his God given mission.
For that to happen then and now white people must do more than pray and have faith. White people in this country have to allow it and if they don't allow it either black people will continue to be complacent and continue to take it or they'll pray plan and eventually when one more murder is one too many, they'll act. In love they will protest, in love they will rally, in love they will riot...Love for the children buried and the children yet born! The love of God already in the hearts of believers and the love for God not yet manifested in the hearts of those to come!
Posted in: Spiritual Healing for Survivors of Sex Trafficking
Are any of the therapists or counselors survivors?
Posted in: Does Racism Exist in the Candidacy and Call Process?
Thank you for your honesty