The Christian African-American clergy vote in 2012 will be the biggest obstacle President Obama will face from his own race in November, if a recent article about same-sex marriage by The Beast has it right.
The newspaper from across the pond says that African-American ministers made all the difference in 2004, when they helped usher in George W. Bush into office because of same-sex marriage issues pushed by the Democrats.
The same could happen now, in 2012, for Republican Mitt Romney. And that appears to be setting up black ministers for attack from the homosexual community.
Just because President Barack Obama has "evolved" on the subject of what makes a marriage—thanks in part to discussions with his daughters, and thanks in part to his need of the homosexual community's monetary and voter support; black Christian clergy have not changed their position on marriage.
And one wouldn't expect them to, as homosexuality is a sin, according to the God they worship.
Christian clergy still have the same Bible and commands from God on the topic of homosexuality in 2012 that they had in 2004, so it isn't likely that they will opt to follow a man instead of their God, just to keep a member of their race in office. And that appears to be what is concerning to the two male writers in the Beast article.
"Black ministers have been among the most vocal opponents of gay rights, yet liberals seem scared to call them out."
Black ministers should be vocal opponents of gay rights, of course, as they are ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the God that says in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that the people who will not enter the kingdom of God include those who "practice homosexuality."
Asking black ministers to support gay rights just to re-elect a black man as president is like asking all the Hollywood celebrities to forgo self and give all their wealth and prestige to others. In other words, you know that's never going to happen.
So the Beast writers, Mansfield Frazier and Larry Durstin, think liberals should start attacking them verbally without fear of being called racist.
"The left needs to speak out without worrying about being on the receiving end of the knee-jerk charge of racism," the writers say.
It's not really clear why the writers think racism charges would be leveled at the homosexual community for targeting black preachers, but maybe it's because they know how passionate Obama has been to protect the rights of blacks the past four years.
What is clear, however, is that now the black Christian community is about to become under attack like their fellow white Christian believers in the war between those who adamantly oppose same-sex marriage and those who support it.
And the Christian believers in the black community will need their white brothers and sisters in Christ to stand with them when they do this year. And they certainly shall if one considers that the God each race serves has the same position on homosexuality: He isn't for it.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 9
This is a terrible shame upon their ministries, and their self-righteous and sanctimonious refusal to address the issue wit their congregations (or even among themselves to come up with a way to help) certainly needs to be confronted. I believe, however, that if they begin using this to denigrate this president, they're going to get called out on it, and it won't have to be white liberals like me who do it.
Being vocal opponents of gay rights is a political interjection black ministers would be well advised to continue to avoid. Any public opposition to gay secular political rights in today's political environment will get them evaluated by the IRS (and the same goes for "white" churches - yeah, I'm talking to YOU, Roman Catholic Church) for loss of their tax-exempt status.
The IRS is really beginning to enforce the "stay out of politics from the pulpit" edict implicit in the Second Amendment. They have an explicit rule that leaves little room for debate.
Preachers are free to espouse the Word of God, which teaches against the sin of homosexuality, from their pulpit every Sunday without fear of sanction, in fact.
And they should be, as they are a religious institution, of course, and there does exist a separation of church and state.
It sounds like you may also not realize that the Church does offer homosexual men hope: the hope of freedom from the bondage of that sinful lifestyle, in fact. Just like the Church offers hope from the chains of drug addiction, murdering the unborn and all other sins outlined in the Bible.
I think that the Christian African-American clergy community will not hesitate to keep preaching against homosexuality despite the president's same-sex agenda. And I don't think he will be able to count on their vote this election year like he did in 2008, when he stood against that matter.
So far as almost every gay person I've ever met is concerned, that's not hope. That's a self-righteous way to avoid actually dealing with the issue under the pretense that homosexuality is a 'choice.'
Yep, I agree. Preachers can continue to rail against homosexuality, drive away their LGBT congregants, and pile the guilt of sin atop all therest of what goes with being gay in a straight society.
What they CANNOT do is stand up in that pulpit and preach politics on that issue. They can't urge votes one way or the other (that's becoming a major, MAJOR bone of contention here in Detroit) without IRS difficulties. In 2004, they got away with it, on both sides, but that's not the case any longer.
I think you may also suffer the illusion that the IRS can forbid a Christian preacher from preaching the Word of God in a pulpit, which, of course, means preaching against the sin of homosexuality, like other sins.
You can call that "railing" if you want, just as many Christians might call the gay advocacy group actions "deviant." It's a matter of opinion, of course.
Where I think your issue really lies is the hypothesis that Christian preachers cannot influence their congregation in matters of politics. The Bible doesn't address politics, but it does address how Christians are to interact with their government, which, unfortunately for your hypothesis, does mean biblical teaching on those matters.
Preachers don't get in the pulpit and espouse a political party; they don't have to. They preach God's Word which gives Christians the tools to make the right vote themselves.
For example, one commandment in the Bible is "Thou shall not kill," so a committed Christian isn't going to vote for someone who supports abortion (pro-choice is what some politicians call it in order to dress up the deadly procedure).
Another example is the sin of homosexuality, which God condemns, so no Christian who knows God's Word on that subject, like those who attend church, is going to vote for a politician who says our government will sanction such a moral sin or lifestyle.
So, hopefully, you now have a better understanding of the fact that when it comes to Church in the U.S., the IRS can't tell preachers they cannot teach against abortion or homosexuality, even though those topics will impact political elections.
Talking about such issues is difficult. But mostly, Live and let live and let be.
Could you be a little MORE sanctimonious?