Rev. William Barber calls on Democrats to host debate on poverty, racism

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The Rev. William Barber II, a progressive activist and pastor, addressed the executive committee of the Democratic National Committee on Friday (Aug. 23), calling on party leaders to host a presidential debate focused on poverty and to do more to address the concerns of poor and low-income Americans.

The co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, named for the last major campaign of Martin Luther King Jr., Barber insisted that poverty touches all people and regions of the United States and overlaps with related concerns such as racism, voter suppression, healthcare, “ecological justice,” militarism and religious nationalism....

Asked about a potential poverty debate at a candidate forum hosted by the Poor People’s Campaign in June, however, all nine Democratic presidential hopefuls who attended — including former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris — said they would support it.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2019/08/23/rev-william-barber-calls-on-democrats-to-host-debate-on-poverty-racism/

[SWBTATTReg]

1. And why didn't he include the repubs too? He's giving them an easy way out, by not asking them, ...

why?

I want the repugs on record as saying NO, they would not participate.

[guillaumeb]

2. We both know why.

The GOP is more a cult at this point than a political Party.

[trotsky]

3. This is not what you've said previously on the topic of working with Republicans on matters of faith

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218307188

Did you change your mind?

[guillaumeb]

4. That depends on the willingness of the GOP

to actually work with others, rather than insisting on their own position and calling it compromise.

[trotsky]

5. You just said they're more like a cult.

A cult doesn't reach out to work with others.

Make up your mind. Or at least don't get upset with people who tell you working with the GOP is impossible, when you just admitted it yourself.

[guillaumeb]

6. "They", meaning every single GOP voter,

are not a monolith. If you cannot recognize this, there is no point in continuing with this conversation.

[trotsky]

7. "The GOP is more a cult at this point than a political Party."

You made no such distinction.

Plank, mote, and all that. You've claimed you try to live like Jesus would want. Would he want you to admit your double standard and apologize for your attacks on others? Or would he want you to smear me again?

Let's see what you think Jesus would want you to do. Show everyone the kind of Christian you are, g.

[guillaumeb]

8. Have fun.

More is not equivalent to all.

And speaking of whataboutism, and the use thereof to avoid discussion, have you anything to say about the actual topic, and the actual article?

[trotsky]

9. The fact remains, you made no distinction.

Keep showing everyone how you think Jesus wants you to act, g. Show us how love guides you.

[guillaumeb]

10. Whataboutism 101.

Well done.

[trotsky]

11. It's so cute when you try to throw that word out when it doesn't apply.

Please just try to be consistent, or at least stop attacking others when all they're doing is exactly what you think is OK to do.

[guillaumeb]

12. 5 replies, and none of them have anything to do with the actual post.

what·a·bout·ism
/ˌwədəˈboudizəm/
nounBritish
noun: whataboutism
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/whataboutism

[trotsky]

13. Adorable!

You try and try, but keep failing. So cute.

[guillaumeb]

14. If you had actually read the definition,

you would have admitted your error and moved on.

However.....

what·a·bout·ism
/ˌwədəˈboudizəm/
nounBritish
noun: whataboutism
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/whataboutism

you obviously did not.

Not cute, and antithetical to actual discussion.

[trotsky]

15. Yes, I know what the definition is, and I know that you do it all the time.

You're doing it now, as a matter of fact.

Totes adorbs.

[guillaumeb]

16. Now, you add the related tu quoque fallacy

to your whataboutism.

Well done, and indicative of why real discussion often fails here.

[trotsky]

17. Yeah, that's what you do.

You're very good at describing your own behavior. If only you'd take a moment to self-reflect instead of attack and insult.

[guillaumeb]

18. Tu quoque, squared.

For all to see.

[trotsky]

19. Indeed, let all read this thread. I'm quite content to stand by my words.

As I have said many, many times. I've put forth considerable effort to try and engage you in actual dialog over the years, and I've gotten nothing but shit thrown in my face. So much for being a "Christian."

[Bretton Garcia]

20. Guil admits some (Republican) Christians are bad ?

That seems worth noting.

Maybe even greedy evangelicals could be addressed. If someone noted to them that tariffs on Chinese goods are estimated to cost the average American household $1,000 a year.

[trotsky]

21. If only.

For him, when religious people do something good, it's definitely because of their religion.

But when they do something bad, it's just them being human. Religion is never a factor.

[Bretton Garcia]

22. Well.... It might be interesting for several of us ...

To point out all the specific places fundies chose to abandon religion, Christianity....

For instance? I feel 2) fundies honor the violent God of the Old Testament, over the somewhat milder Jesus. Even though the New Testament insinuates Jesus was a "new" and implicitly better "covenant" with God.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. The great part about being religious...

...is people will praise you up and down for meeting the absolute barest minimum standard of human decency.

Rev. Soandso says poverty is bad! He's a hero!

I say poverty is bad and get called a communist.

[guillaumeb]

24. Was there ever any doubt?

Some of every category are bad.

[Bretton Garcia]

25. Would you specify Evangelical sins and theological errors?

[guillaumeb]

27. I would say that good and evil are found in every group. eom

[trotsky]

26. "Some of every category are bad."

Are only SOME Nazis bad?

[Bretton Garcia]

28. I pretty much rely on the idea that 1) all religion is bunk

But 2) if Guil is rather the opposite, and defends much of religion, 3) now and then his writings do suggest there might be bad things in evangelicals. And 4) maybe even not just them individually, but in 5) collectively. In their "prosperity" theology, or 6) in most of their members' personalities.

So atheists or religion critics, and Guil, might have some slight overlap. Though Guil doesnt like to say so.

[trotsky]

29. The difference is, he believes religious dogma is completely blameless.

Bad people are being bad simply because of human nature and religious teachings - even the ones that say you should kill people - are never responsible.

But when people do good and they cite religion, that needs to be held up as a shining example of what religion TRULY is.

Thus reads the Gospel of Guil.

[Bretton Garcia]

30. Modern "ecumenist" theology honors all religions

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2019, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Which is clearly Guil's orientation most of the time. But it's a respect born in part from fear of religious terrorism; most religions historically become murderous if you cross them.

And realizing this and other other problems, deep down even ecumenists have small, hidden, timorous reservations about some parts of religion. Though they don't like.to openly voice them.

So I'm trying to find an avenue or forum acceptable to Guil and intimidated ecumenists, that would allow them to in some way acknowledge historical problems in religions. Especially say, the muderous side of faith. Which ecumenical tolerance diminishes but does not fully eliminate.

Guil in fact at times will express hesitations about Republican evangelicalism, say. Which to be sure he blames not on religion per se, but on human perversity. Still? Like most ecumenists, while he does not directly or openly criticise any religion often, he does now and then advance religious ... preferences?

I guess our forum could be partly a place of welcoming? Where timid ecumenical victims of religious terrorism could find a few supporting helpers at least. To help them learn to see themselves as victims of religious, Christian abuse. And learn to work through that.

To by sure, I also support an aggressively and explicitly negative view of all religion, often. Ecumenism included.

Ecumenists try to get along with all religions - because deep down, they are afraid of all of them. They know how violent and destructive religions can be. So they try to appease, mollify, co-opt them.