-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why are churches so segregated?
- Thread starter Rachel
- Start date
Ever tried 'balot' ? It's duck embryo. Most Asians eat that. Now, imagine an American and an Asian on a dinner table. To most Asians, American food tastes bland. To some Americans, Asian food is 'yucky'.
Speaking of bland and yucky.
Now, whites, no matter how much they deny it, tend to think of Asians, especially islanders, as barbarians.
In the early 80's I was living in the mountain villages of my country, and my livelihood was trapping and taxidermy and I was hanging around in this hotel lobby with my stuff and this Filipino boy comes in with a beetle tied to a string.
The beetle hums when it flies and to the boy it was a toy.
There was this white woman with her son sitting on the steps of the lobby and her son asks, 'mom, what is that' ? and the mom answers it's a beetle, and the boy asks, 'mom, what is he going to do with that' ?
And the mom looks at me, sitting not six feet from them, and smiles, as if to say 'what're you gonna do about it' and tells her son, 'they eat it, honey'.
It may be 'small stuff' to her, but it sure ain't to me.
The "small stuff" isn't the differences between cultures. The "small stuff" is that we naturally prefer our own kind. There's nothing wrong with that unless it makes us mistreat someone.
The problem today is that "mistreat" has been expanded to include very nearly everything.
If we want to reach our communities with the gospel, we can't afford idealistic sociological experiments that try to falsify the conclusions of 10,000 years of human history. Instead, we should let people associate (or not) freely according to the patterns of behavior that almost all people, saved and unsaved, have demonstrated throughout history.
People prefer their own kind. That's why we have kinds. If people didn't prefer their own kind, we'd all be blended by now.
It doesn't pain me in the slightest that the Korean Baptist Church down the street hasn't invited me to fill their pulpit. And if they go for a thousand years without inviting an anglo to fill their pulpit, it mistreats nobody.
The problem today is that "mistreat" has been expanded to include very nearly everything.
If we want to reach our communities with the gospel, we can't afford idealistic sociological experiments that try to falsify the conclusions of 10,000 years of human history. Instead, we should let people associate (or not) freely according to the patterns of behavior that almost all people, saved and unsaved, have demonstrated throughout history.
People prefer their own kind. That's why we have kinds. If people didn't prefer their own kind, we'd all be blended by now.
It doesn't pain me in the slightest that the Korean Baptist Church down the street hasn't invited me to fill their pulpit. And if they go for a thousand years without inviting an anglo to fill their pulpit, it mistreats nobody.
Precisely! 99.44% (just like Ivory soap
But then where would their income coming from if "RACE" is no longer exploitable?
Precisely! 99.44% (just like Ivory soap
But then where would their income coming from if "RACE" is no longer exploitable?
</font>[/QUOTE]What do you mean? There still is a race problem in our society isn't there?If sinful people don't fight over one thing, they'll fight over another. Even married couples, who share the most in common, fight and divorce. But marriage as an institution isn't the problem, and racial situations aren't the problem when two races go at one another.
But race baiters like to consider that the problem. It makes a leveraging point for guilt-manipulation.
I was summarily expelled from a Negro event in the early '80s. I was sitting in an auditorium at a Black college, waiting for a speaker to appear. A well-dressed gentleman invited me backstage. When I got back there, they showed me the exit and asked me to step outside. Then they locked me out.
Since I was given no explanation at all, I can only guess at their motivation. I was there to cover the event for a denominational paper, and had told them so earlier during polite conversation. But I suspect that they were nervous that the speaker, a pro-communist African, might invite violence. Since I was wearing a business suit, Fundamentalist haircut, straight teeth, big smile, and white ancestry, I fit the profile.
It was a public event at a tax-supported venue, but there were no crackers allowed. I wasn't offended; I just wrote my article from interviews outside and surveys of the Communist literature on the tables in the foyer.
They thought that it was a good idea to throw me out. As far as I'm concerned, it was their choice. Maybe they were making the best choice in a bad situation. I don't know their heart.
Do I have a "race problem" with them? No. They were just protecting their interests in whatever way they saw fit. I could claim that I was scarred for life, but that would just be a play for manipulative advantage.
But race baiters like to consider that the problem. It makes a leveraging point for guilt-manipulation.
I was summarily expelled from a Negro event in the early '80s. I was sitting in an auditorium at a Black college, waiting for a speaker to appear. A well-dressed gentleman invited me backstage. When I got back there, they showed me the exit and asked me to step outside. Then they locked me out.
Since I was given no explanation at all, I can only guess at their motivation. I was there to cover the event for a denominational paper, and had told them so earlier during polite conversation. But I suspect that they were nervous that the speaker, a pro-communist African, might invite violence. Since I was wearing a business suit, Fundamentalist haircut, straight teeth, big smile, and white ancestry, I fit the profile.
It was a public event at a tax-supported venue, but there were no crackers allowed. I wasn't offended; I just wrote my article from interviews outside and surveys of the Communist literature on the tables in the foyer.
They thought that it was a good idea to throw me out. As far as I'm concerned, it was their choice. Maybe they were making the best choice in a bad situation. I don't know their heart.
Do I have a "race problem" with them? No. They were just protecting their interests in whatever way they saw fit. I could claim that I was scarred for life, but that would just be a play for manipulative advantage.
I'm not capable of answering for you as an individual, but as for society as a whole, go back and look at my percentage!
Do I hold to that percentage? No, but I do believe that it is representative of the TRUE race problems. Just not the problem as represented by Kennedy, Jackson, Sharpton, et al!
Pipedude explained very well!
You tell me how that situation would have played out if the races were reversed----!!! (Couldn't you just see the donations pouring in to the Rainbow Coalition etc. to thwart this blatant "RACISM"?!)
Incidentally, why are there still pitches for the "UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND", and contests for "MISS BLACK -----", etc.? 'Pears to me to be racism from the "victims(?)"!!!!
To answer your original question as I'm sure you wanted it answereed, "YES", but as I'm sure that you already know, there ain't gonna be ANY type of perfection UNTIL JESUS Himself is the ruler of this old space rock.
Until then there's always gonna be that proverbial "10%"!
I believe the latest US figures (based on the last US census projected to 2005) put the number of mixed race marriages in the US at 12% of all marriages. That is by dividing race categories into the basic three: white, black, and asian. When defining race to ethnic subcultures (Anglo, Spanish, Korean, Indian, etc), the numbers skyrocket to 38% of all marriages.
I'd like to see some hard data. Here's what I picked up from the 'net:
"And according to new analysis by William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution in Washington, about 1 in 15 marriages in the US is interracial - up from 1 in 23 in 1990."
"It's worth noting that unlike most census analysts, Frey treated Latinos as a racial group, and nearly half of the 3.7 million interracial marriages he counts include a Latino."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0828/p03s01-ussc.html
One in fifteen marriages would be 6.6%. If Latinos are considered Caucasian, as they always have been, then Caucasian-Latino marriages would need to be subtracted--but the article doesn't reveal what number of the "mixed" marriages are Caucasian-Latino. It must be less than half, because it says that half the "mixed" marriages include a Latino, and that would include a Latino marrying someone from any other group, not just other non-Latino Caucasians.
Maybe the figure would drop to 4%. That would mean that, in America, I said 99% when 96% would have been more accurate, insofar as Frey's numbers are accurate.
"And according to new analysis by William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution in Washington, about 1 in 15 marriages in the US is interracial - up from 1 in 23 in 1990."
"It's worth noting that unlike most census analysts, Frey treated Latinos as a racial group, and nearly half of the 3.7 million interracial marriages he counts include a Latino."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0828/p03s01-ussc.html
One in fifteen marriages would be 6.6%. If Latinos are considered Caucasian, as they always have been, then Caucasian-Latino marriages would need to be subtracted--but the article doesn't reveal what number of the "mixed" marriages are Caucasian-Latino. It must be less than half, because it says that half the "mixed" marriages include a Latino, and that would include a Latino marrying someone from any other group, not just other non-Latino Caucasians.
Maybe the figure would drop to 4%. That would mean that, in America, I said 99% when 96% would have been more accurate, insofar as Frey's numbers are accurate.