News1 min ago
Blatent racism !
Why are ethnic minorities allowed to be racist when we "whites" are not?
The newspaper "The Voice" (used to be Black Voice) has an article this week about a Church on the Olympic site being knocked down.
In the newspaper (and on their web site) this church is described as the "largest Black church in Europe" (and I dont think they are taling aobut the colour of the building.
How can they get away with describing it as that?
If a newspaper talked about a "whites only" church there would be cries of racism, questions in the house, and outrage from all sorts of ethnic minorities that they were being excluded.
But because it is a Black church that is somehow OK.
Or is the answer that only us awful whites can be racist and nobody else can.
Yet again double standards.
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/
The newspaper "The Voice" (used to be Black Voice) has an article this week about a Church on the Olympic site being knocked down.
In the newspaper (and on their web site) this church is described as the "largest Black church in Europe" (and I dont think they are taling aobut the colour of the building.
How can they get away with describing it as that?
If a newspaper talked about a "whites only" church there would be cries of racism, questions in the house, and outrage from all sorts of ethnic minorities that they were being excluded.
But because it is a Black church that is somehow OK.
Or is the answer that only us awful whites can be racist and nobody else can.
Yet again double standards.
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by VHG. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have just watched the intro on the KICC website and there is absolutely nothing to say it is black only. There are white people clearly shown in the congregation, it uses words such as 'multicultural' and 'diverse'.
Some of the Trustees are white:
http://www.kicc.org.uk/Leadership/Trustees/tab id/59/Default.aspx
I have read The Voice article and didn't see 'blacks only' anywhere.
It is refreshing to see a Christian church so active. I don't see any racism there.
Some of the Trustees are white:
http://www.kicc.org.uk/Leadership/Trustees/tab id/59/Default.aspx
I have read The Voice article and didn't see 'blacks only' anywhere.
It is refreshing to see a Christian church so active. I don't see any racism there.
The CEO is white:
http://www.kiccbeamreach.org/blog/
and this is one of the Trustees:
http://www.hthomas.net/
http://www.kiccbeamreach.org/blog/
and this is one of the Trustees:
http://www.hthomas.net/
Where is the statement or suggestion that the church is for black people only ? Where's the evidence that, regardless of it having some white people as trustees or in its management, it nonetheless discriminates in word or deed against any white person who wants to join or says or does anything which would, or does, make them think they'd not be welcome as not black?
You're free to call your church a 'white church' if you like.That would apply to the church in this village, because its current congregation is white and it was founded by white Christians (in about 1100) but it would never be unfriendly to or discriminate against anyone who is black.
So what's the problem ?
You're free to call your church a 'white church' if you like.That would apply to the church in this village, because its current congregation is white and it was founded by white Christians (in about 1100) but it would never be unfriendly to or discriminate against anyone who is black.
So what's the problem ?
Booldawg, the BNP may not be very welcoming to black people, even if they don't dare to actually ban them. Christian churches on the other hand tend to welcome all Christians regardless of colour. (They are generally happy to let non-Christians in too; they have nothing to hide.) So the analogy doesn't entirely hold up.
I think the point about exclusion is a mute one. I think VHGs point is that is unlikley a published article would refer to a church as 'Britains largest white church'. This wouldn't infer 'whites only', but is still unlikely to be published.
I don't think it is racist, its just a calling to black people to let them know where most black people congregate so they can share worsip with people of similar background. Black people and white people can walk into any church they like, but these days how many white people actually do.......
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/supplements/2/su pplement.pdf
I don't think it is racist, its just a calling to black people to let them know where most black people congregate so they can share worsip with people of similar background. Black people and white people can walk into any church they like, but these days how many white people actually do.......
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/supplements/2/su pplement.pdf
The BNP is only opened to white people of northern European descent. Therefore you could be a British born right wing black person who supports the BNP's policy on immingration, but you couldn't join them. However if you were a Norwegian whose only been in the country for three days, you'd be welcomed.
The term 'black church' normally describes Pentecostal churches, modelled on the US template. It's not racist and these churches certainly do not exclude White people.
'Black' in this context is merely an adjective.
The term 'black church' normally describes Pentecostal churches, modelled on the US template. It's not racist and these churches certainly do not exclude White people.
'Black' in this context is merely an adjective.
Thanks for the clarification SP. I wonder how they know who is black or not from the application forms? Surely there must be black people who are born in the UK and have several Bristish generation in front of them but disagree with immigration etc and think the BNP is the answer. But on the other hand I think that most people know what the BNP is all about.
"Ethel", The link also refers to, quote, "Europe's only black church". Selective oversight on your part, perhaps?
Personally I don't give a monkey's about what type of church it is - nobody's forcing anyone else to use it, are they? Besides, I'm sure that if a non-black person walked into it they wouldn't be chucked out?
Anyway, church attendances have apparently dwindled so much over the years, who cares? If I want to speak to "my God" I can still do it without entering a so-called "place of worship". Some of the most heinous offenders have been "men of the cloth" after all, and I don't think colour has anything to do with their debased behaviour!
And the religious hierarchy have never been quick to have them punished, have they? Rather they've been shielded by the Church in most cases!! Explain that to their victims, black, white, purple, yellow, cerise with green stripes etc etc
Personally I don't give a monkey's about what type of church it is - nobody's forcing anyone else to use it, are they? Besides, I'm sure that if a non-black person walked into it they wouldn't be chucked out?
Anyway, church attendances have apparently dwindled so much over the years, who cares? If I want to speak to "my God" I can still do it without entering a so-called "place of worship". Some of the most heinous offenders have been "men of the cloth" after all, and I don't think colour has anything to do with their debased behaviour!
And the religious hierarchy have never been quick to have them punished, have they? Rather they've been shielded by the Church in most cases!! Explain that to their victims, black, white, purple, yellow, cerise with green stripes etc etc
When I born, I black.
When I grow up, I black.
When I go in sun, I black.
When I scared, I black.
When I sick, I black and when I die, I still black.
And you White people:
When you born, you pink.
When you grow up, you white.
When you go in sun, you red.
When you cold, you blue.
When you scared, you yellow.
When you sick, you green.
When you die, you grey and you are calling me coloured
Oh dear oh dear. fred, are you really a legal eagle? Im surprised you of all people just dont seem to get it. It's nothing to do with exclusion or exclusivity, trustees, CEOs, cleaning ladies or tea ladies who take deliveries from milk-white milkmen. What seems like racism is the name of the church itself. And of the Church it is a church of.
You say "You're free to call your church a 'white church' if you like." But do they? Does anyone at all? And why dont they? Perhaps some would like to, but they dont, If they did, the naming of it would be racist for sure, and would imply that black people were not welcome in a sense that 'black church' is supposed not to imply. And by convention doesnt. But only by convention. I think that convention a wonderful success story, but it cannot have been easily won. I have known times when white people would say "Tell us about your church, Tell us how you worship - about the happy clapping and the ecstatic falling about." OK that is a cruel send-up of the nice kind whites who were curious enough to ask those kinds of questions. But whatever the motivation of these multiply curious people there were still blacks who were happy enough with and bolshie enough about the idea of the Black Church to say "You wanna know about our church? You come. You watch." But they were won over by the touching curiosity and the curious were won over by the ordinary worshippers giving them such an unbolshie welcome.
I know it's hell's complicated, and the black church may owe its name to racist whites in the last analysis, but the blacks embraced it and made it their own. This is history, perhaps already repeated as tragedy for people who have no more patience in such divisions in the Universal Church than they had for them in buses and schools etc. However humane those divisions have become. But if it is repeated again it will just as surely be as farce.
You say "You're free to call your church a 'white church' if you like." But do they? Does anyone at all? And why dont they? Perhaps some would like to, but they dont, If they did, the naming of it would be racist for sure, and would imply that black people were not welcome in a sense that 'black church' is supposed not to imply. And by convention doesnt. But only by convention. I think that convention a wonderful success story, but it cannot have been easily won. I have known times when white people would say "Tell us about your church, Tell us how you worship - about the happy clapping and the ecstatic falling about." OK that is a cruel send-up of the nice kind whites who were curious enough to ask those kinds of questions. But whatever the motivation of these multiply curious people there were still blacks who were happy enough with and bolshie enough about the idea of the Black Church to say "You wanna know about our church? You come. You watch." But they were won over by the touching curiosity and the curious were won over by the ordinary worshippers giving them such an unbolshie welcome.
I know it's hell's complicated, and the black church may owe its name to racist whites in the last analysis, but the blacks embraced it and made it their own. This is history, perhaps already repeated as tragedy for people who have no more patience in such divisions in the Universal Church than they had for them in buses and schools etc. However humane those divisions have become. But if it is repeated again it will just as surely be as farce.
And fred, you even provide a scenario for that farce: however sure you are that your village church would never be unfriendly to or discriminate against anyone who is black, because you are so relaxed about the fact that its current congregation is white and it was founded by white Christians (in about 1100), just think of the not-so-relaxed who might flock to it once it (and by the Black Church analogy the CofE, if it is Anglican) is named a white church and of the White Church. Bolshie whites and bolshie blacks both. How long will it take this new wave to be bosom pals? What attitudinizing will the media drum up?
My Anglican parish church was founded by white Christians even earlier than yours (5th century), and its current congregation is stillwhite, perhaps less significantly as there are vanishingly few blacks here anyway, and none of them seem to be in the Anglican church. What if they are keeping a low profile, pressing their faces against the stained glass? How gratuitously invidious would it be to declare such a church a white church?
I have lost the will to live writing this. If I persist in trying to think it through I fear it will not be seen as the reductio ad absurdum I intended. I wouldnt put it past the Free Presbyterians to be the first to register the white church trademark.
My Anglican parish church was founded by white Christians even earlier than yours (5th century), and its current congregation is stillwhite, perhaps less significantly as there are vanishingly few blacks here anyway, and none of them seem to be in the Anglican church. What if they are keeping a low profile, pressing their faces against the stained glass? How gratuitously invidious would it be to declare such a church a white church?
I have lost the will to live writing this. If I persist in trying to think it through I fear it will not be seen as the reductio ad absurdum I intended. I wouldnt put it past the Free Presbyterians to be the first to register the white church trademark.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.