McClurkin: "I don't believe in discriminating against homosexuals"

Because we don't have enough McClurkin threads....



http://www.wandtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7249786

Hopefully, he's changed his views since then - like Hillary and Edwards on their IWR votes. Also, his rape at eight figures greatly into his fears of child molestation,
although there is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality per say.

That's all I need to know.

Sadly.

he's putting the guy's music on stage.

It's not the same, of course. McClurkin's opinions didn't lead to a blank check for war.

McClurkin also performed at the Democratic National Convention in 1992. I don't mean to point this out as a Clinton bashing thing, although Clinton as the nominee had the power to have him not sing if he wanted to.

I point this out because the question we are asking here is bigger than Obama and needs to be focused on the entire Democratic Party.

See this thread for another example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3634146&mesg_id=3634146

McClurkin is not advocating anti-homosexual discrimination today.

I don't expect a candidate to give it a platform.

McClurkin hasn't endorsed Obama, he's singing at a concert.

Should Hillary denounce Rev. Mayberry or at least reject his endorsement, which is featured on her website at the moment?

"Senator Clinton has an excellent concept about how she plans to address issues surrounding crime and education. She described how she has partnered with leaders in New York to create a charter school specifically for African American men and notes that the Allen Cathedral AME Church charter school in Jamaica Queens, New York could be used as a model of how to help educate African American young men. Her mentioning of the school shows that she's aware of outstanding successful examples of education in this country. The way she addressed the need for the federal government to partner with inner cities suggests that she's not just focusing on international issues but that she's concerned with domestic ones - particularly crime and violence in our communities. I want a president who knows how to strike a balance between addressing international and domestic challenges facing this country," said Reverend Dr. Harold R. Mayberry, Senior Pastor of First African Methodist Episcopal Church and Chairperson of Network for Interfaith Action.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2857



***********


Religious groups on common ground
Many faiths oppose same-sex marriages
Don Lattin, Tyche Hendricks, Cicero Estrella, Vanessa Hua, Chronicle Staff Writers
Sunday, March 14, 2004

Like most religious opponents of same-sex marriage, the Rev. Harold Mayberry, pastor of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland, has preached against homosexuality to his congregation of 2,800.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/14/MNGJB5KB9N1.DTL&type=printable

both have said about the same thing have`t they? for some reason the hillary supporters are silent.

"Like most religious opponents of same-sex marriage, the Rev. Harold Mayberry, pastor of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland, has preached against homosexuality to his congregation of 2,800.

However, he does not think a federal amendment is necessary. The scriptures direct people how to lead a moral life, he said.

"I'm comfortable in what I believe in," Mayberry said. "I'm not rejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don't reject thieves, I reject thievery.''

He made the man's singing a tool in his campaign.

Big difference, huge difference.

And Desmond Tutu would also disagree, as would Jackson and Sharpton.

"That's his own personal view that is shared by many in the black community of faith."

Sounds like a pretty "monolithic" statement if I ever saw one.

My point was to refute your broad brush assumption by educating you on the views of what many would consider a broad cohort of community leaders of faith whom all agree that LGBT rights are very closely linked to the mid- to late-20th century Civil Rights struggle among African Americans.

Thanks for your "educating", though. :hi:

"Most" would agree that MLK, Jr. was one of those, as was his wife.

Would you disagree?

She has chosen not to respond as well as her followers.

why should she stick around if you aren't going to argue fairly?

Once again: "many" does not equal "all" or even "most" in my dictionary. And please enlighten me as to who my "followers" are, as that's news to me. :tinfoilhat:

Who are the "many" in the black community?

I've given you examples that disagree with you. And the ones I've shared with you are community leaders.

So I'm curious as to whom you defer to as the "many".

I've given you some examples of religious community leaders that support the LGBT community (and I'm prepared to give you some more) yet you haven't supplied any examples to support your post.

I stand by what I said (I never mentioned the word "leaders" btw). When you want to have an non-adversarial dialogue about the presence of
homophobia in the black community, let me know. See ya - my "followers" are calling me. ;-)

I'm simply looking for how you support this statement:

"That's his own personal view that is shared by many in the black community of faith."

I am still looking for you to give me your examples to support this statement.

Like I said, I've given you many examples of black persons of faith who stoically stand up for LGBT rights. And surprise...they are looked at as community leaders.

So please, list build for me and those who are reading, the many in the black community of faith who take issue with this subject.

:eyes:

Dishonesty in dialogue is enough cause for ending this exchange. Buh bye!

Haven't been aggro.

It is not a stereotype. Christians in general are less likely to believe that homosexuality is not a sin. I'm not defending that, I'm just saying it's not a stereotype to think it more typical of Christians to believe that. It's frankly true for the moment.

I'm surprised that surprises people. :shrug:

Even if many, some, any of those black voters specifically believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Folks, we are trying to win an election, not attain purity.

Glad you're here!
By the way, it's per se. It's a latin term, used in argumentation and legal language. It means "by itself."

:toast:

:eyes:

Should Hillary denounce Rev. Mayberry or at least reject his endorsement, which is featured on her website at the moment?

"Senator Clinton has an excellent concept about how she plans to address issues surrounding crime and education. She described how she has partnered with leaders in New York to create a charter school specifically for African American men and notes that the Allen Cathedral AME Church charter school in Jamaica Queens, New York could be used as a model of how to help educate African American young men. Her mentioning of the school shows that she's aware of outstanding successful examples of education in this country. The way she addressed the need for the federal government to partner with inner cities suggests that she's not just focusing on international issues but that she's concerned with domestic ones - particularly crime and violence in our communities. I want a president who knows how to strike a balance between addressing international and domestic challenges facing this country," said Reverend Dr. Harold R. Mayberry, Senior Pastor of First African Methodist Episcopal Church and Chairperson of Network for Interfaith Action.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2857

she is not to be constantly attacked. If she does it, it's ok, cuz she is of the Clinton. It doesn't matter she condemned 3,000 of our troops to pointless death.

Obama is to be attacked mercilessly and empty-headed squawkers are to crow "not ready for prime time" at him.

We are not to vote for Obama because a guy his campaign hired to sing has wacky views, but we are to vote for someone who failed in the greatest foreign policy test of our time, who failed to protect us from the horrors of this war.

every bigot has reasons why they believe what they do. Conflicted? Then the man needs therapy not a stage where he's invited to perform by a Democratic presidential candidate.

Maybe he's just a pain-in-the-ass like some teetotal former alcoholics.

Or maybe he's not very good at thinking through the broader implications of his jabber: we already know he has some difficulty with social and political analysis, since he toured for Bush 04.

damaging it is to go around a say homosexuality can be "cured," does he?

Or that homosexuality "isn't God's intention."

Those are very dangerous and harmful positions which interfere with the pursuit of civil liberties/equal rights.

He can say that he doesn't believe in discriminating against homosexuals all he wants, but he's indirectly responsible for discrimination with his reckless views.

This kind of on-the-fence doublespeak is indeed harmful, I don't give a shit what he or his many supporters here say.

It's up to others to teach him where he is wrong. Since he associates homosexuality with the people who raped him, I think his attitude is at least understandable. He needs to see gays and lesbians who are normal, loving people.

needs outreach.

But his views are harmful as they stand now, because they impede the fight for civil liberties.

And this has more to do with Obama, than McClurkin because the senator from Illinois should know better.

I mean, how much money does Obama think it's worth to keep this guy on the performance schedule, versus stirring up the gay community and losing votes?

As a minority, Obama should be more sensitive.

There was a time when I thought all lesbians had had a terrible traumatic relationship with men because it seeemd that every lesbian who was out in public told of abuse by her step-father. Then, my own daugheter came out. Very quickly I realized that if she was gay, there really was nothing wrong with gay. She and I had had many discussions before then, and I finally realized that everything I had been taught about choosing to be gay was absolute crap.

I want same sex marriage to be legal for my daughter (and she doesn't even have a girl friend yet!) At the same time, I can understand McClurkin's position. He's going by his own experience and by what his community tells him. For all we know, he may think he's "cured" because he was never gay in the first place. He may have described himself as "gay" because somewhere deep inside he thought that his "gayness" called out to those who attacked him. Being raped is devestating and has to have consequences, especially when that is your first experience of sex.

About Obama and this tour? If I was him I'd have a headache from smacking myself in the forehead every time I think about how this happened. I imagine someone was very pleased to line up such popular Gospel singers and had no idea that there was any controversy around McClurkin.

Here's where I think I stand. I want Obama to win. I hope this tour helps him. If he does win, I expect him to move civil rights for all Americans forward.

he has recently spewed?

Obama has the opportunity to be a front-runner against bigotry. And while he has publicly denounced McBigot's statements, he has the chance to exhibit leadership qualities and vehemently call for his removal from this event, which he has yet to do.

to him in the last several months, it's hardly an issue any more. All that venom has come oozing back

The folks attacking Obama over this are making an issue where there is none, in my view. He's not advocating violence. He's not advocating discrimination. He's simply advocating his personal religious viewpoint, and others are free to agree or disagree, to go to church or to leave the church.

That's what America is all about.

He can advocate his stupidity all he wants.We don't need Democrats using that kind of person to raise money.That's what America SHOULD be about.

i'm aLmost enjoying watching the wheeLs spin.

The fact that the guy claims that he is no longer homosexual because God didn't like that he was homosexual is, in itself, hate speech against us. Just saying that it can be changed, or is a choice, is seen as bigoted. That's what Richardson got smacked for.

It's his personal viewpoint. He has said explicitly he does not hate folks. It' like saying you hate lying, cheating, or stealing. Now, I don't agree homosexuality fall in the same category, but it's a free country and everyone is entitled to their own religious views. It's in our constitution.

He is advocating neither violence nor hate, simply expressing his views. You can't ban that kind of speech in America.

No one's talking about putting the guy in prison, but a Dem candidate should not be getting so close to him.

Again, it is hate speech. Your denial of it only shows your lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

If one's "moral beliefs" are bigoted they are not really moral and deserve to be criticized.

Coultergeist's "Jews must be perfected" was a form of hate speech, even if she thought she was expressing her "moral beliefs"...this situation is really no different at all.

Someone, somewhere at DU, can be counted on to misrepresent criticism of what someone has said as a call to have him/her prevented from saying it or punished for saying it.

I figure the only reasonable response is to accuse the person who does this of trying to have you prevented from saying or punished for saying what you said.

Criticizing speech is not advocating suppression of that speech. Calling for someone to refuse to give a person who engages in certain speech a platform from which to do it is not advocating suppression of that speech. Advocating a boycott of businesses - or political candidates - who associate themselves with someone who engages in certain speech is not advocating suppression of that speech.

Responding to criticism of certain speech as if it were advocacy of suppressing speech is demagoguery.

It's up to everybody to examine his/her own, if s/he chooses to, and determine whether they are really tenable. Dennis Kucinich did that on the question of reproductive rights -- I believe, from reading what he has said, that he did it sincerely and diligently, and had a lot of, er, help in the process. He came to realize that his beliefs were not consistent with his beliefs, we might say, in that case.

Some people are apparently capable of persuading themselves that "personal viewpoints" that are obviously inconsistent with reality and/or their deeper values are really not inconsistent.

The notion that homosexuality is a choice is a "belief" that is contrary to the known facts. The notion that homosexuals should be denied jobs in schools is a "personal viewpoint" that is inconsistent with any belief in the dignity and worth of human beings. But apparently some people are able to persuade themselves otherwise, often for many very complex reasons. Sometimes just because they're stupid and nasty.

I'd prefer people to do whatever they need to do so that they don't have to keep rationalizing stupid or nasty viewpoints or beliefs in order to be happy. The world would be the better for it, if people who believe homosexuality is a choice addressed the reasons why they think that, and came to understand reality, or if people who believe that GLBT people should be discriminated against examined that belief in the light of their adherence to the values of equality and respect (assuming they adhere to those values) and came to see that they can't hold to both that belief and those values.

But we can't make 'em do it. And it shouldn't matter.

It really is possible to "believe" that homosexuality is a choice, and even that it is a bad choice, and not be a homophobe. I believe that people choose what colour clothing to wear, but I don't hate people for wearing orange, much as I dislike the colour. And I really do dislike orange.

But what if I made a point of making public pronouncements about how ugly orange is, how it is a blot on the colour spectrum -- how my god never intended people to mix yellow and red? All the while saying that no one should be discriminated against for wearing orange ...

Why the hell can't I just say nobody should be discriminated against for wearing orange?

And if pressed for my personal views on the matter, I can say my personal views on the matter are irrelevant. Because THEY ARE. My personal views on the colour of other people's clothing, and even my personal opinions about what colour clothing people ought to wear, are irrelevant when the discussion is about how people who wear orange should be treated.

There are actually some situations in which they might be relevant -- specifically, if I am talking to someone who hates orange with the same passion as I do, and wants society to discriminate against people who wear orange. It may actually be wise to say I hate orange too, BUT I love rights and freedoms and liberal democracy and people far more, and I know what a dangerous path it is when we start discriminating against people who wear one colour; how about you?

That is the situation in which a political candidate, for example, could justify sharing a platform (please, can we stop the literal "they won't be on stage together" crap) with someone who holds personal views that contradict reality or are stupid or nasty.

IF that person is there to say: I'm here to tell you that I share your feelings about "x", but that you have to agree that our feelings are NOT RELEVANT to the question of whether our fellow human beings should enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us, and we are on a very dangerous path if we ever support discrimination against people based on our personal views or beliefs about them.

Now, that person must also refrain from spouting those unfounded and/or stupid/nasty views and beliefs in public on other occasions. The goal must always be to advance people's ability to exercise rights and freedoms, and spouting those views and beliefs does not advance that goal, and plainly hinders it.

And anyone who continues to gratuitously spout those views and beliefs while claiming not to hate, or not to advocate discrimination, is just trying to speak out of both sides of his/her mouth, by refusing to acknowledge the obvious effects of his/her speech.

Obviously, this McClurkin person is not going to give up the gratuitous spewing of stupid views and nasty beliefs.

So obviously, I don't think he has any place on a platform with people who claim to believe in the equal dignity and worth of all human beings, and to love rights and freedoms and liberal democracy.

And I had just gotten the shit compressor all warmed up...

After reading through these threads I think I should look into getting one. :)

You're point?

think about gays, single moms, abortion and other things. It's a gospel event, so I expect fundies to sing there.

It shows character, strength, and political courage to clearly state one's own beliefs without excluding others who have different beliefs. Nobody is advocating violence or discrimination here...that would be a different story. It's simply one man singing at an event who believes he can't be a Christian and be homosexual. That does not require everyone else to agree with his view. The freedom to hold differing views regarding religion and morality is integral to our system of government, as is the freedom to disagree with those views.

I'm glad we agree.

it doesn't show character to give the stage to a bigot.

He doesn't seem very comfortable everytime he has to talk about LGBT issues... seems to have a "personal" problem with the whole thing...

I mean, I don't need official stats to state with confidence that a majority of Christians in this country are against homosexuality, just like the majority of Muslims around the world are.

It's a sad, horrible fact of life. Should we stop talking to fundie Christans and Muslims? No.

sounded very bigotted to me, and I was immediately yelled down. I don't think any of them are actually bigots themselves, certainly not Obama, but he's being stubbornly insensitive when he disregards the feelings of LGBT community and leaves this very disturbed gay basher on the gospel tour.

Talking about, educating and debating homophobia is very different from allowing this tour to go on as is IMO.

from what I read. He's free to express his religious belief that homosexuality is not Christian. It's personal for him, but he's also free to express that view.

That's not bigotry. Rather than labeling him a bigot, it might be more effective to engage such folks in a discussion about what Christianity means, and different interpretations of the faith.

We ought not to exclude folks simply because their views differ from our own.

He says according to his religious beliefs homosexuality is not Christian. That's not bigotry. It's just an opinion I don't agree with.

Religion IS bigotry.

he believes and promotes the theory that homosexuality can be changed, he associates being molested by a pedophile with the reason he was gay. That's bigotry. It's ignorant and hateful.

Clearly, he feels that it was a curse for him. I don't agree with those views, and I think even science says otherwise, but he's entitled to his views. The molestation was personal for him, and I will not pass judgment on why he personal believes he is gay, or not gay now. That's his personal business. He says he does not hate people, and I have no reason not to take him at his word.

In any case, getting back to the real issue of Obama's response, I think his statement was excellent and he showed political courage by not ostracizing him, but rather firmly disagree and making clear his own moral values.

I'll leave it at that.

well that maybe short lived but at least we did on one subject

The guy has a ministry - he makes money by being an ex-gay and uses the bible to promote discrimination and hate mongering.

I guess for you smilin' and singin' while condemnin' makes a hateful message just A okay.

I seem to be last on the news each day, but this is not cool to me at all. I was just starting to feel good about Obama again, and have repeatedly stated him as being in my top 3 choices lately, after that noticeable gaffe about AIDS testing Biden mentioned that Obama went a little funny with, once the audience started laughing IMMEDIATELY after Biden's comment of the two of them going and getting tested together, and I forgave him for it, and figured considering he was at a black function this was to be expected because of the laughing in the audience. Instead of making a joke he could have said "Joe's right, there is too much embarrassment in the black community about AIDS testing. I got tested with my wife in Africa" but he didn't do it that way, he made the jokes.

Well, after finding out Donnie McClurkin (who's songs I've removed years ago) is involved and Obama hasn't yet uninvited him because of his "being gay is a curse" philosophy and being gay "is not in God's plan" comment, then I'm beginning to feel Obama's a tad too green as I feared - he needs to nip this in the bud, for many of us who see him as a backup to Edwards/Biden in case they don't make it and it comes down to Hillary or O.

woman. So this link for a longer explanation: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11292.html

Imus was a racist idiot, on the air, as part of his job as entertainer.

As part of his music this Donny guy does not spread a homophobic message.

base their existence on self-righteousness and, for instance, exclusion. It approves certain things while disapproves others.

I guess I missed the memo. I'd better get out there and find some group to hate!

exclusion and oppression, yes, Christianity included. Still, I don't think all Christians are bigots.

exclusion and oppression because their faith is not strong enough to not be afraid of the unknown. if christians actually believed in the 8 beatitudes of jesus the world would be a better place.
for those who do not believe just take away the "god words" you`ll find they are universal

christ means to you or me. i gave up trying to talk to fundies because they only believe that their christ is the only christ and mine is false. i`m not really sure if people understand the difference

If championing the "ex-gay" movement and calling homosexuality a "curse" isn't discriminating against gays, I sure as hell don't know what is.

...and that I'm going to hell.

Ah, ok. So he's only 90% bigot.

How is that any different?

bias. Sadly, when such things are brought up on DU, the posts are either downplayed, disputed or ignored altogether.

Interesting.

Obama get attacked as if he is the front runner a la Howard Dean, but he isn't... the... frontrunner...

hypocritical? of course it is. they whine about everyone else but, ignore when their own candidate is guilty of the same and so much more.

;)

I will not decide for/against Hillary based on Rev. Mayberry.

I will not decide for/against Obama based on Rev. McClurkin.

Neither of these two is going to get to control nuclear football, they are not running for president.