Obama quits Chicago church after long controversy

[Evo]

Can I call 'em or what?

ABERDEEN, S.D. - Barack Obama said Saturday he has resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago "with some sadness" in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and more recent fiery remarks at the church by a visiting priest.


"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," Obama said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation he sent to the church on Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Seriously, the only sensible thing he could do was leave and put as much distance between him and that church as possible.

I guess he must have seen my post and decided to take my advice. :wink:

[Art]

Yes just as I predicted he resigned sooner rather than later :tongue2:

[mathwonk]

i am somewhat sad that he took your cut and run advice, evo. of course he may also have just had enough. what if his barber or bus driver listens to rush limbaugh? does he have to change his routine?

[Evo]

i am somewhat sad that he took your cut and run advice, evo. of course he may also have just had enough. what if his barber or bus driver listens to rush limbaugh? does he have to change his routine?Did you see the video of Pfleger? I've never seen such venemous hate mongering. It was shocking. Obama had to cut his ties.

If you have not watched the Pfleger video, the entire one, the one I posted was just a small portion, and I think that has been taken down, you need to watch it, but be warned, it's pretty nasty, and Pfleger comes off as a raving psycho.

[russ_watters]

what if his barber or bus driver listens to rush limbaugh? does he have to change his routine? That depends - does he look to his barber or bus driver for spiritual/moral guidance?

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not sure it will make a big difference now. He should have made the decision sooner.

[Gokul43201]

Did you see the video of Pfleger? I've never seen such venemous hate mongering. It was shocking. I've only watched one video, and in my opinion, it was a brilliant comedic routine. I don't see why everyone's upset about it - especially Hillary - since it seems to be essentially a spot on depiction.

Can you post the link to the hate-mongering video?

[Cyrus]

Does that make Obama an atheist now?

[Gokul43201]

Does that make Obama an atheist now?I have been secretly grinning about this idea (not exactly, but close) ever since I read the news about it. Shhhh!

[vanesch]

Uh, I thought he was a moslem ?

[AhmedEzz]

Uh, I thought he was a moslem ?

He's not...

Does that make Obama an atheist now?

I don't think so but I think he'll be staying away from churches these days -hence taking a passive stance, hoping this would go by...or quite the opposite he might go to another one and announce it - as a way of saying "I'm against these kind of speeches" -

[Astronuc]

Trinity United Church of Christ is an example of what some call 'charismatic' with respect to the types of sermon issued from the pulpit. It's a different culture than that to which most are apparently accustomed. The idea it seems is to get people fired up. It's not something that would appeal to me.

I do find it unfortunate that Pfleger chose to denigrate Clinton. That was unnecessary, even if some of it had some possible truth to it, i.e. the sense of entitlement. But Pfleger went over the top.


I'm sure Obama will look for a new church, perhaps one in Washington DC. These days, one earns political capital by attending church.

[arildno]

He should have quit this church 20 years ago, or rather, not getting involved with it to begin with.

Rather than his insincere denunciations of Mr. Wright, Obama should have come out clean and said the truth, namely that for a number of years, he himself shared the sentiments of Mr. Wright, and HENCE, chose to be a member of that congregation.

Then he could have apologized, in a far more believable way, that he himself was wrong in sharing the reprehensible opinions of Mr. Wright.

[Gokul43201]

Rather than his insincere denunciations of Mr. Wright, Obama should have come out clean and said the truth, namely that for a number of years, he himself shared the sentiments of Mr. Wright, and HENCE, chose to be a member of that congregation.And you know this truth how?

[BobG]

Mike Huckabee's opinion of the Obama/Wright controversy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ

[phyzmatix]

I'm sure Obama will look for a new church, perhaps one in Washington DC. These days, one earns political capital by attending church.

'strue.

[Evo]

I've only watched one video, and in my opinion, it was a brilliant comedic routine. I don't see why everyone's upset about it - especially Hillary - since it seems to be essentially a spot on depiction.

Can you post the link to the hate-mongering video?Here's a snippet, I'll see if I can find the whole sermon. The part about Clinton was just a tiny piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWnY5PC0CQ&feature=related

[Ivan Seeking]

Can I call 'em or what?

I thought of you as soon as I heard the news. :approve:

[Gokul43201]

Here's a snippet, I'll see if I can find the whole sermon.I honestly don't find anything particularly controversial in what he said there. Retribution, is, after all, still a big piece of modern American jurisprudence (and it's probably only the Anglicans and some small fraction of Lutherans that have any objection to it).

[Evo]

I honestly don't find anything particularly controversial in what he said there. Retribution, is, after all, still a big piece of modern American jurisprudence (and it's probably only the Anglicans and some small fraction of Lutherans that have any objection to it).Screaming to a group of black people that they have been repeatedly raped by American Whites? That's not hate mongering? Of I'm sure that did a lot of good to help smooth over racial tensions. And there were small children listening to him, what are they supposed to think? He's telling the congregation, throughout his sermon that white people are against blacks. Did you see the snippet of him praising Rev Wright, again evil White people are against them.

This is why Obama had to leave, not the parody of Clinton.

[Ivan Seeking]

It certainly betrays Obama's message of reconciliation and hope. I am personally not shocked by his sermon, really, because I understand the reference to rape, and to some degree I understand why some black people feel this way. And the reverend was only saying what many in the audience feel. But even in the case of a rape victim, either life moves on, or you spend the rest of your life being an angry victim.

I think one problem here is that some older people have been too angry for too long, and change is not possible.

[russ_watters]

There is another piece to that no one mentioned - the part about "America has to pay the price..." Part of what makes such rhetoric so popular is the idea that there may be some free money associated with it.

It's a tough balance for a democrat, though. So much of their political capital comes from playing-up the victim mentality and the free money to make up for it. This guy was very obviously over the line, but the big picture is that Obama needs those people to believe they are victims and that he can help them. It is also not too dissimilar to Hillary's message to lower-class whites. And Obama's "bitter" comment was intended to be the same message, he just tripped over the delivery.

[Ivan Seeking]

but the big picture is that Obama needs those people to believe they are victims and that he can help them.

Why does he need that? I think the reverends need them to feel like victims, but not Obama. In fact Obama stands out as anything but a victim. He stands as an example of how far we have come.

As for paying the price, this notion that the US owes the decendents of slaves reparations, is absurd. I see this as nothing more than a loser's pipedream.

[Gokul43201]

Screaming to a group of black people that they have been repeatedly raped by American Whites? That's not hate mongering? Of I'm sure that did a lot of good to help smooth over racial tensions. And there were small children listening to him, what are they supposed to think? He's telling the congregation, throughout his sermon that white people are against blacks. Did you see the snippet of him praising Rev Wright, again evil White people are against them.It is my own personal opinion that this is hate mongering, but I don't see why most Americans should see it as so. After all, it strikes me as no different from testimonials in the penalty phase of a court hearing where family members of the victim describe the suffering of their loved one at the hands of the perpetrator and demand retribution.

I find both practices despicable, but I'm in the minority.

I don't think he was telling the congregation that white people are against blacks - he can hardly pull that off, being himself a ... white person. It only sounds like he is saying that there has been a long history of white subjugation and some whites now think that blacks should get over it and move on. He is also justifying a hatred of white supremacy beyond one which exists today, and he is fostering a sense of entitlement beyond one which is productive.

[Cyrus]

And you know this truth how?

No, I agree with arildno here. For 20 years the man was a part of this chruch. This is def not something new to him. To be 'outraged' so late at the game is just BS. Im sure he knew exactly what was said in that chruch when the spotlight wasnt on him, and he ate it up. If hes going to claim its suddenly not in line with his views, what did he do there for 20 years, sleep through the sermons?

[Cyrus]

As for paying the price, this notion that the US owes the decendents of slaves reparations, is absurd. I see this as nothing more than a loser's pipedream.

If you know anything about how the US economy was basically built on the backs of black slaves, and the things that happend to them throughout history, its really not all that absurd. In THEORY, yes they should get something. Maybe not money, but edcuation, opportunity, I dont know. But I wouldnt start handing them out cash.

Its pretty convient for us, as white people, to say 'oh you dont get anything', meanwhile we got plenty from their slavery.

[Gokul43201]

No, I agree with arildno here. For 20 years the man was a part of this chruch. This is def not something new to him. To be 'outraged' so late at the game is just BS. Im sure he knew exactly what was said in that chruch when the spotlight wasnt on him, and he ate it up. If hes going to claim its suddenly not in line with his views, what did he do there for 20 years, sleep through the sermons?1. It's one thing to say "it sounds like BS" and another thing to assert it as truth without providing the evidence.

2. In those 20 years, let's say Obama attended 200 sermons and slept through none of them, and Wright gave 1000 sermons. Now what's the probability that Obama heard the 2 or 3 sermons that have appeared on Youtube and Fox news?

3. Let's say there were a lot more than just these few sermons that were just as bad. You still have no evidence that Obama shared all the views expressed in them. What minimum fraction of your pastor's views do you need to share in order to stick with a church? He could have continued to stay in that church for several reasons other than that he agreed with every single opinion of his pastor.

Here are a few possibilities:
(i) He agreed with most other things preached by Wright and others at the church,
(ii) He went to church primarily for religious guidance, and so didn't give much value to the socio-political commentary of its pastors,
(iii) He stayed with the church despite the damaging language, because they were actually more successful in carrying out social programs that helped the poor communities in the area, than other nearby churches,
(iv) He stayed in despite the conspiracy nutjobs because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

To assert that he shared all the views of Wright is unsupportable. Do you actually think Obama believes the Government infected the black community with AIDS? Please! This guy was the President of the Harvard Law Review - he's smarter than that.

Incidentally, it's only the people that haven't heard much of Obama's speeches (or the folks at Fox) who will say Obama is suddenly claiming that these opinions are not in line with his views. Long before the Wright incident blew up, Obama had rejected the structuralist argument of Wright and his type, and has been attacked by folks in the Black community for doing so. I posted some links and excerpts somewhere in the other Wright thread.

[Cyrus]

1. It's one thing to say "it sounds like BS" and another thing to assert it as truth without providing the evidence.

2. In those 20 years, let's say Obama attended 200 sermons and slept through none of them, and Wright gave 1000 sermons. Now what's the probability that Obama heard the 2 or 3 sermons that have appeared on Youtube and Fox news?

3. Let's say there were a lot more than just these few sermons that were just as bad. You still have no evidence that Obama shared all the views expressed in them. What minimum fraction of your pastor's views do you need to share in order to stick with a church? He could have continued to stay in that church for several reasons other than that he agreed with every single opinion of his pastor.

Here are a few possibilities:
(i) He agreed with most other things preached by Wright and others at the church,
(ii) He went to church primarily for religious guidance, and so didn't give much value to the socio-political commentary of its pastors,
(iii) He stayed with the church despite the damaging language, because they were actually more successful in carrying out social programs that helped the poor communities in the area, than other nearby churches,
(iv) He stayed in despite the conspiracy nutjobs because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

To assert that he shared all the views of Wright is unsupportable. Do you actually think Obama believes the Government infected the black community with AIDS? Please! This guy was the President of the Harvard Law Review - he's smarter than that.

Incidentally, it's only the people that haven't heard much of Obama's speeches (or the folks at Fox) who will say Obama is suddenly claiming that these opinions are not in line with his views. Long before the Wright incident blew up, Obama had rejected the structuralist argument of Wright and his type, and has been attacked by folks in the Black community for doing so. I posted some links and excerpts somewhere in the other Wright thread.

You are neglecting one key point. If it is bad enough that he is 'outraged' and left the church, then certainly he MUST have heard at least ONE sermon that was equally bad in those 20 years that SHOULD have outraged him long time ago. Or HEARD about a such a sermon from a person sitting next to him telling him about last weeks sermon and what was said.

[Evo]

Have you seen what this latest Pfleger debacle has caused? There is now a "Democrats who will not vote for Obama" petition on iPetitions.

Yikes. Read this thing.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Dems_Who_Will_Not_Vote_For_Obama/index.html

[lisab]

I find it hard to believe that Obama could hold beliefs similar to what Wright said on the Youtube video, and never tell anyone about them. In fact, I know of nothing in his background that indicates he's racist.

Besides, just because a person in your life is a guide or a mentor doesn't mean you have to adopt every belief of that person into yourself. For example, when I was young I worked with a scientist who became a mentor to me. He wanted me to study EE; I didn't want to and studied physics instead. He hated sports; I love baseball. He loved Bob Dylan; I really, really don't.

Even if Obama knew Wright held views different from his own, it means absolutely nothing to who Obama is as a man.

[klusener]

he is 'outraged' and left the church

It should be noted that he didn't leave the church because he was 'outraged'. He specifically stated in his press conference yesterday that he wasn't "denouncing" the church. He's leaving for a number of reasons, one of which is that he doesn't need to be affixed with the views of whoever speaks or preaches at the church, something that has been happening often of late, and another is that the church itself has undergone excessive scrutiny from the media, which, obviously, is a legitimate element of the political process, but you don't want ordinary people who visit the church to worship in peace, to socialize, etc. having to be forced or bothered into contact with the media.

[Evo]

another is that the church itself has undergone excessive scrutiny from the mediaHe really should have left this out of his statement. What it means is that what goes on in this church can no longer hide from public viewing.

It should be noted that he didn't leave the church because he was 'outraged'.Where are you getting this from, I don't see anyone claiming that he was outraged in this thread.

[Cyrus]

It should be noted that he didn't leave the church because he was 'outraged'. He specifically stated in his press conference yesterday that he wasn't "denouncing" the church. He's leaving for a number of reasons, one of which is that he doesn't need to be affixed with the views of whoever speaks or preaches at the church, something that has been happening often of late, and another is that the church itself has undergone excessive scrutiny from the media, which, obviously, is a legitimate element of the political process, but you don't want ordinary people who visit the church to worship in peace, to socialize, etc. having to be forced or bothered into contact with the media.

Isnt that just as bad? When you go to a church and then have to leave because you dont want to be peged by those very viewpoint of your own church.

Hmmm............

[Gokul43201]

You are neglecting one key point. If it is bad enough that he is 'outraged' and left the church, then certainly he MUST have heard at least ONE sermon that was equally bad in those 20 years that SHOULD have outraged him long time ago. Or HEARD about a such a sermon from a person sitting next to him telling him about last weeks sermon and what was said.Cyrus, I can't make much sense of this post - but you have at least one point that is factually misleading (that he left the church due to outrage). And you still have not proved that Obama shares Wright's opinions on race.

He really should have left this out of his statement. What it means is that what goes on in this church can no longer hide from public viewing.I agree (though only in part, because he was also talking about the media hounding the other members of the church, which is unfortunate). But this is what nearly every church wants - the freedom to say whatever they please without bothersome media scrutiny.

Where are you getting this from, I don't see anyone claiming that he was outraged in this thread.Maybe from here?If it is bad enough that he is 'outraged' and left the church, then certainly he MUST have heard at least ONE sermon that was equally bad in those 20 years that SHOULD have outraged him long time ago.

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, I can't make much sense of this post - but you have at least one point that is factually misleading (that he left the church due to outrage). And you still have not proved that Obama shares Wright's opinions on race.

I dont think he shares wrights opinion on race. But come on, it took him 20 years to finally distance himself. I gotta roll my eyes on that one. He only distanced himself after those clips made the light of day, or he would STILL be in that church.

I say outrage in the sense that he really was PISSED OFF that day he gave the press conference separating himself. You could see it in his face.

[Gokul43201]

I dont think he shares wrights opinion on race.This is what arildno asserted, I objected to, and you appeared to be agreeing with him on.

But come on, it took him 20 years to finally distance himself. I gotta roll my eyes on that one. He only distanced himself after those clips made the light of day, or he would STILL be in that church.I rolled my eyes too, but that isn't what I refuted arildno about.

[Cyrus]

This is what arildno asserted, I objected to, and you appeared to be agreeing with him on.

I rolled my eyes too, but that isn't what I refuted arildno about.

But I think there is some truth to what arildno said though. I mean, if your sticking around for 20 years, you are agreeing with SOME of what wright said.

[Gokul43201]

But I think there is some truth to what arildno said though. I mean, if your sticking around for 20 years, you are agreeing with SOME of what wright said.Yes, but he can agree with 90% of what Wright had preached and still disagree with all the things the appeared on 2 minutes worth of youtube video! Do you know what else Wright preached? Have you read the Audacity to Hope (http://www.preachingtoday.com/sermons/sermons/audacityofhope.html) sermon? After all, we know that sermon was important to Obama. Obama must have sat through over a hundred hours of sermons - there can be a whole lot of stuff in there that he agreed with that wasn't fun enough for Fox.

[TVP45]

There is a stream of Christian thought (James Cone is perhaps the best known, but not the most articulate, proponent) which believes that followers of Christ must accept marginalization and must seek opportunities to stand against the ruling hegemony. Father Pflegger, though obviously "chewing the rug", was preaching squarely in that tradition. One can find the same sort of "drama queen" performances and inflammatory words in Amos, Jeremiah, Mark, and Revelations among others. This is what prophetic Christianity looks like and it ain't always pretty, but the man is confrontational, not nuts. And, he was playing to his audience, who loved it.

[Astronuc]

No, I agree with arildno here. For 20 years the man was a part of this chruch. This is def not something new to him. To be 'outraged' so late at the game is just BS. Im sure he knew exactly what was said in that chruch when the spotlight wasnt on him, and he ate it up. If hes going to claim its suddenly not in line with his views, what did he do there for 20 years, sleep through the sermons? One can be a member of a church, but not attend Sunday services on a regular basis, or even not at all. It is not clear or evident what Obama heard or didn't hear, or with what he agreed or doesn't agree.

The pastor is not the church, but rather the church is the community or congregation, and it is up to the congregation or officials of the church to hire or remove a pastor, depending on the contract. I can't comment beyond that since I don't know the specifics of Trinity's structure or the relationship with Wright.

What I heard from Pfleger is troubling, because it is so negative and over-the-top ('rape' was used metaphorically for injustice, which is in contrast to Obama's positive message. But what I heard from Pfleger is consistent with what I have heard from some African Americans, and the fact that 'white folk' just don't get it - and IMO - most don't. America is still - for the most part - segregated! I see that everyday myself when I walk around town where I work, or visit any metropolitan area in the US.

If Wright suggests that African-Americans need to do more for themselves, i.e. empower themselves, then I think Obama would agree, and rightly so, but if Wright believes that the US or more controversially, that white America owes blacks some special compensation or reparation, then I think Obama would strongly disagree.

Like Gokul, I would caution people about making factual claims without any evidence or based on hearsay and innuendo.

[Cyrus]

One can be a member of a church, but not attend Sunday services on a regular basis, or even not at all.

That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to! :rofl:

[Astronuc]

That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to! :rofl: One could meet the minimum requirements of membership in a church, e.g. register as a member and provide a tithe or some other financial support, and then perhaps only attend on holidays or special occasions. I know many people who do exactly that. The church my family attended, when I was a kid, would have a few hundred in any typical Sunday service, but at Easter or Christmas, over 3000 would attend.

Besides the Sunday service, there are often religious education programs for children, youth, and adults, in which one could do instead of or inaddition to the service.

People go to church to enjoy the socialization and interact with friends.

In the past, I have taught 'Sunday School' rather than attend the Sunday service, but what I taught was essentially 'comparative religion' (classes covered many perspectives including atheism, agnosticsim, humanism, as well as all major and minor religions) and 'principles of morals and ethics'.

[lisab]

That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to! :rofl:

Oh, that happens all the time. Many Christians go to church only on Christmas and Easter.

[Cyrus]

Well, as an athiest, at least its good to know people ant going to church!

[TR345]

I have a few problems with Obama. First of all, there is no knowing who he is because he will act, say, or sign up for anything that will make him look good and advance his career. Who knows if he ever really was religious in the first place. He probably joined the church to help his career, now he quits to help it. Who is Obama really besides the person he thinks his voters want him to be. I would like him to stand up for what he really believes in, but how can he do hat if he has been living lies for 20 years?

[Gokul43201]

First of all, there is no knowing who he is because he will act, say, or sign up for anything that will make him look good and advance his career.Are you saying he has no principles whatsoever?

Will being a good President make him look good and advance his career?

[TR345]

Yeah maybe, but what does he want out of it, money? Maybe he wants to get payback on whites? Who knows what he wants out of the deal?

[TR345]

It is ironic because his opponent because McCain doesn't act he just says whatever he feels, or wants and doesn't give a blank what you think. At the same time, Bush was kind of the same way. He knew we knew they were screwing us, and they knew we knew that was the reason for the smirky grins. McCain will be the same, he tells it like it is, it is just too bad that how it is, is so messed up.

[Gokul43201]

Wait a minute...Obama is all deception, and McCain is a straight talker? I think you are living 8 years in the past. You've got some catching up to do.

Anyway, this is not the thread for this discussion.

[TR345]

Are you saying he has no principles whatsoever?



I think he is smart, so that is better than nothing, but as to his morals beliefs and positions on the issues, I have no reason to believe anything other than pandering.

[Evo]

Pfleger also has made contributions to Obama (D-Ill.), and his church programs have received thousands of dollars in state earmarks championed by Obama when he was a state lawmaker.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/30/chicago_cardinal_criticizes_re.html?hpid=topnews

While these two actions "alone" wouldn't raise eyebrows. I want to see how many churches Obama earmarked money for that never contributed to him. I want to see that for all candidates. I think that will be a "real" teller of what kind of politicians we are dealing with.

Statement of Cardinal Francis George concerning remarks of
Fr. Michael Pfleger about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during
an address at Trinity United Church of Christ on Sunday May 25, 2008

The Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates. Consequently, while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning.

Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged. Words can be differently interpreted, but Fr. Pfleger’s remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack. I regret that deeply.

To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Fr. Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning, will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all Catholic priests.

http://www.archdiocese-chgo.org/

[TR345]

Wait a minute...Obama is all deception, and McCain is a straight talker? I think you are living 8 years in the past. You've got some catching up to do.

Anyway, this is not the thread for this discussion.

Also, you are putting words into my mouth which is a deception. I only said that I have no reason to believe that he is all deception, but he is without doubt at least part deception. When he acts as though he didn't know anything about the church he has gone to for 20 years. It is kind of insulting to our intelligence to play us for fools like that.

Is it not obvious where McCain stands and who he is?

[Gokul43201]

Also, you are putting words into my mouth which is a deception.I put no words in your mouth. I asked you a question. Note the question mark.

Is it not obvious where McCain stands and who he is?It used to be that way a decade ago. Today, not in the least bit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

The McCain you've known exists no more!

PS: Speaking of pandering, we all know which of the three candidates refused the opportunity to engage in some real political season pandering when it came to the idiocy now known as the gas tax holiday.

[TR345]

Let me get one thing clear first before I continue, I am not for McCain. I respect McCain in some ways for his open personality. However, it is my belief that McCain is running to be the new "Bush". I don't think it really matters who McCain is anyways because he is running to be the next puppet of certain other powerful people who's practices are in my opinion dishonest, manipulative, abusive to our country, using the white house and the power of the government for personal and corporate benefit etc.

Obama is different because I don't trust his personality, but I at least he probably isn't working for the same people Bush was. That doesn't go to say that there are not others behind the scenes hoping to benefit from his election through means I don't agree with.

[Ivan Seeking]

If you know anything about how the US economy was basically built on the backs of black slaves, and the things that happend to them throughout history, its really not all that absurd. In THEORY, yes they should get something. Maybe not money, but edcuation, opportunity, I dont know. But I wouldnt start handing them out cash.

Its pretty convient for us, as white people, to say 'oh you dont get anything', meanwhile we got plenty from their slavery.

Well, perhaps other options might be considered, but we already have acted to help correct inequities in the system; for example through affirmative action, forced bussing, and a slew of civil rights laws.

Bill Cosby and his "give us cash" program were too much to believe. To me, asking for reparations for injustices that occured at least 150 years ago is completely bogus. In the case of Japanese who were imprisoned in WWII, we were paying to the survivors or their immediate family. But saying that in effect I am liable for actions of people that lived 200 years ago is going too far.

[Evo]

Well, perhaps other options might be considered, but we already have acted to help correct inequities in the system; for example through affirmative action, forced bussing, and a slew of civil rights laws.

Bill Cosby and his "give us cash" program were too much to believe. To me, asking for reparations for injustices that occured at least 150 years ago is completely bogus. In the case of Japanese who were imprisoned in WWII, we were paying to the survivors or their immediate family. But saying that in effect I am liable for actions of people that lived 200 years ago is going too far.What have we done to repay the American Indians? We stole their lands, killed off many of them, then stuck the survivors on small reservations away from the rest of us "civilised" people.

All through history people have been enslaved and there was never any recompense. It's very likley that every white person here at any one time in history had familiy members that were caught in battle and enslaved.

[drankin]

What have we done to repay the American Indians? We stole their lands, killed off many of them, then stuck the survivors on small reservations away from the rest of us "civilised" people.

All through history people have been enslaved and there was never any recompense. It's very likley that every white person here at any one time in history had familiy members that were caught in battle and enslaved.

Sure, we came in and took America. That's how everything worked back then. If you were powerful, you conquered to advance your empire.

The Indian people are very much American now. And they get a lot of recompense. Many reservations have taken advantage of the special rights they have and are very wealthy.

The Alaskan natives, were given special corporations to run. http://www.ciri.com/ is a good example. I believe there were 13 originally, some didn't prosper but some did. My two kids are part of CIRI. They have free medical, dental, and secondary education (if they take advantage of it).

So, Evo, you could be guilty of my recent infraction. There was, in fact, recompense.

Here is some good general info on the Alaskan corporations that were formed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Regional_Corporations

[Cyrus]

Sure, we came in and took America. That's how everything worked back then. If you were powerful, you conquered to advance your empire.

The Indian people are very much American now. And they get a lot of recompense. Many reservations have taken advantage of the special rights they have and are very wealthy.

The Alaskan natives, were given special corporations to run. http://www.ciri.com/ is a good example. I believe there were 13 originally, some didn't prosper but some did. My two kids are part of CIRI. They have free medical, dental, and secondary education (if they take advantage of it).

So, Evo, you could be guilty of my recent infraction. There was, in fact, recompense.

Here is some good general info on the Alaskan corporations that were formed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Regional_Corporations

You're kidding, right? Native americans have one of the highest alcohol/suicide rates of any minority in the USA.

[Cyrus]

Well, perhaps other options might be considered, but we already have acted to help correct inequities in the system; for example through affirmative action, forced bussing, and a slew of civil rights laws.

Bill Cosby and his "give us cash" program were too much to believe. To me, asking for reparations for injustices that occured at least 150 years ago is completely bogus. In the case of Japanese who were imprisoned in WWII, we were paying to the survivors or their immediate family. But saying that in effect I am liable for actions of people that lived 200 years ago is going too far.

Crazy as it sounds, the entire town used to get together and have a party when they were going to lynch somone. After they killed the guy, people took home body parts and put it in jars to show it off to people.

Owning up to what happend in the past 200 years ago going to far?

mmmmmmmmmmmm..........I donno.

The things done were so bad that, you kinda do have to own up to them. How, im not sure.

For startes, Katrina is one example where black people were yet again royally screwed.

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not opposed to owning up to historical facts, but in fact I didn't do anything. Nor did I profit from the slaves on Southern Plantations. My great-grandfather came here from Finland and homesteaded in South Dakota after he pretty much walked there from New York. That was after slavery was abolished. Now, I probably have a few distant family members who killed a few native Americans, but I doubt that my great-grandfather ever saw a black man [less while he was traveling from New York]. My family survived by doing their own manual labor. By chance it was discovered that the Black Hills had gold, but unfortunately none of that came my way.

But don't even get me started on Katrina. That was a disgrace beyond belief.

Also, I don't worry about the Native Americans because I am part Native American - in fact, from two different tribes.

On the other side, German immigrants who about the same time settled in Illinois.

[phyzmatix]

All through history people have been enslaved and there was never any recompense. It's very likley that every white person here at any one time in history had familiy members that were caught in battle and enslaved.

Very true Evo.

If you pursue that line (compensation for past injustices) of reasoning, where does one stop then? Should the Brits, the French, etc start nailing the Italians for what the Roman empire did? Should Russia, China, India (in fact, pretty much all of Asia and a large part of Eastern Europe) start asking for compensation from the Mongolians?

*****ing and moaning about injustices or unfairness in the past (even on a personal level) serves no purpose other than keeping old feuds and hatred alive.

Man, I get so angry about this. That reverend should be grateful that his ancestors were taken to the US as slaves because he has access to all the opportunities and advantages associated with living in a developed country.

There are about 800 million Africans, many of who are facing death through ethnic cleansing, starvation, exposure and disease on a daily basis and pretty much all of who would love to trade places with him if he really feels that an injustice was done to him.

[Ivan Seeking]

Would Obama have to pay himself? :biggrin:

[Ivan Seeking]

Very true Evo.

If you pursue that line (compensation for past injustices) of reasoning, where does one stop then? Should the Brits, the French, etc start nailing the Italians for what the Roman empire did? Should Russia, China, India (in fact, pretty much all of Asia and a large part of Eastern Europe) start asking for compensation from the Mongolians?

*****ing and moaning about injustices or unfairness in the past (even on a personal level) serves no purpose other than keeping old feuds and hatred alive.

Man, I get so angry about this. That reverend should be grateful that his ancestors were taken to the US as slaves because he has access to all the opportunities and advantages associated with living in a developed country.

There are about 800 million Africans, many of who are facing death through ethnic cleansing, starvation, exposure and disease on a daily basis and pretty much all of who would love to trade places with him if he really feels that an injustice was done to him.

That is a bit of an ends justifies the means argument, but it is hard to dispute the fact that the decendents of many slaves had or have it better here than they would [have] in Africa.

I think it was Eddy Murphy who did a routine about his trip to Africa... or maybe it was Whoopie Goldberg. She talked about how she got all fired-up about being African; the clothes and customs, the music, the food, etc. And then she went to Africa and discovered that in fact, [paraphrasing I'm sure] she is American, not African.

[arildno]

Mr. Wright is monomaniacally obsessed with the oppression of blacks.
He is physically incapable of opening his mouth without spurting his hatred.

It is impossible that Mr. Obama haven't heard his views.

Furthermore, in contrast to Muslim countries where you'll get killed if you leave your religion, and hence, many remain attached to it formally, but cannot be charged with collaboration and sympathy, Mr. Obama has no such excuse.

He was perfectly free in joining this church, nobody pressured him unduly in remaining there, nobody censored him from criticizing the oipinions of Mr. Wright, and hence, Mr. Obama retains full personal responsibility for having CHOSEN to remain a member in this loathsome congregation.

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama's involvement with this church came about because of their community outreach programs. It is also apparently one of the most prominent black churches in Chicago.

If there was any way to peg Obama as a black radical, you might have a point, but truthfully that is laughable. And I seriously doubt that anyone will be able to make that allegation stick. No closet Rev Wright could stand the scrutiny of a Presidential election campaign. And liberation theology is a historical fact of many black cultures in the US. The key is that Obama does not lay claim to these principles - the time for that sort of rhetoric has passed. This is not a new thing like religious based neo-conservatism and evangelical political activism, it is a relic from the past.

[TR345]

Reparations wouldn't be a bad idea if money could be traced back to profits made on the backs of slaves ie. Rich families that have inherited very large amounts of money from big time slave owners and corporations. I don't think it would be fair to take any money away from anyone who earned it legitimately. If slave money can be traced and records can prove it and minimum wage plus interest per slave, and if all can't be paid, then all inherited slave money and corporate profits could be liquidated. That is fair right, it would never happen though, we would have a new civil war before that happens.

[Art]

What makes the issue of black slavery different to the slavery practised on other race is IMO because many African-American's still have a strong sense of current injustices which fuels their anger over past injustices.

Unfortunately them living with a victim mentality perpetuates the problem as it is one of the factors preventing them from fully integrating into US society. It is this problem of being on the outside looking in that needs to be addressed as it seems deeply rooted on both sides of the debate. I have seen some right wing TV talkshow hosts tell their black guests' if they don't like it why don't they go back to Africa'. It is hard to think of a situation where a white guest whose ancestors moved to America a couple of hundred years ago would be told to 'go back' to wherever for criticising the US. It is that term 'go back' which shows how some Americans still do not consider African Americans (at least those who complain) as being as American as them.

On the other hand the idea of recompense is a non-starter for the reasons others such as Evo have already espoused in this thread.

I think people such as the Rev Wright are part of the problem rather than part of the solution and do the black community a huge disservice by telling them they are not responsible for their own shortcomings. Sure tell them how bad things used to be, history is important, but this should be tempered with a message of hope. That in the US today blacks can do as well as any other race and it is up to each individual to work hard to achieve their goal.

Whether Rev Wright is well intentioned albeit misguided and actually believes his own message is debatable. From what I have seen of his personal wealth I suspect he is cynically living his American dream off the backs of the blacks he claims to care so much about. If this is the case his exploitation is no better than the exploitation by the white slave owners he complains so much about.

[AhmedEzz]

Do you think Clinton still has a chance? maybe benefit from this bad media for Obama?

[jimmysnyder]

Do you think Clinton still has a chance? maybe benefit from this bad media for Obama?
No.

Text added to satisfy a curious criterion.

[Evo]

The Indian people are very much American now. And they get a lot of recompense. Many reservations have taken advantage of the special rights they have and are very wealthy.I guess you haven't read much about the horrible poverty of American Indians?

Poorest of poor, American Indians

'Deplorable' conditions

According to statistics from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are 1.43 million Indians living on or near reservations. Roughly 33 percent of them are children younger than 15, and 38 percent of Indian children aged 6 to 11 live in poverty, compared with 18 percent for U.S. children of all other races combined.

Only 63 percent of Indians are high school graduates. Twenty-nine percent are homeless, and 59 percent live in substandard housing.

Twenty percent of Indian households on reservations do not have full access to plumbing, and the majority -- 53.4 percent -- do not have telephones.

An estimated 50 percent of American Indians are unemployed, and at Pine Ridge the problem is even more chronic -- 73 percent of the people do not have jobs.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/07/clinton.tour/

[phyzmatix]

That is a bit of an ends justifies the means argument...

I hope my argument didn't come across as if I was supporting/trying to justify the atrocities committed during slavery since that definitely wasn't my intent. Apologies if my post can be interpreted as such.

I think people such as the Rev Wright are part of the problem rather than part of the solution and do the black community a huge disservice by telling them they are not responsible for their own shortcomings. Sure tell them how bad things used to be, history is important, but this should be tempered with a message of hope. That in the US today blacks can do as well as any other race and it is up to each individual to work hard to achieve their goal.

Whether Rev Wright is well intentioned albeit misguided and actually believes his own message is debatable. From what I have seen of his personal wealth I suspect he is cynically living his American dream off the backs of the blacks he claims to care so much about. If this is the case his exploitation is no better than the exploitation by the white slave owners he complains so much about.

That is very well put Art and is pretty much the same problem we have here on my side of the water as well.

[Benzoate]

Screaming to a group of black people that they have been repeatedly raped by American Whites? That's not hate mongering? Of I'm sure that did a lot of good to help smooth over racial tensions. And there were small children listening to him, what are they supposed to think? He's telling the congregation, throughout his sermon that white people are against blacks. Did you see the snippet of him praising Rev Wright, again evil White people are against them.

This is why Obama had to leave, not the parody of Clinton.

I went to a black church where our preacher would often mixed politics with religion. Our church even had guest preachers who explicit refer to whites as 'devils' and refer them as a clueless group of people who did not understand the "plight black americans face". But , like most of the members of my church , I never swallowed everything the pastor spout out at our congregation. Most of the members accepted the flaws of our preacher(, he squander the church's money, putting our church in $700,000 worth of debt, he was a womanizer,he cheated on his wife, and so many other unimaginable things). However, my church did not have a strong influence on the beliefs I hold as an adult today. In fact , I no longer consider myself a christian for reasons independent of my church.

As a result, my preachers politics did not have any affect on what I believe today. Come to think of it, I never learned anything from my pastor; When I was somewhat of a christian fanatic back in the day, I always followed the teachings of the bible more so than the teachings of my pastor

[Benzoate]

Very true Evo.

If you pursue that line (compensation for past injustices) of reasoning, where does one stop then? Should the Brits, the French, etc start nailing the Italians for what the Roman empire did? Should Russia, China, India (in fact, pretty much all of Asia and a large part of Eastern Europe) start asking for compensation from the Mongolians?

*****ing and moaning about injustices or unfairness in the past (even on a personal level) serves no purpose other than keeping old feuds and hatred alive.

Man, I get so angry about this. That reverend should be grateful that his ancestors were taken to the US as slaves because he has access to all the opportunities and advantages associated with living in a developed country.

There are about 800 million Africans, many of who are facing death through ethnic cleansing, starvation, exposure and disease on a daily basis and pretty much all of who would love to trade places with him if he really feels that an injustice was done to him.

I guess one could also make the argument, if not for Western Civilization strong opposition to slavery in the mid 1800's and European imperialism, slavery would still be very common in many parts of the world. At the time westerners were starting to oppose slavery, their were many cultures who strongly wanted to preserved the institution of slavery.

Yes, slavery shouldn't be perceived as being exclusively practiced by whites. It is an institution all cultures are guilty of.

[quadraphonics]

I guess one could also make the argument, if not for Western Civilization strong opposition to slavery in the mid 1800's and European imperialism, slavery would still be very common in many parts of the world.

Slavery *is* still very common in many parts of the world. There are more people in slavery today than at any point in human history. This includes the West, which, by virtue of its high level of development, is the world's most lucrative market for sex slaves.

[Benzoate]

Slavery *is* still very common in many parts of the world. There are more people in slavery today than at any point in human history. This includes the West, which, by virtue of its high level of development, is the world's most lucrative market for sex slaves.

You are right. There are more slaves today than their were 500 years ago. But the reason why there are more slaves now than in previous years, is simply because the human population has grown exponential. According to centerforglobal education , there are estimitated to be around 12 million slaves in the world. But, 12 million out of 6 billion people hardly constitutes as the norm.

[AhmedEzz]

ere are more slaves today than their were 500 years ago

I don't know but I'm not entirely convinced.

there are estimitated to be around 12 million slaves in the world
12 million slaves??? that's shocking...do u have a credible source?



Yes, slavery shouldn't be perceived as being exclusively practiced by whites. It is an institution all cultures are guilty of.

I couldn't agree more. What really saddens me is that Islam banns any kind of slavery yet we find it present in some areas in Yemen, Saudi-Arabia, the Gulf and some other areas. It really makes me sad, some people in those countries have truly **** heads.

[quadraphonics]

You are right. There are more slaves today than their were 500 years ago. But the reason why there are more slaves now than in previous years, is simply because the human population has grown exponential. According to centerforglobal education , there are estimitated to be around 12 million slaves in the world. But, 12 million out of 6 billion people hardly constitutes as the norm.

The number I've seen quoted most often is 27 Million slaves in the present world, although there are other estimates that range much much higher than that. But it is also true that this represents the smallest portion of the human population that has ever been enslaved, even while it is the largest absolute number of slaves.

[AhmedEzz]

27 millions???? really?

[TVP45]

Very true Evo.


That reverend should be grateful that his ancestors were taken to the US as slaves because he has access to all the opportunities and advantages associated with living in a developed country.

.

Surely you're being ironic and I'm not getting it??

[quadraphonics]

27 millions???? really?

That's what Wikipedia says anyway. Interestingly, slaves are today much, much cheaper to buy than they were back in the days of chattel slavery (after adjusting for inflation, of course). Seems like there's a new horror story about some underground child slaves in China every week these days, and of course the various conflicts in Africa end up producing countless slaves. And then there's the sex slave trade, which is huge all over the world.

[AhmedEzz]

I gotta open my mind up more.

[drankin]

I guess you haven't read much about the horrible poverty of American Indians?



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/07/clinton.tour/

I'm not arguing the state of a lot of Indians, I'm arguing that there has been recompense, after you said there has not been.

I've worked for a native foundation run by native americans, I've married a native american woman, I have native american children. You can't tell me anything I haven't already seen with my own eyes.

To say there has not been recompense is simply wrong!

[Evo]

I'm not arguing the state of a lot of Indians, I'm arguing that there has been recompense, after you said there has not been.

I've worked for a native foundation run by native americans, I've married a native american woman, I have native american children. You can't tell me anything I haven't already seen with my own eyes.

To say there has not been recompense is simply wrong!We took everything and gave them virtualy nothing, that is not recompense.

[mheslep]

That is a bit of an ends justifies the means argument, but it is hard to dispute the fact that the decendents of many slaves had or have it better here than they would [have] in Africa.

I think it was Eddy Murphy who did a routine about his trip to Africa... or maybe it was Whoopie Goldberg. She talked about how she got all fired-up about being African; the clothes and customs, the music, the food, etc. And then she went to Africa and discovered that in fact, [paraphrasing I'm sure] she is American, not African.Pretty sure that was Tina Turner.

[TR345]

We took everything and gave them virtualy nothing, that is not recompense.

They do get some recompense, they get free housing and other money for living etc. In the reservation at the town I live in, many are on a waiting list for their free houses though. My sisters ex boyfriend used to get large checks from his tribe, and now they get money from the casinos too.

The problem I see with the way that Native Americans get compensated is that it in a way keeps them down. They get free housing at the reservation which keeps them in the reservation, and they get enough money to live without a job. The reservation here is full of problems like drugs, gang mentality, lack of education, and too much drinking. I kind of feel they would be better off without the compensation so that they would be forced to make something of themselves and get educated so that they don't just hang around doing drugs and drinking.

Not saying they shouldn't get anything though. It wouldn't be right to force them to integrate. If I was a Native American, I wouldn't want to learn history from the government who raped my people and country. They say that in war, the winners write the history books.

[drankin]

They do get some recompense, they get free housing and other money for living etc. In the reservation at the town I live in, many are on a waiting list for their free houses though. My sisters ex boyfriend used to get large checks from his tribe, and now they get money from the casinos too.

The problem I see with the way that Native Americans get compensated is that it in a way keeps them down. They get free housing at the reservation which keeps them in the reservation, and they get enough money to live without a job. The reservation here is full of problems like drugs, gang mentality, lack of education, and too much drinking. I kind of feel they would be better off without the compensation so that they would be forced to make something of themselves and get educated so that they don't just hang around doing drugs and drinking.

Not saying they shouldn't get anything though. It wouldn't be right to force them to integrate. If I was a Native American, I wouldn't want to learn history from the government who raped my people and country. They say that in war, the winners write the history books.

There's a lot of truth in that. When you see them getting thousands of dollars a year and sometimes huge bulk monies (ex-wife got $100,000 one year) without earning it, it's hard for many of them to appreciate it. Some do, and make good use of it but many just squander it. Literally live on the streets, get their checks and drink them away. I've seen a lot of it. If I didn't have to work so hard to make a living, free money, free houses, free medical and dental, wouldn't mean so much to me either. Those that make use of it get a great advantage in life. Evo, when you see thousands of native Americans get checks for $100,000 in a single year just because, it's hard to say they don't get "recompense".

[AhmedEzz]

I saw on the news the other day how Native Americans are living. and I still can't believe that in the United States- the world's superpower- people live like that. Some don't even have running water, unemployment rates in the sky, poverty, under-education...I think that solving those issues is better than giving drunk people cheques.

[drankin]

I saw on the news the other day how Native Americans are living. and I still can't believe that in the United States- the world's superpower- people live like that. Some don't even have running water, unemployment rates in the sky, poverty, under-education...I think that solving those issues is better than giving drunk people cheques.

Would you care to give the US some ideas on "solving those issues"? Otherwise, what you are saying is just an unconstructive complaint.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"

The Native American people have even more opportunities available to them than the average US citizen.

[Astronuc]

Some compensation is relatively recent, and not all Native American tribes have casinos. Not all states allow Indian gambling, and some tribes have been cheated by people like Jack Abramov.

Over the past two decades, it was revealed that the Dept of Interior mismanaged records and royalties.

Look at the folks on Pine Ridge.


The Native American people have even more opportunities available to them than the average US citizen. That perhaps is true for some. But then none can enjoy the freedom in their own country in the land of their ancestors.


There definitely has to be a better way of improving the condition of those Native Americans who have been left out.


And what the disposition of Native Americans has to do with "Obama quitting Chicago [Trinity United] church" eludes me. :rolleyes: Perhaps the posts on Native Americans could be split into their own thread.

[drankin]

Some compensation is relatively recent, and not all Native American tribes have casinos. Not all states allow Indian gambling, and some tribes have been cheated by people like Jack Abramov.

Over the past two decades, it was revealed that the Dept of Interior mismanaged records and royalties.

Look at the folks on Pine Ridge.


That perhaps is true for some. But then none can enjoy the freedom in their own country in the land of their ancestors.


There definitely has to be a better way of improving the condition of those Native Americans who have been left out.


And what the disposition of Native Americans has to do with "Obama quitting Chicago [Trinity United] church" eludes me. :rolleyes: Perhaps the posts on Native Americans could be split into their own thread.

This is a good topic, I'll start a thread.

[quadraphonics]

But then none can enjoy the freedom in their own country in the land of their ancestors.

This is true of every person in America.

[TR345]

The thing that I find unfair about the recompense given to them, at least in this town, is that the reservation isn't a huge chunk of land. It is a small town here, and most people own at least a couple acres, many people own large parcels, and then there is the Rez. which is like a little suburb with houses right next to each other, sidewalks and stuff. They deserve more land, so that they have more room to build and stuff. At the Rez, they play catch on the street, at my house, I play catch in my yard. Something is wrong when the native americans in a community are living more like city people than the foreigners.

Giving them incentives to stay there on their little suburb which has a huge unemployment rate, and it turns into something you would see in the inner city with gangs and drugs/drug money etc.

[NeoDevin]

There is nothing preventing them from purchasing more than they are given on the Rez. It is, in the end, their own decision to remain in such conditions. In Canada, we have similar problems with many of the reservations. Most of the natives I've known who were (what I would call) successful in life (ie. no excessive use of drugs and/or alcohol and/or gambling), moved away from the reservations as soon as they could, and never looked back. Due to the gangs/drugs/generally bad influences common on many of the reservations, it is very difficult for a person living there to come out ahead.

[TR345]

Also, there is basically no law enforcement there, although they do have their own private security guards. One of the last times I was there, some kids were lighting a car on fire using gasoline.