“Whaddya mean, we still hate blacks? We elected one for President, didn’t we?”
Friday, November 7, 2008Posted in: American Politics, Is It Because I Is Black?
For those of you who are fed up with posts about Barack Obama, and politics, you may want to look away, because here I go again.
A ping-back on my previous Obama post, led me to KS Augustin’s response, to this comment made by Dorothy Mantooth:
“Yes, funny how Americans turned out to not be the stupid racists so many people insist we are, isn’t it?”
I read Augustin’s whole blog post, and decided that there were quite a few things I disagreed with (shocker, I know)
Anyway, Ms Augustin prefaces her post thusly:
I wasn’t keen on the election of Barack Obama for several reasons, and Mantooth’s comment is one of them. First off, let me say that there is bigotry in every country in the world. Every. Damned. Country. If I search within myself, I will admit that I hold prejudices and negative opinions about segments of various world “others” myself, no matter how rational and even-handed I try to be. I console myself with the fact that I, or my family, have been hard done by at the hands of these “other” groups, but that still doesn’t excuse me extending my default distrust to every member of that particular group when we first meet.
I agree with her about the prejudice thing. Everybody is prejudiced in some way or another, including myself unfortunately, but then nobody’s perfect.
Anyway, Ms Augustin’s comments get a bit more interesting:
Following on from that point, just because Obama was voted President doesn’t mean that the USA has suddenly become a haven of love and sparkles for minority groups.
The above is very true, and I’m pretty sure that deep down, nobody really believes otherwise, but what Ms Ausgustin doesn’t seem to realise, is that one of the reason why this means so much to so many, is because it feels like a start towards a different kind of reality. It feels like a new road in a very long journey. A road which leads to possibilities, that few could ever imagine. The idea that having a different skin colour may not be the barrier that many thought it was.
Augustin continues:
However, I’m afraid that a large segment of the population will use this as an excuse well into the future. “Whaddya mean, we still hate blacks? We elected one for President, didn’t we?”
I’m pretty sure that this is something that happened way before Obama won the presidency.
Examples? OK, here we go: “Hey, I can’t hate blacks, cuz my best friend is black” or “Hey, I can’t hate blacks, cuz I got three of ’em working for me”.
I don’t see how people denying that they are racists by claiming they voted in a black president is something that we should worry about. That kind of self-denial isn’t new, it’s been happening for years and years.
The problem is, with all this focus on race, the realisation that people voted for Obama due to other reasons is lost in the flurry. And I’m sure that several million people held their noses when they pulled that lever, rationalising that someone who was clearly intelligent, erudite and seemingly empathetic — even if he was also black — was at least better than what came before. (An indictment of true democracy, but that’s for another day.)
I’m pretty sure that the number of people who held their noses whilst voting for Obama weren’t as great as Ms Augustin appears to believe, and even if they were, was that not exactly what probably happened when Bush won his second term? In fact, is this not something that happens in every election?
I know for a fact that I’ll be doing the same thing when I vote at the next British election.
In fact, I think the NAACP has a bigger job ahead of it now, because discriminatory practices in the US will continue, but it will be entwined with the kind of superior rhetoric that will diminish understanding rather than increase it. In other words, I’m waiting for this kind of comment and all its attendant consequences: “Why do we even need affirmative action programs any more? I mean, a black’s in the White House, for Chrissakes!”.
But that kind of rhetoric wouldn’t be new. I’m pretty sure there are people out there who have used all kinds of justifications for wanting to ban initiatives such as affirmative action, pre-President Obama. I think it would be a tad naive to assume otherwise.
What Ms Augustin almost seems to be suggesting is that it would have been better to not have a black man in office, because it would now make things harder for blacks. I mean really? Harder than slavery, and segregation?
At this point in time, I feel that the election of Barack Obama will prove to be a difficult step for one of race relations in the USA. It may even end up being a step backwards, although I hope I’m wrong.
See my previous point about having a black man in office being a harder than the days of slavery and segregation.
Any missteps he makes are going to be “black” missteps. Any unpopular decisions, “black” decisions. And, considering that there are very few other prominent African-Americans in the political life (how many AA governors? how many AA DAs? Senators? Congress reps?), his errors are not going to be because he’s stupid, or greedy, or short-sighted, or high as a kite, or has idiotic advisors, (all good and valid excuses for past Heads of State) but because he’s black.
‘Black’ misssteps? Black decisions? Who exactly are the people who will openly judge (I’m assuming she means openly, otherwise how would we know?) Obama on his presidency, based on the colour of his skin?
Republicans? I’m pretty sure that some of the staunch Republicans will hate him whatever he does anyway.
Those people who secretly judge others by the colour of their skin, rather than the content of their character? The world is brimming with people like that. There’s a name for them, and they’ve been around for hundreds of years, and I daresay they’ll be around for hundreds more.
Fox News? Even they wouldn’t be so bold as to publicly blame his presidency on the colour of his skin.
This attitude (and I can’t wait to see some of this drivel play out on Fox News as a result of Obama’s election) could very well polarise sections of society, all utterings of “everybody’s equal in America” to the contrary. Those of paler hue may feel even more threatened and become intransigently bellicose, prodded by the hateful promptings of people you know about as well as I do. (Do you honestly think they will stop their rantings? Or will it be more a case of throwing petrol on a fire?)
So let me get this right, Ms Augustin seems to be suggesting that with a black man as president, white people would start feeling more threatened, and more of them would end up going over to the dark side and joining the dreaded KKK?
Obama’s presidency wont be the reason why decent white people join the KKK.
You wanna know why? Because I don’t believe that decent white people would join the KKK.
Besides, is that a good enough excuse for Obama to not have been elected? Because the KKK might increase their activities and start recruiting new members? I think not.
It’s like saying that we shouldn’t have gone into Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden because we might have angered those who think that westerners are infidels who deserve to die.
On the other hand, you will have a black population feeling incredibly energised and enthusiastic and more willing to grasp opportunities that have (or haven’t) been presented to them before. And, at that point, my mind turns to the Hispanic population, wondering what they will have to cope with in the near future as well.
I think black people feeling energised is a good thing, but I’m not sure about the concern over the hispanic population. Am I missing something here?
Listen, a President Obama wont be a perfect president. He will make mistakes, like others before him. He will perhaps be sub-consciously judged more harshly because of the colour of his skin. His every move will be watched with suspicion and distrust, by those who oppose him, and there will be those who pray for his failure, even whilst they are dining at his table. There may be even those who would try to kill him and his family.
It is sad and horrible that President Obama will probably be subjected to all of the above, but these are things that the people who forged the path for him, endured for years, under much tougher and barbaric conditions.
I believe that Obama is more than capable of dealing with all of the missiles that will be thrown his way, and that his presence in the White House is a good thing for America, and the world.
Anyway, before I sign off, I thought it might be a good time to remind people that Barack Obama is actually half-white and half-black, no matter how we choose to see him.
Roslyn Holcomb
November 8
5:56 am
Emma, I’m not in CA, I can only repeat what Sherri Shepherd said because I heard it with my own ears. I believe for sure that she believes that. And if she believes it goodness knows how many other people do. Many people are not going to be bothered to do research. If their pastor is in the pulpit telling them that he can be arrested for preaching against homosexuality they’re going to take that as truth. That’s why it’s crucial that the No 8 people do the outreach to let people know that it’s propaganda.
As for the comparison of the struggle I don’t feel this way, but I understand where they’re coming from. Black people have always had to deal with privileged whites co-opting that which is ours. The notion that they would now even take our movement, our liberation is outside of enough. Regardless of why they feel that way, the fact is that they do. The question is, do you want to be right, or do you want to get rid of this appalling amendment?
Interestingly enough Teddypig, I haven’t seen any blog posts from gay black men one way or another. I definitely know that they are in a unique position of not feeling fully integrated into the gay community and fearing the loss of the black community. It must be scary as hell to literally be in a metaphorical No (Gay) Man’s Land.
Emma Petersen
November 8
6:46 am
@ Indida – No one is blaming black people for Prop 8 for passing. (Yet. J/K) And seriously, hasn’t anyone ever told you no one puts baby in the corner? Ignore me. I have a bad habit of randomly quoting movies. The past week it was The Color Purple.
What I’m saying is that we need to do better. You can’t tell me as a black woman you’ve never witnessed the irrational fear some blacks have against homosexuality.
@ Roslyn – I’m not trying to be mean but Ms. Shepherd doesn’t strike me as not the brightest bulb on the tree. I love our people, seriously I do but sometimes…We can be a tad bit hypocritical.
For example, my church going, born again, shouting, dancing in the aisles friend we will call C*. C* informed us the other day she voted yes on Prop 8 because homosexuality is a sin. When asked her about all the fornicating she does (and yes, she does get around) she had nothing to say.
Isn’t a sin a sin?
And seriously, no one should ever take what a man (woman) says as the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth. That pulpit doesn’t make the man (woman) behind it perfect, he’s still very human and still very prone to the human condition.
Ebony
November 8
6:47 am
@ GrowlyCub, I think you mean “on the down low.” Growly it’s a combination of total baloney and malicious gossip. Don’t get me wrong, yes there are Black men who are bi-sexual, gay or on the down low but it’s not an epidemic the way it seems those particular people made it seem.
@ Teddypig/Emma, I think all of us know at least one or a few gay people; whether we encounter them at work or in our families. All of us sin and no one sin is better or worse than the other. In the eyes of God–sin is sin. In the bible, homosexuality is a sin. As far as why the outcome of Prop 8 resulted the way it did, people were probably looking at it from a biblical standpoint and voted accordingly. It did not have to be because they were prejudice against someone who is gay. Marriage, the way God intended, is between a man and a woman and because of that reason, people are again holding on to biblical principals. They are not discriminating, they just don’t agree with the lifestyle.
A lot of times some people try to compare being gay to being Black. No comparison. Being born Black is not a sin.
Ebony
November 8
6:59 am
How about we go back to the days when Blacks weren’t allowed to marry Whites? Isn’t that the same thing?
@Monica Kaye–no it’s not the same thing. It’s interesting how people try to compare being gay to being born Black—again–no comparison–they are TWO totally different things.
Emma Petersen
November 8
7:03 am
@ Ebony – Okay. Let’s say homosexuality is a sin. Ummm when are we going start punishing everyone else for their sins?
In the bible fornication is a sin. But every day in this country a child is born out of wedlock. I can guarantee you if someone tried to pass a law to abolish the rights of single parents, everyone would be up in arms.
But a sin is a sin. Let’s be fair. If we punish one let’s punish all.
Jenna
November 8
7:10 am
“A lot of times some people try to compare being gay to being Black. No comparison. Being born Black is not a sin.”
….
….
So you’re say being gay is a sin?
Interesting.
Seressia
November 8
7:30 am
According to the US Census Bureau 2006 ACS Estimates, California’s population is:
* 59.8% White American,
* 12.3% Asian American,
* 6.2% Black or African American,
* 0.7% American Indian,
* 3.3% mixed, and 17.3% of some other race.
* 35.9% are Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
There are 2.26 million blacks in the entire state of California. Let’s say half of those are under voting age. Let’s be generous and say that 80% of the remainder were eligible/registered/voted. So, 800K black folks voted. 70% voted for Prop 8, which would make that what? 560K black folks?
Considering that 5.4 million people voted in favor of Prop 8, that’s a whole heck of a bunch of non-black folks left over. 70% percent, while it sounds impressive, isn’t all that much when the actual number is considered.
FWIW, I would have voted against Prop 8, and I’m one of “them.” I find it difficult to believe in the “sanctity of marriage” when drunk azz people can get married in Vegas 2 minutes after meeting each other, just because one has a penis and one doesn’t.
The Profane Angel
November 8
10:06 am
Note to TeddyPig (off topic but not intending to hijack or distact thread)
I grew up in Wilmington, and you remind me very much of a kid I went to high school with, Joel Perry. And that’s a major compliment, btw. Any chance you’re Joel in disguise, and while I guess if you are you can’t say so, I’m going to hope you are and say how the hell are you??? Still sticking it to our locals, in a “warm, friendly way” of course? (I’m relatively new to this mesage board thing and couldn’t figure out a way to send a PM – not enough coffee perhaps, or maybe it’s the ungodly hour, or that my computer illiteracy is terminal. My apologies for the interruption, everyone) TPA
Karen Scott
November 8
10:08 am
Eve, I love that quote.
Ebony, I think you can compare gays not being allowed to marry, with blacks being banned from marrying whites. They are both infringements on people’s humanity.
What really annoys the hell out of me are the people who conveniently quote the bible when something is distasteful to them. It’s ridiculous, and it’s hypocritical.
If you are going to talk about sins against god and the bible, then I expect you to be pure as the driven snow, i.e, no pre-marital sex (and then it better be purely for procreation and you better not enjoy it), no lying in any form, no cheating, no adultery, no stealing, (if you’ve ever taken so much as a pen from work, you’re going straight to hell) no impure thoughts etc etc.
Can anyone honestly say that they are without sin? No? So in that case why do people choose to be so selective about which parts of the bible they listen to?
It’s ok to fuck like rabbits,spawn shitloads of children out of wedlock, sometimes to different men, but not ok to let gay people marry the person they love?
Utter hypocritical bullshit.
Teddypig
November 8
12:41 pm
I grew up in Wilmington, and you remind me very much of a kid I went to high school with, Joel Perry.
Actually my “redneck” grew up here in Wilmington. That’s Jason my partner he wanted to move back here and I said yes. We have been together almost 9 years now.
I myself was an Army brat but always was brought back to San Francisco as home since all my grandparents lived there.
Black people have always had to deal with privileged whites co-opting that which is ours.
Why do you immediately slap a “white label” on Gay Rights and the struggle of homosexuals for equality? I don’t understand that thinking.
Teddypig
November 8
3:58 pm
Pam’s House Blend
Alisha Rai
November 8
4:37 pm
@ Ebony “They are not discriminating, they just don’t agree with the lifestyle.”
Fine. Don’t agree. That is your personal choice. Think it’s a sin. Don’t hire them, don’t live near them, don’t let your kids play with them, cause God forbid the gay should catch (it’s a choice, right? As you said, no one is born gay like people are born black).
But how can you take an entire groups rights AWAY? This is America. Equality for all.
For those who voted for prop 8 (or here in florida prop 2), they went home after voting to their cozy little homes, secure and self riteous that they had made America…what? A little less sin free? Wiped out homosexuality? They’ll probably never think of it again, or if they do, only with satisfaction.
But this measure has and will affect the lives of a significant portion of our population…the ones who voted for it don’t have to live with it for the rest of their lives. The people who it affects? Imagine loving someone to pieces, but not even being able to enter into a domestic partnership with that person. And before you say they can still be with that person, why do they have to get married, why the hell do heteros have to get married?
This whole thing just makes me sick. My best friend sobbed his heart out when prop 2 passed, and its consumed his and his partner’s every waking thought for the past two weeks, and will continue to do so.
Discriminate, please, I’m begging you. Far better to not score that promotion, than have the state tell you you’re a second class citizen and strip your rights.
/soapbox
Kayleigh Jamison
November 8
4:58 pm
Sort of off-topic, but Karen have you seen these?
http://flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/sets/72157608716313371/
Obama released photos of him and his family on election night, watching the results and McCain’s concession speech.
As for all the hoopla over Michelle’s dress? I think she looked amazing.
Karen Scott
November 8
5:52 pm
They are a beautiful looking family aren’t they?
By the way, how fabulous was Michelle Obama’s dress?
Kayleigh Jamison
November 8
7:42 pm
They really are. His daughters are adorable. I can’t believe how calm and composed they all seem to have been.
I freaking LOVED that dress. She’s been getting criticism for it over here, people think it was “too bold,” but I think it was fabulous. I have a feeling she’s going to be quite the fashion icon, like the new Jackie O, and I can’t wait!
Laura Vivanco
November 8
11:45 pm
On the subject of Proposition 8 and the African-American vote, Nojojojo’s got what I think’s a really good, detailed post which touches on a lot of the issues raised on this thread.
For example
and
and
It’s a nuanced post, and these excerpts don’t do justice to that, but I thought it was worth including them here anyway, to give a flavour of what Nojojojo has to say.
Roslyn Holcomb
November 9
12:58 am
I’m not trying to be mean but Ms. Shepherd doesn’t strike me as not the brightest bulb on the tree.Of course Sherri is stupid, but there’s no rule keeping stupid poeple from voting. A great many people are religious because they want to be told what to do. They don’t want to think or do research. Now, you can dismiss them if you like, but I assure you the other side IS NOT. In fact they’re banking on it. So your campaign must appeal to them as well.
Because the face of homosexuality in this country is overwhelmingly a white one. Most of the people you see out and about agitating for gay marriage are also white. It would behoove the movement to change that if they’re interested in appealing to other groups. That would be a part of the outreach that must be done.
Emma Petersen
November 9
1:13 am
Last night I talked to older generation friends about this. And each of them said the same.
They voted no on Prop 8 because as one of my favorite people so eloquently put it, “Today they come for them. Tomorrow it will be me.”
I don’t care if it was 2 black people or 2 million, we should know better. Because seriously, call me a conspiracy nut but I can guarantee you if they will f#ck over teh gays the negroes will be next. Don’t let Obama’s presidency lull you into a false sense of security.
Emma Petersen
November 9
1:17 am
@ Roslyn – I don’t know if outreach is even possible. I know at my church we have a group for gay Catholics that let’s them know they are more than welcome but…maybe I am under the wrong impression but would traditionally black churches be receptive to speaking with gay people, white or black?
Ebony
November 9
1:19 am
@Emma, People are free to be whoever they want to be in our country.
@Karen,Nobody is perfect and I don’t know if anyone said they were. Everyone has sinned and will sin. Anyone who says they don’t sin–is lying (which is a sin).
@Alisha, You can “NOT” agree with a person’s lifestyle and still be best friends, so that statement doesn’t apply here. I know it sounds so cliche’, but yes, I do have gay friends and even have some gay relatives. Anyway, it’s not taking away any rights. People are free to live like they want to here in our country. The only thing that it doesn’t allow is for folks to take advantage of benefits, which understandably I can see why that’s an issue if you’re with your partner for years and then they die or something and you’re left stuck out in the cold…but marriage was ordained between heterosexuals.
We can agree to disagree because being gay and being Black are two different things.
Ebony
November 9
1:22 am
Emma, I had to laugh when I read this part of your comment.
Ebony
November 9
1:25 am
One thing about Black churches, we’ve embraced people from all walks of life–even when we don’t agree with their lifestyle. You can believe in one thing and not discriminate against a person. No matter your race or sexual orientation, I can’t name one Black church that will turn anyone away.
Emma Petersen
November 9
2:10 am
I worry that people feel that now we have a black president the work is over. When actually the work has just begun, children. EVERYTHING that goes wrong with this presidency will be because this man is black. Everything his wife does, everything his children do will because they are black. (They’re already talking about the first lady’s dress that night. Ooooh too flashy! (we all know they meant ghetto) Puh-lease. Michelle looked FEIRCE!)
And as black people we need to tread very carefully in the next coming years because I guarentee you ALL eyes will be on us.
Ebony
November 9
2:21 am
Emma, I don’t think Black people think that at all—that’s a misconception. We all know just because our great country pulled together and voted a Black man into the oval office, doesn’t mean the entire struggle is over…what it does is give us hope that people as a whole have changed—and that’s a good thing…yes, we still have to be twice as good as non-AAs to excel, etc…but it’s a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, you’re probably right on this. There’s no way around it. We always have to be on our p’s and q’s in any position we hold (whether its the average worker, or we’re running the company) and he’ll be under a microscope, but he knows that and he’s ready.
Emma Petersen
November 9
2:22 am
@ Ebony – Maybe it’s different here but I’ve heard of churches who ask members to leave because they are “sinning”. These sins can run the gamaunt from wearing make-up and pants to having a child out of wedlock and just “acting” homosexually.
*shrugs* I don’t know, I’ve only been a traditionally black church once. I know all black churches aren’t like this but I have to say as a person used to a 45 minute mass it seemed like I was in there for days.
Ebony
November 9
2:27 am
Wow…really. Then the benches should be empty because we all sin.
Thankfully, the churches I’ve been to aren’t like that or I would have to stay at home because I was just lusting…I mean thinking of Robin Thicke as I listened to his latest CD. 🙂
AztecLady
November 9
2:28 am
Just
to be bitchyerm… to go on the record: I hate with the passion of a thousand suns when people talk about being gay as a “lifestyle.”Frankly, if being homosexual were a choice, given how often it has meant death, persecution, humiliation, abuse, condemnation and excommunication–to list just a few of the consequences–would people willfully declare themselves gay?
What, are all people who come out as homosexuals suicidal? Or just blasé about the consequences of their “choice”? Can the selfrighteous “lifestyle”-calling, “ohmybestfriendandevenanunclearegay” so-accepting (not) crowd even consider how difficult and heart wrenching coming out is for most homosexuals, and just how absolute the need to be true to one’s essential nature must be, to make homosexuals brave their family, friends, community–and their so often negative opinions–by coming out?
Emma Petersen
November 9
2:28 am
@ Ebony – To borrow on something Chris Rock said, “normal” black people may not think this but the not so “normal” black people do. The thing is, there are some of us out there that expect Obama to get into the oval office and start handing out 40 acres and mules.
And to honest I’d be insulted if he did. There is no way to repay me for my peoples’ blood that drenches this soil except to treat me as you’d treat any person.
Ebony
November 9
2:31 am
Ditto
Emma Petersen
November 9
2:37 am
I’ve encountered more than one AA person who told me they were perfect because they were “saved” and my reply was that they really should stop drinking the kool-aid because man is not impervious to sin. God gave us free will for a reason, so we would turn away from sin but that didn’t mean we would never sin again.
And really. Alan Thicke? Hehe. He’s so skinny.
Ebony
November 9
2:41 am
Amen.
Robin Thicke…he’s Alan Thicke’s son…he can sang…not sing…but sang his butt off.
Ciar Cullen
November 9
2:52 am
Eh, I’m late to this party, again. But I live in the US, on the East Coast, and I was stunned (probably stupidly) by the truly jubilent feeling on Wednesday amongst my colleagues (whatever their race). Granted, I’m probably the most conservative person on my liberal campus, but I felt a sense of peace and hope I haven’t felt in a long time. Ever? As one black colleague pointed out–there are assholes of every race, and the media is happy to feature them. Rational people will not blame whatever happens to the President on his race. Nor will they credit his accomplishments *solely* to his race. He faces a shitload of problems. I’d like to just give it a try, get behind him and just try. You know?
Emma Petersen
November 9
4:13 am
@ Ebony – LMAO! I totally said Alan Thicke, didn’t I? Freudian slip? Hehe. Probably.
Teddypig
November 9
5:13 am
Most of the people you see out and about agitating for gay marriage are also white. It would behoove the movement to change that if they’re interested in appealing to other groups. That would be a part of the outreach that must be done.
Well if you are talking celebrities I do know both Magic Johnson & Samuel L. Jackson campaigned heavily against Prop 8. In fact I think Magic Johnson showed up on Larry King Live about it.
Miki
November 9
5:59 am
I’ve never bothered to look this up – being a single person – but, if I understand it correctly, nowadays you may choose to be married in church, but it isn’t considered “legal” unless you have a “marriage license” registered by the state.
I doubt my thoughts on this will ever “fly”, but I’ll share them anyway.
If the religious groups feel that “marriage” is a God-given right, the let them have it. If you have your relationship acknowledged in a church (synagogue/mosque/whatever), you can call that relationship a marriage. And the religious groups can choose according to their beliefs who they will or will not “marry”.
The government license (and legal protections) to acknowledge that two people are choosing to unite their lives and possessions, should be titled something else. Domestic partners, legal unions, whatever – I don’t much care what name you apply to it. And the government can determine what it defines as the “union” based on its own definition of human rights, without “taking away” from anyone’s religious beliefs, but also without having to bend to them, either.
And if some of our current “legal protections” assume that “marriage”=”children”, then revise the legal provisions to be not be for marriage, but for parents.
There. Religious beliefs protected. Family legal provisions protected. Human rights protected.
Karen Scott
November 9
9:52 am
Kayleigh, I can’t believe Michelle is getting flack for that dress, it was awesome! No doubt most of the comments will have come from the Righteous Right.
Roslyn Holcomb
November 9
3:16 pm
But they’re not gay (at least not openly). For that matter Coretta Scott King was also in favor of gay marriage, but again, did the No 8 people mention that in their campaign? I really think this is an outreach issue, not a homophobic one.
Teddypig
November 9
5:05 pm
But they’re not gay (at least not openly). For that matter Coretta Scott King was also in favor of gay marriage, but again, did the No 8 people mention that in their campaign? I really think this is an outreach issue, not a homophobic one.
I think because of the difficulty of reaching any Church with any Gay issue they are so firmly against as a sin it was felt better to attempt to have straight people represent an enlightened Civil Rights argument.
Obviously that did not work.
I honestly think the best way to handle this is to enforce the strict division between church and state that I believe in and to start ripping tax exemptions away from these big mega churches all together.
They want to become preaching political organizations and funding statewide petitions and aligning with laws and parties at any level then pay up.
The laws are already there on the books they just need to be enforced. I think there would be suddenly less religious zealots when taxes become the issue.
Roslyn Holcomb
November 9
9:00 pm
IMO, and of course, this is only my opinion, the best way to get folks on your side is to show them that they are discriminating against people who look like them. If homosexuality only has a white, and especially white male, face they’re not going to be seen as victims. White males are seen as perpetrators and beneficiaries of white privilege and as long as that’s the case it’s very difficult to demonstrate that this is wrong.
Robin
November 9
10:16 pm
I honestly think the best way to handle this is to enforce the strict division between church and state that I believe in and to start ripping tax exemptions away from these big mega churches all together.
IMO this can be a dangerous road to start down. Besides the fact that the establishment clauses does not merely protect people *from* religion, but also protects people *for* their religious beliefs, there is the fact that churches are among the most active anti-poverty mechanisms in our society, and they are sometimes the most effective and efficient (think of the way the churches acted after Katrina, for example).
Further, the separation between church and state doesn’t mean that there is absolutely no relationship between the two (that would be discriminatory in another way). And in the world of non-profit status, the impact in the kind of thing you suggest would ripple WAY beyond religious organizations, potentially muzzling secular organizations that some people take issue with ideologically. It is a really delicate balance when it comes to policing the various aspects of the First Amendment (which includes the establishment clause) because a narrower interpretation and enforcement philosophy lowers protection for all of us.
IMO, as long as we have a sense of competitive oppression (which often shows itself during elections, as when, for example, many second and third generation Latinos voted in CA to strip undocumented immigrants of certain services and protections), we’re going to have these revolving areas of discrimination. Jumping off what Roslyn said, I’d suggest that we need to move past protecting specific group interests and embrace the strength that comes with a more cooperative model of social and political organization. Where we continue to cling to our superficial and circumstantial differences we set ourselves up to stand alone when we most need the power of effective alliances, IMO.
Teddypig
November 9
10:42 pm
IMO this can be a dangerous road to start down. Besides the fact that the establishment clauses does not merely protect people *from* religion, but also protects people *for* their religious beliefs, there is the fact that churches are among the most active anti-poverty mechanisms in our society, and they are sometimes the most effective and efficient (think of the way the churches acted after Katrina, for example).
Robin,
Did you not just hear that the Mormon church donated something like 15 million dollars to Yes on Prop 8?
That money is never going to go to house the homeless or feed the hungry. This grand anti-poverty mechanism you seem to think is happening due to religion is more likely to be used to fund political conservative social issues. Much like most of the South.
In fact most of the effective efforts to feed the hungry I have contributed to are simply community programs with no single church tie in.
So no Robin, I do not agree with your theory but point to the obvious facts.
Teddypig
November 9
10:49 pm
Read this Salt Lake Tribune article about all this but pay attention to what he says about “Were you listening in church when the letter was read from the First Presidency about supporting proposition eight?”
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10798657
This is what I am saying Robin.
Robin
November 9
10:24 pm
Oh, I’m well aware of the involvement of the LDS in Prop 8 (Daily Kos had the docs recently, showing the the LDS was planning this as far back as 1997). It’s one more reason I thought the No on 8 campaign would have been more aggressive early on.
But IMO the way to combat those discriminatory beliefs is not to head down a road where unintended consequences actually create a worse social situation for those you want to protect.
The National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan (http://www.npc.umich.edu/) has done some fascinating research on the impact of churches on various issues in low-income communities, on the post-Katrina response, and on the crime rates in urban areas, among other things. I’m not a religious person myself, but I believe that we get a lot of secular social benefits from churches, benefits we would not necessarily get if we had to rely on the government (regulations often delay action) or even solely on secular organizations (the faith aspect of churches seems to have specific importance in certain communities on certain problems).
JC Wilder
November 10
10:38 pm
One of the many guidlines of Christianity is to ‘judge not let ye be judged’ – and yet the Christians seem to spend an inordinate amount of time judging others. The religious right would love to try and force their beliefs down the throats of everyone – including those of us who are NOT Christian.
So women should be forced to have children if they are pregnant because it’s the right thing to do.
Gays are not allowed to publicly proclaim their love for one another nor make it a binding relationship because it’s ‘wrong’.
What next? There are Christians who believe the women must wear skirts and not cut their hair. There are sects who believe that women must bow to the commands of their husbands or fathers. There are sects who marry off their children at birth…where does it end?
This country was founded on the concept of freedom of religion. This means you are free to believe as you will without fear of retribution. It also means that I am free to believe as I will without someone else trying to force me to conform to their beliefs.
I believe gays should be able to marry and partake of any right given to hetero couples so basically, if I were living in California, the religious right just shoved their beliefs down my throat by allowing churches to donate to the No on 8 fund.
Is this wrong? You betcha!
I agree with TeddyPig – any religious institution should be censured for delving into politics. They should lose their tax exempt status for doing so.
Teddypig
November 11
12:40 am
But IMO the way to combat those discriminatory beliefs is not to head down a road where unintended consequences actually create a worse social situation for those you want to protect.
From IRS Publication 1828 Page 5,
Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
Robin, what part of this is not understandable to the Church? What part of “ignorance of the law” is acceptable in court as an excuse for me and you?
Does the IRS let you NOT pay taxes because you did not know? Our country is in debt right now and how much would taxing of these obvious political organizations help pay that bill?
Robin
November 11
6:01 am
When I read that IRS reg, I hone in on the phrases “a substantial part of its activities” and “too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status [emphasis mine].” I doubt the LDS would be pleading ignorance; I suspect they’d be pleading that their lobbying does not meet the “substantial part” requirement. And IMO it would be one hell of a fight to get a court to rule that they exceed the “too much” bar, in part because of the balancing of the First Amendment rights, and also because I think that regulatory bar is very high.
That doesn’t mean taxpayers should not challenge the tax-exempt status of any particular non-profit; but realistically I think it’s going to be tough job to take on a well-established church, especially one as large and multifaceted as the LDS.
In the case of Prop 8 does that seem unjust? Hell, yes. But I’d personally be pissed if someone sued a non-profit for lobbying “too much” for no votes on Prop 8, and I could see that kind of challenge happen, too.
Teddypig
November 11
1:48 pm
Robin,
First off I am not saying that ALL Mormons are to blame in this case. I am though saying their Church was THE overwhelming financial support for the whole campaign and the major organizer.
I do not even begin to think that The Mormon Church as an organization even losing that tax exempt status would actually stop people being Mormon or believing in their church.
I just do not see the sense in not seriously investigating this incident.
The Mormon Church in this case, as with many other Churches in the past, is plainly not helping the homeless or feeding the hungry or providing any anti-poverty support you seem to think is key to them keeping their tax exempt status here. They are promoting the ideology of the Church Leaders politically even against the wishes of some of their more vocal members.
So I don’t see your slippery slope here.
If they want to become a political group then they need to not cover it up with a non-profit status that does not match the public’s expectations of what a Church should be doing.
What you seem to be telling me is that they are so big that even though they went against the spirit of that law they can still win in court. Maybe, but maybe that will bring better definition of that law. As you well know that is how better laws get created or existing laws get clarified.
Roslyn Holcomb
November 11
5:47 pm
I know that the IRS investigated several Episcopal churches because their priests preached against the Iraq war. I can’t see how it’s possible for a church to give millions of dollars to deprive people of their civil rights yet maintain their exempt status.