Barack Obama in 1990 on Black Churches and race politics
Here's Barack Obama writing in 1990 on Political Power of Black Churches.
He says their traditional role includes "supporting candidates for office". Isn't that a violation of IRS rules?
Is he gonna have to run from these words?
http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm
Advertisement
here's the link:
http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm
March 23, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that traditionally, black churches have supported candidates for public office. Think back to the past several elections. How many politicians have campaigned in black churches? Almost all of them. Bill Clinton did, John Kerry did, Al Gore did, George Bush did. I don't know how they get around the legal implications of allowing campaigning. Possibly they provide the opportunity to all of the candidates, I don't really know.
I don't see why you are saying Obama should run from these words. His words were from 18 years ago, and they are simply pointing out the reality at that point in time. Why is he accountable for the traditional role of black churches?
March 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, you guys are really pushing this "Black Churches = Threat to America and Democracy" stuff huh?
You should be ashamed.
March 23, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said anything about a threat?? And why knowing more about a candidate is a bad thing? What are you worried about?
March 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a church tells its members to go vote for a candidate, or fund a candidate, that would be a endorsement, and that would be against the church's tax exempt policy.
March 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is significant that these are Obama's words.
(I happen to agree with him; I'm an HRC supporter but I actually agree with most of what Obama says in this piece.)
But I don't agree that it is "the role" of a church to support an individual candidate. This is why they are being investigated by the IRS. Obama is acknowledging that this is what they do in Chicago and he is encouraging MORE involvement of churches in politics, not cautioning them about it. he knows the law.
March 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol,
SHEESH! The title wasn't as you posted, nor was the subject. You sure are a senationalist, aren't you!
Anyway, that 20-yr-old self-written explanation of Barak Obama's heart for community organization is priceless, expecially considering what he is accomplishing these days through his grassroots campaign. If it's not already required reading for his volunteers and staff, it sure should be! Thank you for posting it here. Reading it gave me a new appreciation for his integrity. It's increased my respect for the man manyfold.
Cheers!
March 23, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
CarolS: Thank's for the link. Here's the paragraph where the quote came from. It states that Obama thinks support of political candidates by black churches is NOT what's needed but rather full-fledged community organization. Rather understandable since he had just left his community organizer job after three years to attend law school.
Quote:
"Nowhere is the promise of organizing more apparent than in the traditional black churches. Possessing tremendous financial resources, membership and — most importantly — values and biblical traditions that call for empowerment and liberation, the black church is clearly a slumbering giant in the political and economic landscape of cities like Chicago. A fierce independence among black pastors and a preference for more traditional approaches to social involvement (supporting candidates for office, providing shelters for the homeless) have prevented the black church from bringing its full weight to bear on the political, social and economic arenas of the city."
This quote out of context is one of the more implausible ones I've seen. I wonder if you read the full article.
March 23, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound as though you believe the IRS rules are enforced equally. The IRS has been no less politicized than all the other parts of the Bush administration. Conservative churches take political stands all the time and never get a sniff from the IRS. Liberal congregations invite an anti-war speaker and the IRS is all over it. Every aspect of our government has been corrupted by the Bush cabal, and the IRS is no exception.
March 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
artfam, agreed.
Why should churches be tax exempt anyway?
March 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, talk about taking things out of context! I encourage everyone here to actually read this column you've obviously not read yourself. Entitled "Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City," this column from a younger Obama is, in fact, talking about the importance of community organizing and the power of institutions like the church and government and civic groups to help solve the problems of the poor. So, carol s., how in heaven's name did you EVER decide that black churches "supporting candidates for office" was the mainstay theme of this article?
I laugh, but I also note with some irony that this kind of cut-and-paste stuff you've done here is classic GOP crap we'll be seeing in the fall. I've no idea what your politics is about, but you should really read what you share with us before you share it, or else you look pretty darn foolish, as you indeed look now.
On top of carol's twisting totally out of context this essay Obama has written, most of you guys posting responses here appear woefully out of touch with what's been happening with government and churches across the country in partnering up to solve community problems. And if you consider THAT kind of effort controversial, have you forgotten, maybe conveniently, of Bush's own Faith-Based Initiatives office? I share the link here - to White House website info, no less:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/
...Whew! Folks in the Obama and/or Clinton campaign offices will surely earn their pay keeping up with all this sad display of BS...
March 23, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is because I am very troubled about tax exempt status for churches at all but most especially those whose activities are principally political that I have a problem supporting a politician whose history is all about using churches for political action.
I feel this is more of the same faith based BS that Bush is all about.
March 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone's into it, blusage. Even your candidate, Senator Clinton:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives/
March 23, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dana99 - and others. you are right, thanks for the check shot.
I do think the topic is important but in view of what it means in the primary it was, on reflection, a pretty lame post.
March 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify. I don't regret posting this link. I think it adds depth to our understanding of the man on an important topic right now. I do think it was lame to "frame" it the way I did.
March 23, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter, but I do agree that Churches should not be getting tax exemptions, regardless and this has long been a topic of debate among those who write on Constitutional law. In many cases there have been exceptional abuses of different types of tax breaks churches can apply to get, besides the standard one.
You'll find a number of articles on the subject at Findlaw
March 24, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink