Is the Obamas' Church Anti-American?

Yesterday, commenter Kevin Fleming recommended looking at the website of Trinity United Church of Christ, which Barack and Michelle Obama attend; whose just-retired pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., was disinvited by Obama from introducing his Presidential bid because of Wright's controversial denunciations of endemic white racism and "Zionism" and his association with Louis Farrakhan (with whom he traveled to Libya to meet with Muammar Qaddafi back in 1984).  To get us started, Kevin copied some bits verbatim off the website.  For example:

"The Prison Industrial Complex is nothing more than the re-creation of the slave plantation. In the slaveocracy of the Prison Complex, imprisoned people are rented by these For Profit Prisons. Therefore, what you have is an essentially free labor base to build an economy."

In "THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM":
Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.”

* Killing [talented blacks] off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
* Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
* Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
* So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.”)

A white, Jewish, upper-middle-class, middle-aged friend said much the same thing to me on the phone yesterday:  approximately, that we are now rivaling nations like China with over two million in our prisons, thanks in good part to the double standard in drug sentencing between users of crack cocaine (predominantly black) and powder cocaine (predominantly white).

OK, so I'm looking at the website and I find I'm going to have to dig to locate those statements Kevin quoted.  The church's mission statement is left-leaning but unproblematic.

This looks like it might be the source -- talking points on "Black Liberation Theology" -- but then it turns out it isn't. 

And here's the Black Value System, which dates back to 1981.  I am beginning to see that Kevin quoted very selectively.  Mixed with the oppressor/liberation rhetoric, there is much here for a conservative to love:  Commitment to God, Commitment to the Black Community, Commitment to the Black Family, Dedication to the Pursuit of Education ("We must forswear anti-intellectualism"), Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence, Adherence to the Black Work Ethic (that's a little like calling relativity a "Jewish theory," as the Nazis did, but never mind), Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect.  Ah, now comes "Disavowal of Middleclassness."  In its entirety:

1. Disavowal of  the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.
                     
                   Those  so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
                  
   1. Killing  them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to  kill off one another.
   2. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
   3. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
   4. So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.”  If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B.  And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.

A couple of comments

• Wright is almost suggesting that criminals in jail are precisely the most talented members of the community, the potential leaders whose energies have been thwarted and turned aside into criminality.  That's an absurd generalization.  Certainly some of the people in prison are gifted and some of them aren't. 

• How you are going to pursue education and excellence without also "chasing middleclassness" is a mystery to me, but of course what he's saying is that people who achieve security and excellence shouldn't give in to the temptation to become more identified with their new class than with their group of origin (as successful people have been tempted to do since time immemorial).

OK, so here's what I think you can fairly say about this: 

• It attempts to build a strong and somewhat separate black community, on the grounds that a degree of separateness is essential to building strength.  I imagine Wright would argue that both the temptations and the subtle deprecations out there in society at large could undermine a black person's resolve, at least in the near term.  You can argue against that, but it's a fair argument.

• There's nothing in it about commitment to country.  The Black Value System appears to pledge its primary allegiance to the black community, both within and beyond the United States.  In this and other respects (its strong religious, work, and family ethic and economic aspirations), it does somewhat resemble the Nation of Islam.  Like most attempts to rally a demoralized and degenerated population, it posits not only an "us" but a "them," a lamentable but fundamental shortcut in human psychology -- using negative emotions to spur positive ones.   The "them" is not America per se, but a vaguely paranoid conception of a white racist (and vaguely Jewish?) power structure and value system.
  

Barack Obama has continued to attend this church while publicly dissociating himself from some of Rev. Wright's views, such as his approval of Louis Farrakhan.  You have to see it as this homeless, identity-less man's attempt to root himself somewhere.  He is working backward -- he's a hydroponic orchid trying to grow him some roots rather than a rooted organism trying to broaden out.  I actually think it's brave of him to risk his cosmopolitanism -- but not abandon it -- by choosing to cast his lot with the black community.  As for Trinity Church, so many of its values are mainstream and middle-class.  If it talks victimology to a degree, it certainly doesn't argue that it's the government's responsibility to fix things -- it's the community's own responsibility and ability.

The frosting of black separatist radicalism on those mainstream values can be dangerous, or it can be temporary -- a kind of remedial foundation, a protective cocoon in which to grow strong enough to go out and contend in society at large on an equal footing with people who've had a longer, stronger foundation.  I see Kevin's point, and at the same time, Trinity Church doesn't scare me.  On balance, it looks like there's more good than bad there. Look at the website and decide for yourself.

Comments

[PatHMV]

I think the insistence that the prison system and the war on drugs are some white conspiracy to "control" black people is an extremely dangerous bit of teaching, for many reasons. First, it's just not true, so it identifies the wrong cause of the problem, which always makes it about impossible to solve that problem. Second, it continues to foster an "us versus them" mentality, when the focus should be on reminding us all of our common membership in the human race. Third, it gives the thuggish criminals yet another excuse to avoid accepting responsibility for their own actions.

I can understand some separatist actions, for the reasons you suggest. But of an "our community needs to fix our own problems" sort, not a "we hold outsiders responsbile for our condition" sort. And I'm not sure that the separtist bit is a good idea even temporarily. I wouldn't expect a bunch of white supremacists to come away from a period of isolation with more good will toward black people. On the contrary, to the extent that the community improves during the separation, that will be seen as evidence (by both the black and the white separatists) that segregation is good, that both of the races are better off when segregated from one another.

Trinity Church doesn't scare me in the sense that I'm worried that it intends to create a generation of bomb-throwing revolutionaries, but it does scare me in the sense that I fear it will increase, rather than decrease, racial animosity in this country.

[amba]

I guess I am somewhat optimistic that as people do get themselves together, most of them become less angry and defensive. (The obvious exceptions are the power-hungry, for whom being perpetually angry is a way to gain a following of losers). If you join the mainstream without a clear positive sense of where you come from, you can be at sea (which is probably how Obama felt).

What bothers the hell out of me is the need to posit a caricature enemy in order to rally people. This tactic is hardly unique to the black community; it seems to be a particularly nasty bit of universal human psychology.

[Ruth Anne]

Certainly the enlightened Boomer in you must find something odd about the men on the pastoral staff wearing dashikis?

Funnily enough, as of yesterday, I have an African-American sister-in-law. She just took her oath of citizenship. She's a caucasian from S. Africa.

[amba]

As is evident in our very own blogosphere.

[amba]

That was a p.s. to my own comment just before yours, Ruth Anne.

I don't care what they wear, but I think it shows that a) they're stuck in the '60s mindset and b) they're still insecure.

One thing is for sure -- identity politics isn't "change we can believe in."

[James Stanhope]

In regard to the elements of black separatism found on Trinity United Church's website, I would only point out that white segregationists applaud enthusiastically when any black church or political movement willfully ghettoizes itself and devalues any of its members who might want to break out of the "ghetto." Especially in Georgia, where I live, black politicians who go out of their way to reinforce racial divisions are actually increasing support for segregationist Republicans. That may seem obvious, but it has been done in Atlanta by former Mayer Bill Campbell and Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and the result has been to increase white support for the most reactionary elements of the GOP in Georgia. Folks at Trinity United Church in Illinois need to think about that when they preach any degree of black separatism.

[amba]

[Pat's and wj's comments from a previous thread]

Pat said:

while the sentencing disparity for the different kinds of cocaine is reflected a little bit in prison stats, it's hardly the prime driver of imprisonment. If you look at this DOJ report on prison statistics, you find that of the 492,000 black men in prison in 2004, 112,500 were in jail primarily because of a drug offense, while 260,800 were in jail mostly because of a crime of violence (that's state prisoners, not federal). I can't find a similar break-down by offense type for the federal system, but it is a much smaller system. In 2004, there were 1.2 million people in state prisons and 186,000 in federal prisions (with another 766,000 in local jails).

It's a myth that large numbers of people, black or white, are locked up for long prison terms just for using a little dope. Even in my state of Louisiana, which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country, most criminals are either violent or have committed multiple property crimes or are actual drug dealers. Yes, there are some isolated exceptions, but those are exceptions, and are not responsible for the vast bulk of incarcerations.

One of the (many) things the "prison industrial complex" people fail to understand is that the people who run the prisons have virtually no control or influence over who goes there. It's the local judge who decides whether to send you to jail, and they are not, in fact, financed by the "prison industry." Their budgets do not increase based on how many people they sentence to jail, they get no cut of the "profits" of "slave labor."

The church connection remains a very dangerous one for Obama. His pastor appears to me to be a bit of a loon, a conspiracy theorist type. Certainly the church practices some of the worst sort of grievance politics. Sen. Obama knows full well that the church's views would be unpalatable to large numbers of Americans.

But of course if he renounces the church, he would be showing disloyalty to people to whom he has been close, he would be acting like a politician, something he cannot afford to be pegged as.

[wj said]

t might be interesting to find out what the threshold is for deciding someone is a "drug dealer." That is, some of those locked up as dealers really are. I have no problem with that at all.

But some, suspect, merely got caught by the Costco phenomena. They buy more than a single doses because it is cheaper that way, not because the plan to re-sell. I mean, I may buy TP in packages of 36 at Costco, rather than single rolls. But does that mean I am necessarily selling it on?

[pat said]
wj, based on my experience as a prosecutor and as a criminal justice policy advisor for our governor a few years ago, I can tell you that what you're talking about does happen (we had a very low threshhold for PWID - possession with intent to distribute - heroin for many years here, which led to some very harsh, long sentences), but I don't believe it accounts for that many of the large numbers of inmates. Most often, the threat of prosecution for distribution is used to encourage a guilty plea to a lesser charge which better reflects the actual crime, and that threat usually works pretty well. There are certainly some people in prison for your "Costco" theory, but it doesn't account for any significant percentage of the prison population.

[amba]

James Stanhope: excellent point, thank you. Racism isn't ended by racism (as MLK and even late Malcolm X would have acknowledged).

[amba]

Note that the Black Muslims bumped Malcolm off just as (and because) he was beginning to separate himself from them on that very issue. Possibly quite a loss, given subsequent developments such as Trinity Church. Who says reconcilers are mushy and wussy when so often it's they who get knocked off because they threaten the haters' vested interests.

[PatHMV]

I would say, however, that I don't know that I would use the highly pejorative label "anti-American" in reference to Trinity. While I think some parts of their politics are a very bad idea, and likely to cause more harm than good, I think they generally mean well, and are sincere in their desire to improve the lot of black people in this country generally. They do not appear to desire to change or undermine our fundamental way of life as Americans, and so I wouldn't call them anti-American. Just wrong.

[Gran]

I live in lower Alabama. Several of my coworkers have commented that they wouldn't be welcome in Obama's "Black only" church. Of course, none of the people want to comment on number of black members in their churches. Like it or not churches in many parts of the country continue to be mostly single race groupings.

[Spud]

Is the Obamas' Church Anti-American?

I've come to the conclusion that Church and God are not the same thing.

[huxley]

Is the Obamas' Church Anti-American?

Well, it's certainly not pro-American. Obama's church declares its allegeiance to the black community and to Africa.

It's not neutral either. To the extent it mentions America in its writings, it characterizes America as a "captor society" and blames that society for blacks being in prisons and murdering each other. Pretty nasty.

That leaves anti-American--as in against America. How seriously so, I leave to others to decide for themselves.

[huxley]

I also note that very, very few Christian churches mention race or homeland as part of their spiritual mission. One could argue that this cuts right across a core teaching of Christianity that humanity is all one.

"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus." --Galatians 3:28

Obama attends a radical, black identity church.

[Spud]

That leaves anti-American--as in against America. How seriously so, I leave to others to decide for themselves.

Posted by: huxley

And you call yourself a classic liberal?

[huxley]

Yes, I do. Like many political terms, definitions vary, but here's one from wiki that works well enough for me:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.

I don't see what that has to do with being able to observe that Obama's church sees itself in opposition to America.

In any event, please address my posts, not who you imagine me to be, and whatever cavils you may have with that conception.

[Spud]

Sorry huxley, that was a stupid question. As far as I'm concerned it is too early to tell what is what, with any of them. So far all the accusations hurled his way aren't enough to persuade me the other choices are better.

[karen]

Spud- you have to realize you are here- on amba's blog-- not on RWing News where you get into fistfights and name calling :0).

I'd like to know from huxley(please) how you think a Classical Liberal differs from the elites of Liberalsm now and how you differ from Conservatism(minus the rabid *self-righteous* Right that spud loves to demonize)?

[huxley]

Karen -- As I see it, modern American liberalism has gotten tangled up with various currents of leftist populism and progressivism, particularly through the lens of sixties radicalism.

I thought Hillary was honest and accurate when she identified herself as a progressive, not a liberal. Obama, too, comes straight out of the same political melting pot. They are both direct students of the Saul Alinsky tradition of radical organizing.

Given the shift of American liberalism, I'd say that to be a classic liberal today means that I am largely conservative. But I don't know their old battles and wounds. I don't revere Goldwater or Reagan. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. I don't share much of conservatives' crankiness. For instance, though I find her politics pretty suspect, I don't have a visceral animus towards Hillary. Likewise, McCain.

[karen]

Thanks, huxley.

I think i'm that way myself-- although, i don't trust Hillary more because of a personal reaction to her persona; and, i'm conservative, too. That Church/God thing that spudly doesn't think as the same(spud's a friend here in the NEK of VT- gone to look @a good herd of cows w/my husband right now, actually)is what shapes my world. Although, i wouldn't say i'm "religious". Simply, conscious and trying to be true to my beliefs.

Hardcore Conservatives will sniff upward and call me a RINO. I sorta feel like that. I'm also getting comfortable w/it. It's a flexibility ofa sorts that is less restrictive- a little lycra is always a good thing.

[huxley]

Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand with "real" conservatives. I talk to them in person and via the web, and they tolerate me well enough -- frankly, more so than some of my progressive friends. But at times their eyes cross and their voices rise--like with McCain--and, while I understand their objections, I don't get their vehemence.

[amba]

'A little lycra is always a good thing." Words to live by!