« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »

April 2008

April 29, 2008

With God as one of his enemies, you can't blame Jeremiah Wright for having a bad day

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

I know most of you have heard just about enough from the so-called Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  I'm sure Barack Obama has.  But let's face it, to Republicans and Hillary Clinton, Wright is the gift that keeps on giving.

Nothing more really needs to be said.  The man is a bona fide hater and those who receive his hate-filled wrath are in some good company.

On April 28th Wright spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D. C.  Besides the usual tirade, Wright entered into some revealing dialogue after he was asked about his relationship with Louis Farrakhan.

Wright said, "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy.  He did not put me in chains.  He did not put me in slavery.  And he didn't make me this color."

Did you catch that?  It seems these words flew right over the heads of those in the mainstream media.  A more cynical person might say the dominant press ignored what Wright said because it would have the potential to further damage Barack Obama.  However, Wright couldn't hurt Obama any more than he's been doing for a number of weeks now.

But back to Wright.  With millions of Americans watching on live television, the pride of Black Liberation Theology said God was his enemy.  No wonder Wright is so bitter.  That's a heavy burden for anyone to carry around, especially for a so-called minister.  When I heard these words, I was amazed, though it doesn't take long while listening to Wright to realize he is mad at someone.  But the saddest thing to learn was that Wright is mad at God because He made Wright a black man.  So much for African-American pride.

Yes, even conservatives like me are getting tired of the Rev. Wright Show.  Yet, as a Christian, I have pity on a man who harbors so much anger within his heart.  Wright's words were not a result of some kind of rhetorical slip either.  I'm sure he truly is mad at God and he wants the world to know it.  Remember, in some of the early videotapes taken of sermons from the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Wright called Christ a black man.  Therefore, the full message is Wright is mad at God for making him a black man and Wright sees Jesus as a like-victim of what he interprets as God's poor judgment.  Wright even fantasizes about being in slavery and being in chains.

If I were a psychiatrist, I'd say the man is suffering from a persecution complex.

Suddenly, it all makes sense, doesn't it?  Barack Obama gently nudged his former Pastor aside in his attempt to win the presidency.  Here again, Wright was persecuted.  This time by Barack Obama.  And now the good Reverend is bound and determined to make Obama pay the price politically.  But Obama deserves all he gets from his association with Wright because he failed to make a clean break with the man.

Obama demonstrated poor judgment in his dealings with an individual who Obama knew espoused radical views for more than 20 years.  Thankfully, the Almighty exposed the flaws in Obama's judgment before it was too late.

Those who believe all men can find redemption through Christ should not be overjoyed at the rantings of this troubled individual.  Wright himself needs to settle his argument with God.  He is a man who is truly in need of prayer.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

April 28, 2008

Earth Day--Paganism's Environmental High Holy Day

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

You couldn't have missed it, if you tried.  There were TV specials on National Geographic, CNN, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, among many others.  Oprah commemorated the event and every newscast seemingly reminded viewers of the day's significance.

It was Earth Day, a holiday meant to celebrate the Earth, but something just didn't feel right about it.  Perhaps it's because Earth Day seems to be transforming into a religious celebration.  The day now has an overtone reminiscent of paganism.

Earth Day has its high priest in Al Gore.  It has an apocalyptic vision held within claims the World will be doomed because of global warming.  It has places of worship which are represented by institutions of higher learning and science.  And it offers a way to penance for past sins with carbon credits that can bring redemption to sinners.

Believe it or not, there is an online website where one can go to receive a carbon emissions number which represents your particular footprint on the environment.  If this sounds a bit extreme, think about the following.  PBS now has a series which depicts how the planet Earth would look if man were removed form the scene.  With pride, scientists explain every sign of man could be wiped away in just a few hundred years.  Narrators in the series almost sound hopeful that such a day will not be far in the future.  "This will not be a quiet place because man is gone," the narrator tells viewers.  "There will be the sound of the wind and the water.  Earth will be full of sounds."

The documentary goes on to describe the Earth devoid of any remnant of man.  With pride, announcing, in a thousand years it would be hard to find evidence that human beings walked the planet.

What a wonderful picture this paints, doesn't it?  The wilderness will reclaim our cities, our monuments and man's greatest triumphs of art and culture.  But it really wouldn't be a great loss because, after all, the Earth would survive--at least that's what they seemed to be telling us.

In this vision, the planet is deified.  And, in reality, this is not a new vision.  For years, scientists have been telling everyone who would listen that the planet is simply a result of natural processes.  The plants and animals which inhabit it are there due to natural selection and man is more of a blight on nature than a part of it.

If you don't believe Earth Day is a new religious holy day, a comparison might convince you of the fact.

Easter, perhaps the most holy day in Christendom, recently passed with barely a notice by the media.  Certainly the day was celebrated with reverence in Christian churches and among people of the faith.  But it is apparent the culture--and those who drive it--are doing everything possible to remove its significance from our society.  Could you imagine a movie like "Easter Parade" being made today?

In Judaism, Passover is one of the most important days of that faith.  It also received barely a mention, earlier this month, by those in the media.  Were these days slighted because we have a population which no longer believes in God or are there forces directing society away from faith?

Polling indicates over 80% of Americans refer to themselves as Christians.  Yet a small minority has systematically removed--or attempted to remove--all mention of faith and religion from the public square.  However, a society cannot remove such social underpinnings without repercussions.  Indeed, history has shown when civilizations undergo such change, they soon fall to conquering forces.  Therefore, Earth Day is a product of necessity for those who have lost purpose in our culture.  They do not worship a higher power or, at least, a traditional god-like force.  So, they revert to something that held sway over men thousands of years ago, but today they call it something new...environmentalism.

Should mankind respect the world we live in?  Answering "no" to that question would be foolish.  But worshipping the land and the planet itself is folly and it gives short shrift to the Creator.  In every civilization where man has cast tradition aside, chaos and destruction soon followed.

Since Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970, it cannot be said we have learned to treat our fellow man any better than we had before the day was conceived.  Perhaps we are missing the message when nature takes prominence over the welfare of man.  In the near future, Earth Day may be the biggest holiday of the year.  But, as the PBS series notes, there may be no one around to celebrate it.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

NOTE: Comments to blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

April 25, 2008

Bernie Schoenburg Gives Honest Portrayal of Dan + Julie Zanoza's Pro-Life Testimony

RFFM.org NEWS -- LINCOLN, ILLINOIS -- Recently, Bernie Schoenburg of the Springfield State Journal-Register [www.sj-r.com] called RFFM.org's Executive Director Dan Zanoza to discuss a YouTube video that Pastor Dustin Fulton of the Jefferson Street Christian Church [http://www.jeffstreet.org] in Lincoln, Illinois took of Dan + Julie Zanoza's testimony on their abortion. 

The Zanoza's testimony was used in conjunction with a series of sermons Pastor Fulton was conducting on socially significant issues which face Christians in today's world.  Schoenburg wrote a short, but very fair account of the Zanoza's testimony and it was refreshing to see someone in the mainstream media cover the issue of abortion without a preconceived bias.

Youtube_logo The full YouTube testimony can be viewed at:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=4nuEU3YLlvg

Below is the opening excerpt of Schoenburg's column.

by Dan Gura, Contributing Editor, RFFM.org

**********

Springfield_state_journalregister_l

Springfield State Journal-Register

Published Thursday, April 24, 2008
Abortion regrets

by Bernard Schoenburg

A Lincoln man known in some political circles, along with his wife, have taken their heartfelt story to the world through YouTube, the Internet Web site featuring videos.

DAN ZANOZA, who is blind, living on disability and who writes conservative commentary on his www.rffm.org Web site, is pro-life on abortion. And that’s part of what makes the Internet video ...

For full article go to: 
http://www.sj-r.com/columnists/bernard_schoenburg/2008/04/24/bernard_schoenburg_ata_s_plea_far_from_reform_tout/

Schoenburg also writes on the death of BILL ANDERSON, a lobbyist, who recently lost his battle with cancer at the age of 43.  Schoenburg, in the same column, also details Governor Rod Blagojevich's relationship with ALI ATA, former executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority, "who pleaded guilty in federal court to charges including lying to the FBI about the role of ANTOIN “TONY” REZKO, a chief Blagojevich fundraiser, in getting Ata his state job."

**********

NOTE: Comments to blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

April 19, 2008

Could Conspiracies, Including the Kennedy Assassination and Others, Survive in Time of Internet?

Conspiracy Sunday by Daniel T. Zanoza

AUTHOR'S NOTE: For a number of weeks, RFFM.org will write a series of columns on the conspiracies which have helped to form the world we live in today.  From the killers themselves to the media's role in conspiracies, RFFM.org will attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff.  There will be no discussions of flying saucers, USO's (unidentified submerged objects) or the like in this series.  RFFM.org encourages readers to submit intelligent comments about the existence of conspiracies and, who knows, perhaps one of the real killers of JFK might actually write in.

Now, before I start receiving weird comments about strange things, let me make one thing perfectly clear.  I don't believe aliens landed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.  I don't believe thousands of people are being abducted by little gray men every year and I don't believe President George Bush knew that two of the most important buildings in the financial world would be attacked on 9/11 and didn't do anything about it.  Folks, that would be the last place a capitalist nation would have destroyed.

However, I think it's almost a certainty that John F. Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy that took his life on November 22, 1963.  I also believe the killings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy were collaborative efforts.  Then, there are unanswered questions about the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995; Flight 800--which blew apart over the Atlantic Ocean in 1996; and the crash of an Airbus in Queens, New York that went down in November of 2001.

Though over 70% of the American public agrees with me regarding the killing of JFK and has questions about the other events I brought up above, I'm sure there is already someone out there calling me a "conspiracy nut".  You see, those who have been assigned to defend the company line have used the "conspiracy nut" phenomenon to explain away all these monumental occurrences.  Indeed, those who believe Sirhan Sirhan had an accomplice with him on that dreadful night in Los Angeles' Ambassador Hotel in 1968 are grouped together with those who claim they have been impregnated by little men with watermelon-sized heads from outer space.

It's part of the modus operandi used by conspiracy debunkers.  We are either mistaken or we're crazy.  And have you heard this one?  Those who believe in conspiracies have a need to fill a psychological void within themselves.  "They just can't believe one man could have killed such an important individual," say the skeptics.  "These people can't be blamed for their delusion.  It's just a natural reaction to a horrific experience."

After hearing this baloney more times than I can count, I've come to the conclusion conspiracy debunkers are crazier than those who think they have been taken to the Crab Nebula and beyond in a cylindrical-shaped object.  Either that or they have received fair compensation for an extraordinary inability to deny facts and accept poppycock.

In fact, have you noticed something?  All the assassinations of the 20th century have a common theme.  It's as though there is a playbook somewhere which must be followed to the "T" no matter how ridiculous that scenario may be.

World War 1 began when Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo by a lone anarchist.  Remember that theme.  A lone mad man who changes the world all by his itty bitty self.  The same play book was used when Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak was knocked off by Giuseppe Zangara ... you guessed it, another anarchist who missed the President of the United States with an errant shot that hit the Chicago Mayor who just happened to be fighting Al Capone's mob in an attempt to institute reform.

Could you just hear it?  Somewhere, conspirators were saying, "they're buying this line."  So, they pulled out the same old story in Dallas, Texas.  The loner, Lee Harvey Oswald, somehow squeezed off three shots at the President of the United States.  "It was an easy shot," conspiracy debunkers claim.  Except for the fact Oswald was shooting at the leader of the Free World.  Do you think there was any pressure involved with that situation?  It's like a two foot putt and, if you miss it, you die.

But the quickest way to notice that something is fishy in Denmark is by watching the press.  When the media runs away from a certain angle to a story, while everyone else thinks that story makes sense, there's usually something up.

I remember coming across a 10 year anniversary issue from the Chicago Tribune which commemorated the Kennedy assassination.  It was an actual copy of a late edition of the Chicago Tribune from November 22nd, 23rd and 24th of 1963   As hard as I looked at the combined coverage of Kennedy and Oswald's killing, there was no mention of a possible conspiracy in the entire newspaper.  Even though every person with an ounce of common sense knew the jig was up when Jack Ruby stuck his pistol in Oswald's gut and pulled the trigger as NBC covered the event live.  At one point, Ruby claimed he killed Oswald to save Jackie Kennedy from going through the hardship of a trial.  Yeah right and the check's in the mail.

The obvious story was Jack Rubenstein, a Dallas strip club owner, who once was a small time mob wanna be in Chicago, fulfilled a very dirty, but necessary job and he did it quite well.  As Oswald was loaded into the ambulance to be taken to Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital, even I as a ten year old knew we wouldn't see Mr. Oswald again, at least not in this life time.  By the way, Parkland was the same hospital John Kennedy was taken to after the miraculous single bullet wiped out half of those sitting in the presidential limousine.

It was a very neat package, wasn't it?  That is until a small business owner named Abraham Zapruder brought a remarkable piece of film to Time magazine.  Good thing Mr. Zapruder didn't share his film with the FBI or the Dallas Police Department because, like many other pieces of film that were confiscated that fateful day in Dealey Plaza, Mr. Zapruder would have never seen his footage again.

Countless witnesses who took shots of Dealey Plaza on that sunny Friday afternoon, sacrificed their cameras to ...  I don't know what or who they were sacrificed to.  But they didn't get their cameras or film back and you can take whatever you'd like from that bit of information.  However, by the time the FBI and other interested governmental parties got their hands on Mr. Zapruder's piece of cinematic gold, the government couldn't confirm how many copies were made of Zapruder's historical masterpiece.  So, in 1968, Geraldo Rivera, of all people, introduced the Zapruder film to the American public.

Well, there it was.  Absolute proof of a conspiracy that took the life of the 35th President of the United States was shown on television coast to coast.  It was irrefutable.  Kennedy's head went back and to the left...back and to the left...back and to the left.  It was a famous phrase used by Oliver Stone in his classic docudrama "JFK" and Stone certainly sounded like he hit the target, pardon the pun.

"Nope, our eyes were deceiving us," said Gerald Posner, a member of a group of conspiracy debunkers who published book after book explaining why our eyes had deceived us.

Literally thousands of books have been written about the Kennedy assassination, some credible, some not explaining why we were not seeing what we saw on the Zapruder film  But Posner always seemed to find a publisher when his books sold a small fraction of those who wrote about a conspiracy that took place regarding the murder of Kennedy.  I wonder if Posner had another funding source because, if he didn't, his meager book sales should have left him looking for another job long ago, but maybe that was Posner's job all along.

The American public was told:  The fact the President's head snapped backwards from a bullet which blew away the front right part of his brain was a natural occurrence.  And, the impression I received from the whole thing was, if we didn't like this explanation, it was essentially too bad.  In fact, Hollywood made a movie titled "Executive Action" released in 1973, directed by David Miller and starring Burt Lancaster and Robert Ryan which probably described the plot to kill Kennedy to a "T".  You see those who are sent out to debunk a conspiracy must look like they are being transparent.  However, in some situations, these individuals know they are beyond reach of the American people and they shove it in our face, like one of those shaving cream pies Soupy Sales used to toss around.

During the next few weeks, I will discuss conspiracies and how they have worked to change the world we live in.  If you want to find more detailed information on issues like the Kennedy assassination for example, authors Mark Lane and Professor G. Robert Blakey are two great suggestions for openers. 

But, in this series, I will look at the conspiracy playbook, including some of the alleged "killers" who changed the world, if you believe the powers that be.  Then, I will discuss the media's role in conspiracies.  How can a conspiracy to kill the President of the United States be kept secret for 45 years?  Well, it hasn't been kept a secret at all and that's part of the beauty--or the horror--of it.  Who is to blame for conspiracies?  In other words, who has the power and the ability to conceal the facts behind tragedies which have altered the course of time.  And, finally, what would happen if the American people knew will be looked at in a future installment.

If the men in black suits don't come to take me away, look for Part 2 of this series next Sunday.  In the meantime, don't let the bed bugs bite, don't take any wooden nickels and never trust anyone over 30 or maybe never trust anyone under 30.  Excuse me, I think I hear a helicopter above my home.  No paranoia here.

NOTE: Comments to blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org

April 17, 2008

Respected Academician and African-American Theologian Gives Her Views on Black Liberation Theology

Rev_dowell Rev. Lainie Dowell, Five-Fold Minister, Columbia, Maryland

"In Her Own Words"

Dan Zanoza, executive director of RFFM.org, interviews Rev. Lainie Dowell on Black Liberation Theology.

Rev. Lainie Dowell, 67 years old, was born and educated in Baltimore, MD.  Rev. Dowell and her husband, Dorian, reside in Howard County, Maryland. They have 4 grown children, 2 granddaughters & 2 Goddaughters.

- Civil Rights Advocate & Community Activist (over 40 years)
- Former NAACP Secretary and Activist (Howard County, MD)
- Former Singer, MD Suburban Mass Choir
- Filed lawsuits, Pro se (Higher Education, Commerce, Industry, Church, State)
- Recipient of MD Botony Cross Awarded by Sons of Confederate Veterans
- Ministerial Advocate for Christian Clergywomen (over 20 years)
- Playwright/Author unpublished original writings (musical, manuscripts, poetry, prophetic)

Q.  Whenever the topics of religion and politics are mentioned in the same breath, controversy is sure to follow.  When we add the subject of race to the scenario, things can get out of hand very quickly.  As you know, Sen. Barack Obama's spiritual leader, Jeremiah Wright, has been in the middle of a heated debate in recent weeks.  You have been quite outspoken regarding what some people are calling black liberation theology.  Can you describe what black liberation theology is?

A.  For me, your question has forthrightly described the dilemma in which modern-day Christian religion and politics have converged to create controversy wherein you have stated, "regarding what some people are calling black liberation theology."

Merriam-Webster dictionary describes such related terms quoted here, as, Liberation -n - a movement seeking equal rights and status for a group (i.e., blacks, women, etc.). It further describes as Liberation Theology, 1972, a religious movement especially among Roman Catholic clergy in Latin America that combines political philosophy usually of a Marxist orientation with a theology of salvation as liberation from injustice. And, Theology - n. - 14th Century, is defined as, (1) the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God's relation to the world. (2) Marxism - n. 1887, Marxist - n. or adj. - a move ultimately to a classless society. It defines Marxism-Leninism - n. 1929, as a theory and practice of communism developed by Lenin from doctrines of Marx. The more traditional, Systematic Theology - n. 1836, is defined as a branch of theology concerned with summarizing the doctrinal traditions of a religion (as Christianity) especially with a view to relating the tradition convincingly to the religion's present-day setting.

Professor James Cone is an African-American Academician. He is credited with spearheading, in the early 1970s, the movement of "Black Liberation Theology." For the sake of brevity, I will leave it to the reader to search out Prof. Cone's biography.

Q.  Now that we know what black liberation theology is, do you think it is a good thing?

A. "Black Liberation Theology" is an oxymoron of gigantic proportions. It is anything but theology or liberating apart from the Great Liberator, Jesus, for either blacks or any other race. That is a term long used as an institutional gateway into the minds of blacks in America and their sympathizers in an ongoing effort to interject Marxism and communism into every area of American society. I believe that radical change takes time, and radicals have built in the time that it takes to change this nation into its ultimate goal of becoming a "classless society," whereby dissenters would be unceremoniously cast aside as being "different." Is there any doubt about why opponents are treated with such disdain by proponents of this "new religion?"

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, many black preachers became caught up in the teachings that their congregants needed to be separated and kept apart from the wider Christian community (i.e., the white people) to be free. And, that in order to help that come about, they either knowingly or unknowingly believed it would be necessary for them to stress from the pulpit how much black people needed to free themselves from their perceived white oppressors (whether religious or political) with the help of the black preacher. So, then, it seems to me that systematic theology and Jesus became an afterthought in the black church and Christianity became a hybrid religion with various mixtures of black racial pride along with black political enforcement and unquestioning acceptance of anything and everything, except biblical truths.

Christian theology teaches us that, by faith, the acceptance of Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord of one's life is freedom for everybody who desires it. And, that it is available to all who have faith to believe in the Lord Jesus beyond their race, color, creed, national origin, and gender (i.e., whether male or female).To my understanding, mankind has yet to decisively define what "Theology" actually means in terms of our spirituality. For mankind, and the academician more so, theology has been deemed to be "man's study of God" (i.e., Theos = God + ology = the study of). However, a closer spiritual look reveals that the opposite is true, whereby Theology is, instead, God's study of man! For, what man, woman, or child can know the mind of God beyond what He has already revealed to man? Even the minds of men have been filled up with nothing but the knowledge of other men who, themselves, have been taught by men and can know nothing of substance apart from being tuned into the mind of God to know His voice, will, and purpose. Man has yet to understand God is real and that He speaks even today. However, when surrounded by all those with their black fists in the air, those men and women who may feel safe in the midst of a crowd are later found to be cowards on their dying day.

Q.  Many who are not African-Americans are wondering how many black churches hold to this teaching in the United States.  Could you give it a percentage?

A.  I am not an academician. I have not researched that subject. And, I have not given any thought to it in terms of "percentages." However, I personally witnessed plenty of it by colleagues. But, the school of thought could probably best be ferreted out in libraries of institutions of higher learning and in bookstores across this country. But, even then, how much of that output could be counted on as being reliable? While most black preachers may have purchased a best seller about the black church and black preaching, I don't believe the vast majority have veered that far from systematic theology, when they are in the pulpit. However, even the minimum number put forth would be too large, when we think of the devastation across this nation, which has resulted from that mindset.

During the past 20+ years, that I have associated with black clergy, I found many had as their only existence, "To preach as a dying man to dying men who shall never preach again." (quoted: the late Rev. Dr. Eddie Wilson, Baltimore, MD). That's the voice of systematic theology. For the most part, I have found black clergy who are called by God, quiet and unassuming. Their demeanor is such that they could easily be overlooked in a crowd. They go about their day as if invisible. They know they can do nothing until and unless God Himself directs them. And, their enthusiastic deliverance of God's word is borne along by God's Spirit to their spirit in the preaching moment. They realize that all things really do come from God. And, I have come to personally understand, as well, that just because mankind may not like or accept what is being preached, that does not mean that God is nonexistent or that He lied. God is alive, and whenever the preached word is delivered, it is up to the hearer to discern and test what they hear, but it cannot be done with a physical or emotional understanding. It can only be fully comprehended with a spiritual ear. I daresay from the ongoing confusion among believers, it would appear the majority of the Christian community has not yet fully attained to that degree of the supernatural realm, and that includes many preachers.

Q.  It is clear Sen. Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright has hurt his chances to become president of the United States.  There was always a certain number of people who would never vote for a black man.  But I think the Wright situation has led many to say they could never vote for this particular black man because he has used poor judgment regarding Jeremiah Wright.  What is your opinion on this?

A.  In actuality, Sen. Obama's chances to become President of the U.S. were almost nil from the start, except, the news media went practically a whole year infatuated with this particular Black man who learned the game very well and knew how to play it. He is the modern-day "Spook Who Sat By the Door." He knew how to make himself smaller than he really is (i.e., "Out of sight, out of mind"), with his unspoken theme of, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies." So he slipped under the radar of journalistic scrutiny because he was "an articulate black man" who had as his Ace in the hole, a white mother and her relatives that he knew he could bring out, whenever the going got rough(er). And it has worked to his advantage!

Barack Obama has espoused a platform whereby he wants to do away with what he calls, "Labels." Under his administration, there would no longer be political, religious, class, or gender distinctions. How arrogant and how ignorant is that, especially from a man who describes himself as being ready to take over the White House in 2009?! Whether or not he has taken a page or two out of his pastor's book, I cannot tell. However, I do know that Obama cannot have been around Rev. Jeremiah Wright for as long as he has without having his mindset rub off on him. If, as Obama has told his now worldwide audience, he was not present in church during any of the pastor's controversial rhetoric in the guise of Sunday sermonizing, then as a friend, Obama sat with him out of the hearing of the congregation when they could engage in "real" talk about black race relations and the white man's foot on the black man's neck! If Obama was a friend to his pastor and vice versa, then he would have felt comfortable in freely speaking his mind with Obama in private. It is also unbelievable that Obama has never purchased tapes of his pastor/friend's sermons at one time or another.   

Many black people know what it appears most white people either never knew or have forgotten, which is to say regardless of how much white ancestry is in their genealogical background, a black person is still black and is no more or less intelligent than anyone else. But, apparently, race still matters, depending on who says it does or does not. Within Obama's camp, it has been one long roller coaster ride in the political and religious arena whereby white people have become wary of even whispering Obama's race out loud for fear of being called, racist. On the other hand, when Obama and various black pundits bring up either the subject or race, they make it appear as if they are the only ones qualified to do so by reason of their race. Now, how confusing is that?! This is done by design to keep anybody who might think Obama is unqualified to be President from declaring it out loud and exposing him as not being up to the task. Furthermore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with his race. Why do you suppose Sen. Hillary Clinton and the "Saturday Night Live" program exposed the fact that she was always asked a question before Obama during the debates; and, during his turn, as one TV news pundit said, "He was 'me-tooing' all over the place." Understand? 

Q.  The Rev. Wright has certainly frightened many who see his preaching as hateful.  Do you think Wright has damaged race relations in our country?

A. I believe the recent revelation of Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.'s taped sermon during the Democratic primary may have opened the eyes and ears of many people. However, this nation has a short attention span. The damage to race relations was done a long time ago from many black pulpits across this nation. Black religious, community, and political leaders were given carte blanche to run ripshod over even politicos by the elected and appointed leaders who turned a deaf ear and blind eye to complaints. When it was not popular to do so, 20 years ago, I spoke out against the same kinds of rantings about white people preached by my black pastor and other black colleagues. In an attempt to intimidate me and shut me up, he conspired with co-horts and filed false police reports and court documents to have me arrested inside the church. And the courts helped him despite overwhelming documentation to prove he did not tell the truth, such was and still is his influence in the state and county where I live. What has sustained me all these years since is knowing I am innocent and have documents to prove it.

Because of the lack of accountability of black leaders, they became emboldened to misuse and abuse, with impunity, the goodwill of trusting parishioners and anyone else who did not shut up and go along with their unlawful ungodly actions. As a result, individuals and whole families were left to fend for themselves without any avenues of redress. The result was massive bitterness and hopelessness, which drove people away from the faith. In particular, the entire church focus changed into one of church politics. And, youth who witnessed how church had contributed to hurting their families became angry and vowed to never step foot into another church again. And, whereas they had once gladly participated in various church activities, they fell away and had no net to catch them while believing one church to be as bad as the next. And, for the most part, they were right. If their parents could not protect them in such an environment in God's house, then where else could they turn? The streets claimed many a tender soul while black preachers claimed more for their coffers and personal satisfaction all from the pockets of believers who they promised a return on their money and they bought it much to their chagrin.

Q.  Do individuals like Wright put more pressure on other black preachers, including yourself, who have to counter his message?

A. The answer is a resounding, "Yes!" However, if nobody ever stands up and speaks out, then how will they get slapped down by the church? They won't. Black preachers who want to "advance" in ministry would not dare to antagonize the Black pastors who have religious and political clout. They don't hesitate to let you know that they can help you either with a word to inquirers about your work or by not saying anything. They know that, in that instance, their saying nothing also says volumes.

Over 20 years ago, I seemed to have been the only "insubordinate" preacher in both the whole black National Baptist Convention USA, Incorporated, and in the NAACP. In 1983, when I joined the church, there was a woman preacher in the church at that time. But, in 1985, I became the first woman (at that time) in the 87-year church history to be licensed by my pastor, Rev. John L. Wright (Columbia, Maryland). Needless to say, I was not accepted then as a preacher by, especially, women parishioners, because they treated women any way they wanted across the denomination while honoring and respecting male clergy. In fact, they did not recognize women as "clergy," preferring to call even themselves everything except, "clergy." God separated me from all of that political infighting and I had to affirm myself and my call. I also would not allow anyone to call me whatever they chose, but to recognize God is in total charge of my life and the church.

Therefore, 20 years ago, I became a ministerial advocate; and, in 1996, I started the first support network/resources for Firebrands Christian Clergywomen Online. In fact, I was the first one on the Internet to put the words, "clergy" and "women" together as one word. That came about, because Geocities.com signup did not allow separated or hyphenated words. And, that is how clergywomen and clergywoman became my personal Internet nicknames, among others.

Lonely and alone has been and continues to be my Christian walk. Yet, I do not have to field any of that pressure from any man, woman, or child either in, or out of, the church. My training ground was the church. I went through hell in the church and, try as they might, none could antagonize me enough that God did not keep me in His peace. And when I asked God about it, He told me that, like the song, "If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere." I got a great laugh out of that and I knew it was true that once again I had heard from heaven.

Q.  I understand you have spent many years debating those who hold to the radical concepts of black liberation theology.  Has it come to the point where you see this as your calling from God?  Or is it just a part of your duty to spread Christ's true message of love?  Or is it both? 

A.  One black Baptist male pastor, who was a friend of my pastor, called me a "slut" during a church-wide institute in front of other ministers from a gathering where I had served as an officer. His words came from out of nowhere and the few who heard it turned away in silence. Once again I was left alone to wonder what had just happened and why? I later filed a written complaint with the leadership, but it went without response. I had another lesson in learning how to withstand every wicked way. But, as long as I knew I was doing God's will, nothing and nobody could persuade me to do otherwise. God Himself told me, "Not only will I not let anybody snatch you out of my hand, I won't even let you jump out!" God called me to preach in 1985, and only God can dismiss me or any other preacher that He calls to that task. Preaching is not speaking, talking, lecturing, singing, praying, or anything else but delivering that word either in or out of season from God's mouth into the ear of His beloved to be sent forth for His people. 

I have no need to argue, debate, cuss, or fuss with anybody about who I am and whose I am in the Lord. My comfort is in knowing how real God is in my life and in the world. Through all my trials, persecutions, prosecutions, like Paul, "I have learned whatsoever state I find myself to be content." Nobody has anything that I want that God will not provide, if I really wanted it, much less needed it. My only purpose is to trust and obey the Lord in all areas of my life. I do not seek fame, fortune, masses of followers, material things, or notoriety among men. My joy comes from knowing I am in God's will. How do I know I am? Because God confirms it, every time. My desire is to be a living sermon wherever I go, even if I never open my mouth. Mankind does not heal, but the Spirit of God does, when His vessel is open and willing to be used by Him. When God moves in the midst of impossible situations, it is to let that be as a witness to onlookers that He alone had moved away the obstacles.

People, in general, and church people, in particular, think they must "show and tell," they are Christian. If they are real, discerning spirits will know. If they are "pretending," then discerning spirits will know that, too. God's message is love. The gospel of Jesus includes "whosoever will . . . . come." We have no need to frighten or force people into the faith. If we let our "light so shine," then God will draw them in His own perfect timing. Many resist, because of fear of giving up whatever it is they do not want to let go. They don't understand that, if they could have, they would have. And, when they get down low enough is only when they will lift up their eyes to heaven and be willing to accept heaven's answer. They will know Him for themselves and wonder what took them so long to know it. My life is 24/7 in the Lord's face without shame or apology.

Q.  It does seem like much of the political energy in black communities runs through places of worship.  Why is this the case?

A.  I believe the historical context will bear out the fact that the black Christian church was, at one time, the hub of community activity. The black preacher was the one the community turned to for faith, advice, guidance, and help. That was when the black preacher was content to work a full-time job of their own (even digging ditches) and to be paid in chickens. They were not embarrassed to have "the sisters" raise money by cooking and selling chicken dinners or fish suppers. The black preachers were not too proud to accept coins from the penny jars of widows and a couple of cents from the tiny fingers of little children. They were not too egotistical to stand and preach from pulpits in storefront-size churches.

Now, where do you suppose their money comes from for them to ride around in big, brand new shiny automobiles? How is it possible for so many of them to parade around in hand stitched shirts and custom made suits and shoes that hardly touch the ground, because they are walking so high? When did it become unacceptable for the black preacher to comfort the weak, worn, weary soul with a word from heaven, albeit with messing up the King's English? Our Lord said it rightly so, "You have turned my Father's House into a den of thieves."

How can they not stop to think God is not pleased? Easy enough, if you think about it. As long as they wake up breathing and can get up and go, they think they have gotten away. Well, I have a dear Christian friend who puts it this way, "You might get by, but you won't get away!" The black preachers began to put their trust in politicians and community and religious leaders who appeared to have influence to get them bigger churches built, massive congregations to occupy benches where the church is full, but the pews are empty, and larger coffers with all that they bring, including security with guns to protect the money and the black preacher. Therefore, many churches have evolved to become the center of political activities. And all the money changing hands is done under cover of dark of night and even in the daytime away from the prying eyes of even the undiscerning folk. How now can religious, community, and political leaders disavow the thing that has caused so much pain, hurt, death, misery, disillusionment, hopelessness, poverty, and all that is anathema to what the Christian church was meant to be, regardless of race or any other man-made obstacle, except that they have no regard for either God or man and, instead, have set themselves up to be God?   

Q.  Many believe those who advance black liberation theology from the pulpit should lose their tax exempt status as a church.  What is your feeling on this?

A.  Every minister who uses their pulpit which professes to be Christian or Jewish or whatever religion they want to file and whether or not they "advance black liberation theology from the pulpit," or anything else that is against biblical principles, should lose their tax exempt status as a church. They are a bane to the existence of the Christian household of faith, because they leave no pattern for onlookers to emulate, which is pleasing and all to the glory of God.

Black liberation theology became widely advocated by James Cone, who is a professor, but not a theologian from the Scriptural perspective. For there to be liberation, there must also be a liberator. For the Christian, that Liberator is Jesus. And preachers in the academic environment (regardless of race, color, creed or gender) must remember they are under divine mandate to God. If man could do anything with his own life, then he could possibly qualify as a liberator. However, that has yet to evolve. For man has created a confused rather than comforting atmosphere in not only the church but also in the community and in the world.

It is not up to man to liberate anybody. Because, if he could have done so, then we would have no need to be discussing it in this century the same as we did in the last century. Was Professor Cone at the edge of glory to seek God's voice in his tome? Be that as it may, the academic communities of this nation have a lot to answer to God for. Their knowledge is their own and it is harmful, because they have not sought God's voice while forcing their own upon unsuspecting, feeble-minded individuals who sincerely want to hear from the Lord.

Though it may sound good, is it good for the recipient? History shall judge. In the meanwhile, what results have accumulated thus far tell us that it will not be a kindly report.

Q.  What do those of us who are not African-Americans need to know about what the average black man or woman thinks about faith?  Does race play too much of a role in the black religious experience or are the scars of history regarding slavery and are the legacy left behind from Jim Crow to hard to overcome for some? 

A.  "If Jim Crow is not dead, then surely he is limping along mortally wounded." -- Rev. Lainie Dowell

To this day, I believe that many black people accept at face value whatever the black preacher says or does. Moreover, many still do not believe white people know the Lord or that they are saved. Why? Because, until recent years, they did not witness any emotion coming from them during worship services instead of discerning that not all worshipers have the same response. What's more, when some people, regardless of race or color, are sitting quietly in a worship service, it can also mean they are listening to what is being preached or listening to the Holy Spirit in the midst of the worship.

If this nation wanted to move on from the untenable "Race Problem," it would do it. There are too many voices to get it done for there not to have been a positive response towards that end. However, I have come to the conclusion that, in the words of the 1960s marching song entitled, "We Shall Overcome," I have come to understand that "We HAVE Overcome," but there are just too many who refuse to let us come over. And, until they step aside (no matter what race or color), then the "Race" issue will continue to roll along without resolution even in God's house.

Besides, where would all the black liberation theology advocates go to be widely recognized and handsomely paid, if God's House was truly organized and managed the way God has declared and decreed instead of their continuing to allow it to be just another secular enterprise? In conclusion, people have turned away from the leadership of God to the leadership of man and woman and they have received the fruit of their own selfish desires rather than the total and complete fruit of the Spirit. And, they do not like what they are seeing.

"If my people who are called by my name would humble themselves and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and heal their land." 2 Chron. 7:14-22.   

Contact: revldowell-clergywomen@erols.com
Advocacy url: http://www.clergywomen.org/dowell_sundaysun.html
Ministerial callings: http://www.clergywomen.org/in_call.html

***************************************************************************************

NOTE: Comments to blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org

April 14, 2008

Dan + Julie Zanoza Give Testimony About Their Experience With Abortion On YouTube

Click on the following YouTube link to view Dan + Julie Zanoza's personal testimony on how abortion affected their lives.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4nuEU3YLlvg

Haunted by Decision to Abort: A personal reflection by Daniel T. Zanoza

To see Dan + Julie Zanoza's abortion testimony on YouTube click here:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=4nuEU3YLlvg

Author's note: A version of the following column first appeared in the Christian Coalition magazine.  It also was posted on the Illinois Leader and, most recently, appeared on the Illinois Family Institute's web site.

Nearly thirty years ago, my wife and I aborted a child. That decision will haunt us for the rest of our lives. Since that time, I've developed deep feelings on the subject of abortion.

There are two primary reasons why I'm pro-life. Besides taking a human life, aborting a child robs society.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, some say over 50 million unborn babies have lost their lives. The city of Chicago and its surrounding area are home to approximately 5.1 million people. The number of babies aborted during the past thirty-four years would re-populate Chicagoland tenfold.

How many doctors, teachers, poets and engineers will the world miss because of abortion? Maybe one of these aborted children could have discovered a cure for cancer or AIDS. In fact, my very own son or daughter might have developed a cure for the blindness that afflicts me today.

How many handicapped children has our culture missed, teaching us compassion and patience? Are we a different society because of the one out of three children, perfect or not, who weren't given the chance to survive? Can it be said the world is a better place because of the Roe v. Wade decision?

I recently asked a friend who supports abortion rights, "If by some miracle, you knew a pregnant woman's child would one day find a cure for Alzheimer's, would you still believe that woman had the right to terminate that pregnancy, depriving mankind of this medical breakthrough?"

It's a rhetorical question that should be pondered before every abortion.

The pro-life contention is simple and straightforward. No one has the right to remove such potential from our society. What the human community has lost due to abortion is incalculable.

This alone should be enough to rethink Roe v. Wade. But there is yet another reason to oppose abortion.

Under Hitler's rule, enforcing death of the innocent was a national right. That madman claimed his nation would be better served through the removal of undesirables--first through harassment and deportation and, ultimately, via the "final solution"--which meant death for millions of human beings.

The question has been asked countless times of the German people who lived in that era: "What did you do while the Holocaust was happening? Did you try to stop it and, if not, why not?"

There will be a day when that question is asked of Americans about abortion. We will have to answer to future generations and, more importantly, to God for what we did or did not do to stop this sin against humanity.

While some say the Holocaust bears little resemblance to abortion in America, many believe that tragic episode in world history is comparable to the carnage which resulted from the passage of Roe v. Wade.

Women who terminate their babies' unborn lives are not monsters. If that were so, I'd be saying the same of my own wife. The point is, like water, humankind will seek its own moral level by standards set within the culture. Regarding the abortion my wife had nearly 30 years ago -- simply, if abortion were not legal, we would have a son or a daughter who could now be raising a family of his or her own. Unfortunately, at the time, a combination of youth and the moral approval implied by abortion's legality resulted in a decision my wife and I have regretted and will regret for the rest of our lives. Slavery was legal, but immoral. The same can be said of abortion.

For 184 years, abortion was considered a sin against God and man in America. Yet, one judicial decision in 1973 threw an entire value system into flux, creating moral confusion and societal tumult.

The lines dividing our nation over this issue seem to grow deeper every day and so do the emotions. There needs to be more dialogue and less posturing. There cannot be a compromise on the subject of abortion because the finality of the practice indeed leaves no room for compromise. When two women claimed to be mothers of the same child, King Solomon suggested the child be cut in half, knowing the true mother would give up her rights to the infant in order for her child to live. In the same sense, women cannot be given a partial right to abortion because the decision is final and irrevocable.

It's not about imposing one belief system over another. It's about personal and societal conscience. Though some disagree with the pro-life position, hopefully, there will come a day when our view can at least be considered noble because it truly stands up to the light of truth.

Copyright 2007 Daniel T. Zanoza

NOTE: Comments to blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org

April 11, 2008

Hillary Clinton's Sniper Comments Simply An Effort To Fit In, In A Man's World

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

I never thought I would find myself defending Hillary Clinton, but there are times when we must all simply bite the bullet.  However, why am I, a man, the only one to figure out the reason for Hillary Clinton's exaggeration when it came to her trip to Bosnia where she told reporters she was dodging sniper bullets on an airport tarmac.  It's really very simple.  Sen. Clinton is operating in a man's world.  She doesn't have any old football stories to tell.  She doesn't have memories of taking off from the flight deck of the U.S.S. Forestall on the way to a bombing mission in North Viet Nam.  Well, Barack Obama doesn't have such stories to tell either, but somehow, being a man, he doesn't have to.

The media's much to do about nothing is just that.  And I shouldn't have to sound like a feminist in my attempt to defend her because there should have been plenty of others to support the former First Lady in the mainstream media.  But they are so busy playing "gotcha" on behalf of Obama that Mrs. Clinton is not catching a break where one is due.

This is really strange, yet I thoroughly understand where Hillary Clinton was coming from.  What do you do to fit in with the macho mindset that comes along with being the Alpha leader, in any endeavor?  There are no locker room renditions of daring do's to share with the good ole boys while they pat each other on the back over a cold beer.   

I know I am showing my more feminine side with the writing of this column, but the truth is the truth.  Clinton probably thought the situation in Bosnia was fraught with danger and, if it wasn't, she wished it had been--to the point the sniper story became real.  Let me tell you this.  If people are saying Mrs. Clinton can't be trusted because of this faux pas, they missed the boat regarding her honesty a long time ago.  Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm come to mind.  However, let's not go there for now.  I would rather Hillary Clinton exaggerate about a visit to Bosnia in the late 1990's than for her to sit in a church where a Reverend tried to do his best impression of David Duke for 20 years and pretend she was never in attendance when the offensive words were spoken.  There's no comparison in the two political gaffes, even though the media has tried to portray Hillary Clinton as Darth Vader and Barack Obama as Luke Skywalker.  There it is again, that macho thing--which is so prevalent in our society.

So, in this case, I'm going to give Hillary a big, "you go, girl," and tell the dominant press to get a life.  Perhaps those imaginary Bosnian snipers were shooting at the wrong imaginary people.

*************************

NOTE: Comments to blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

April 09, 2008

Huckabee Best Choice For V-P, But Republican Party Bosses Not That Smart

GOP Vice-President Slot Still Open, But Is Huckabee Getting Serious Consideration?

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

Yes, I know.  Supposedly there are no bosses in the Republican Party any longer.  But even though the smoke-filled back room may be a thing of the past, there is an elitist faction of the GOP who makes decisions for all who believe in the Republican brand.

Well, they try to make decisions.  But as an institution starts to crumble, power brokers have less and less command over what goes on.  Such was evidenced during the past presidential primary season.

I believe Party big shots wanted Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee.  For a back-up, Fred Thompson was talked into making what turned out to be a half-hearted run for the presidential nomination.  And, in a ridiculous demonstration of Republican hubris, Rudy Giuliani was told he had a chance to head the ticket, too.

Party insiders and individuals--like Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes--thought they had all the bases covered with this group.  But along came John McCain and Mike Huckabee to spoil their plans.  Even Ron Paul threw a monkey wrench into the political mechanism by soaking up great gobs of available cash that individuals like Karl Rove thought would stay in the family, so to speak.

Things went awry when Romney flip-flopped his way right out of contention.  Thompson slept through almost every debate and, by the time he woke up, the rest of the field was heading into the home stretch.  Oh, I forgot Giuliani.  Well, so did everybody else and that great political surge, which was supposed to begin in Florida, never got much further than South Beach.

The last two people standing were McCain and Huckabee.  The so-called conservative radio talk show hosts cried and stomped their feet, like seven year old brats in the midst of very serious hissy fits.  Some, like Ann Coulter, even said they would take their ball and go home.  In Coulter's case, the ball was her support and home was Hillary Clinton.  It was all a very sad display and adults, like myself, suggested these self-proclaimed Republican conservatives take a nice long time-out.

But after McCain became the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee, the speculation over who would be his vice-presidential running mate began.  Once more, the flip-flopping former Governor of Massachusetts' name started to come up.  However, organizations formed solely to stop Romney's v-p bid...that's amazing!  Then, we started to hear about Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's hat being thrown into the ring.  But some claim Crist's hat may have too many frills on it, if you know what I mean.  So the Party elite is giving that possible v-p choice more careful scrutiny.

It truly would be an historic year, if the Democrats nominated a female presidential candidate and an African-American vice-presidential candidate.  Then the Republicans countered with a man who would be an octogenarian after two terms and a running mate who was leading a homosexual lifestyle.  Now that would be stirring things up, wouldn't it?

Here's a wild suggestion for an alternative to Romney or Crist.  How about Republicans choosing former Governor Mike Huckabee?  Yes, I know this is a ridiculous idea.  The only thing Huckabee has going for him is the fact he would be supported by the Party's conservative Catholic and Evangelical base.  This population only represents 30% of the electorate--that's Democrat and Republican.  Plus, choosing Huckabee would be foolish for the following reasons.  Huckabee is pro-life, he supports the idea that marriage should be solely between one man and one woman.  He supports Second Amendment rights and he would like to get rid of the IRS.  Huckabee would also build a fence along the U.S. / Mexico border and start sending immigrants who were here illegally back to their home countries.  This all sounds very radical.  There's no way such a man could benefit the Republican ticket, is there?

And there's one more thing.  The conservative base is what energizes the GOP.  These are the "irritating" people who stick fliers under windshield wipers in church parking lots.  These are the people who canvass neighborhoods and do the heavy lifting in the political world.  The social conservative component of the Republican Party would match the highly motivated Democrats who want the White House back very badly and will do practically anything to get there.

Wait a minute.  I'm running a slight fever and I have a sore throat.  I really haven't been feeling very well the last couple of days and it is having an effect on my thinking.  Even though Huckabee would bring all these positives to the Republican ticket, the so-called big shots would never let that happen.  I've been told social conservatives no longer represent the GOP's base.  Therefore, it will have to be a fiscal conservative to fill out the presidential slate--which will be a formula for disaster.

Perhaps in a few days, when I'm feeling better, the Huckabee idea will simply fade away.  I'll regain my senses and realize someone who more closely embraces the Party's national platform wouldn't cut the mustard in this year's election.  In the mean time, I'll watch the media, consider every name in the book for McCain's v-p running mate, including Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, before Huckabee's.  You see, the former Arkansas governor was once a Baptist minister and Huckabee's election as vice-president would put him a breath away from the Oval Office.  That's too much of a risk to take, isn't it?

On second thought, forget that I ever wrote this column.  I wouldn't want to be called a right-wing nut.  Anyone have an aspirin?

***************************

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

April 07, 2008

Would President Barack Obama Support Reparations For African-Americans Due To Slavery?

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director 

If former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts, who is himself an African-American, were running for the presidency of the United States, I would not be asking this question.  Watts was and continues to be a conservative who believes in reasonable-sized government and fair taxation.  However, I think it is a more than fair question that must be put to Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama.  After all, Obama did address the issue during his Senatorial campaign against former Ambassador Alan Keyes.  Combine this with the fact it has been reported members of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, of which Obama is a member, are involved in the reparations movement and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, the junior senator from Illinois' spiritual advisor for 20 years, has been outspoken about the government's enslavement of the black community and the question seems even more appropriate.

During the Senatorial race with opponent Keyes, Obama said reparations for blacks would be appropriate in funding education [http://video.aol.com/video-detail/edwards-against-reparations-obama-suggest-money-for-education-instead/3126999430].  But, if reparations were suitable for educational purposes, what about blacks who were beyond the age--where extending their education would be impractical?  Would Obama favor these reparations for African-Americans up to the age of 18 or 22 or 50?

I suppose there would be blacks who would claim, because they were too old to return to school, they still should be entitled to a cash payout.  In fact, I agree.  Why should one segment of the African-American community receive "damages" when another segment of the same population would not be entitled to reparations for slavery which existed in the American south nearly 150 years ago?

Let me make this perfectly clear.  I would be in full support of reparations for any former slave still alive in America today.  But there are no former slaves alive in America today and I would not favor any form of reparations for blacks, even those who can confirm a direct lineage to a former slave.

In reality, more than 360,000 Union soldiers died during the Civil War and 275,200 Union soldiers were wounded.  I think this is blood enough to compensate for the tragedy of slavery.  I seriously doubt the leaders of the reparations movement are including the families of these casualties into their plans to receive a cash reward for something which happened with the help of many guilty parties.

What other guilty parties?  Well, there were African tribes themselves who assisted Arab traders in the rounding up of unfortunate men, women and children on the African continent.  Therefore, any plans for reparations must include individual tribes in Africa who must take responsibility for their actions.  Then, we could include probably the entire Arab world itself and it would be interesting how that collection process would be undertaken.  Next, we would have to include the Portuguese and English who played significant roles in the early slave trade.

But this is ridiculous, isn't it?  So, let's get back to the original question.  Would President Barack Obama support reparations for African-Americans because of slavery?  The answer to that question seems to be "yes."  Certainly such a program would rip America apart along racial lines, besides bankrupting an already fiscally-depleted government.  Indeed a trillion dollars worth of reparations might well throw the American economy into a deep depression from which it could not recover.

Why hasn't the dominant media asked Barack Obama about the subject of reparations?  The answer is simple.  Such a query would put Obama in a political bind.  He would have to admit to favoring such a program or explain why he changed his position on the issue.  But, more important, the issue of reparations for blacks would drop on other Americans like an atomic bomb.  The controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright would seem miniscule to the effect slavery reparations would have on Obama's presidential aspirations.

But it is still a legitimate question.  People like myself would like to know the answer.  Will Sen. Obama jeopardize the future of the United States and set back race relations forty years in the process, in order to please some blacks who hold radical views?  Or would Obama tell individuals, like Jeremiah Wright, his country's future was much too important to be tampered with for the sake of political expedience?

One day, someone will ask this question of Sen. Barack Obama.  Hillary Clinton won't have the courage to do it.  John McCain won't either.  It's going to take someone in the dominant media who has the juice to withstand the pressure that would soon follow.  Will someone get me a press pass?

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

July 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31