Posted on 07/09/2011 9:35:16 PM PDT by Hawk720
A social conservative Iowa group has retracted language regarding slavery from the opening of a presidential candidates' pledge, amid a growing controversy over the document that Michele Bachmann had signed and Rick Santorum committed to.
The original "marriage vow" from the Family Leader, unveiled last week, included a line at the opening of its preamble, which suggested that black children born into slavery were better off in terms of family life than African-American kids born today.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I really hate this. If you’re going to say something like that, know you’re going to be attacked and be prepared to defend it with facts. Otherwise, don’t bother.
I am so pissed about this retraction. I have been on Facebook all day defending this clear language that DID NOT say that black children were better off under slavery. Now they retract it. Ridiculous!
Here’s the basic argument: The point is exactly the opposite of what you said, actually, because the point that the pledge is making is that slavery was a major barrier to the cohesiveness of the black family, and that with that barrier gone, black two-parent families should be able to thrive, but “sadly” (the word used in the pledge) they aren’t. In fact, over 70% of African-American babies today are born to single parents – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity.
The really sad thing is, the Left has no interest whatsoever in bettering the plight of the black family.
If they address this comment at all, they’ll know that it didn’t really say or mean what they will say it did. No, they won’t be defending blacks.
They will simply be attacking people on the right.
The Left is a very evil enterprise as a group.
Then it’s even more gutless.
Today’s dysfunctions and misplaced moralities versus yesteryear’s chattel slavery — the conditions of which varied greatly according to locale — this is not something that can be propounded in a sound bite. If they wanted to produce a lengthy discourse on it that explained all the angles possible, that would be a different story.
Bingo. This is precisely why the language was ill-conceived, and Bachmann signing the pledge (as written) was even more ill-conceived.
With one caveat. Biblically literate people would understand the concept of “being slaves to sin.” God gives insight into what that would mean. Otherwise it’s so much babble.
The truth hurts. Note: It's not an endorsement of slavery; it's a condemnation of what the War on Poverty has wrought: a war on God and life.
Yes, Virginia, some things are worse than slavery.
Bingo! While WE all understand what the group was trying to say about the breakdown of the black family, they should have simply point to the LBJ’s Great society and liberalism in what transpired today with many African American families not being together....there was NO NEED to go all the way back to slavery to glean something good from it.
Slave masters did break up original families and sometime sold the weaker family members away for stronger workers if they needed field workers.
When Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his report about welfare, the out of wedlock birth figures, for blacks, stood at 1/3 of the black population. Earlier, the out of wedlock birthrate for blacks, was lower.
The lack of historical knowledge, reflected in the "pledge" is appalling; to say the least! And yes, if they had brought up how truly dreadful the "WAR ON POVERTY" proved to be, that would at least have made some sense, since it was conceived and run by Dems!
One has to wonder............do those who sign political pledges actually read them before signing on ?
Disagree.
If America as a nation stands for anything, it's the primacy of human freedom and equality.
Chattel slavery is the utter negation of those principles, therefore it is (was) by definition the most anti-American of all possible institutions.
The present deplorable condition of so many black Americans can be reversed in any individual family simply by refusing to participate. Slavery denied that choice to individuals, and families in any meaningful sense of the term could not exist under slavery.
I agree....... while the intent of the group was to point out the breakdown of the Black family unit, their ignorance of basic historical facts makes their intentions just like the “good intentions” of the left - worthless.
Absolutely no "good" was served by the stupid "pledge", nor the signing of same. All this did was give ammunition to those who hate GOPers, Christians, and abolitionists of old.
And what was the point of it, anyway? Slavery is long gone, in this nation; however, the Dems are the ones who are still holding onto the the concept, at least, no matter how many times and in how many different ways they attempt to deny it.
It’s irony, though, that through an addiction to the support of the state, they have brought woes on themselves that are like some of the woes of antebellum slavery.
I’m hankering for Herman Cain to get on national TV and ask everyone (of all colors) do they want to keep picking cotton in chains on the Democrat plantation or do they want to be free. Oh, liberal heads would explode from coast to coast. But Cain wouldn’t be cowed.
Some slave manned plantations had more liberal (in a good sense) policies and allowed their slaves to have side businesses and to buy themselves free. Some allowed marriages and families that were preserved as a group. This was due to Christian morality, which some masters honored more than others depending on their personal convictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.