Hillary Clinton
apologizes for Gandhi joke
Back
to the HRC Page
Thursday, January 8, 2004 at 07:00 JST
NEW YORK — New York Senator
Hillary Clinton has felt obliged to apologize for
making a joke about Indian independence hero Mahatma
Gandhi having worked as a gas station manager in
Saint Louis, Missouri.
"I have admired the work and
life of Mahatma Gandhi and have spoken publicly about
that many times," the former U.S. first lady
said in a statement Wednesday.
"I truly regret if a lame
attempt at humor suggested otherwise," the
statement said.
The apology followed Clinton's
remarks at a weekend fund-raiser, where she joked
that Gandhi once "ran a gas station down in
Saint Louis" — a stereotypical job for
South Asians in the United States.
At the time, Clinton had qualified
her joke by adding that Gandhi was a "great
leader" of the 20th century. (Wire reports)
I heard---------
jimmydean  (Jan 12 2004 - 19:51) |
| she's a real -----, and
smells like cheese. |
Hillary Clinton apologizes for
Gandhi joke
arjun (Jan 12 2004 - 21:03) |
"all he did was to
render India ungovernable to the British.
sadly it remained ungovernable to
Indiands."
Is that the reason why Indian economy is
doing well and a lot of companies are
outsourcing jobs to India.
" yearn to days when the whole
sub-continent of 1B people was efficiently
ruled by 2000 British civil servants."
When the brits were ruling/ sucking the subcontinent, the
population was roughly 15% of 1 Billion.
Brits are having difficulty ruling their own
country, how can they rule a billion people? |
India's guv??
Inandoutburger (Jan 12 2004 - 23:35) |
Arjun writes:"Is that
the reason why Indian economy is doing well
and a lot of companies are outsourcing jobs
to India."
It's called cheap labor. There are very few
Indians, least of all those in the
government, who believe India is
well-governed.
On the other hand, as you point out, the
British are hardly the ones to do it. Their
Tube is twice as expensive as Tokyo and runs
half as well, if that. Ever tried the health
care? You can savor the experience of
India without the airfare. One doctor overrun
by the hordes. The English are the new
Greeks, endlessly talking about past triumphs
as their country falls apart around them. |
dou
Nessie (Jan 13 2004 - 01:26) |
"Most black churches
are in black communities in the South. It's
just natural. But, there are many churches
who have integrated congregations."
Okay.
"Then you have the churches in the
affluent areas where only rich whites go to.
People go where they feel comfortable and
accepted."
Less a matter of comfort than of geography.
People go to their community church. A church
in an affluent community will tend to have an
affluent congregation. This doesn't mean that
it won't welcome poor celebrants. (Provided
that they respect the church and don't come
in unshowered and gin-soaked, for example,
and that they cover their head if the
religion so requires.)
"Ordinary whites are not really accepted
in affluent area churches. But, they are in
most black churches. Black people for the
most part are accpeting of anyone who wants
to worship with them."
So whites are racist but blacks are not? Hmmm. I've been in Synagogues,
Mosques, Buddhist temples, Catholic churches,
Presbyterian churces, Shinto shrines and I
think an Orthodox cathedral. I never saw any
indication that anyone of any race, color or
financial standing was unwelcome in any of
these places. |
Nessie
Americanwoman (Jan 13 2004 - 07:29) |
JT Moderator: Back on
topic please. Link whatever you wish to say
to the original topic.
doudesuka is right Even 50-60 years ago in
the south, a white person could attend a
black church and the blacks would get up and
move to the other side of the church to make
room for him/her to sit (much in the
same way that movie theaters were segregated
and blacks and whites sat in different
areas). Now—if a white person tried to
become active in an all-black church and
tried to take a leadership role (even
today)—that would probably
be a much different story, and that's really
what I'm talking about.
As to your question about overtly racist
black churches—no I don't know of any, that
doesn't mean that they don't exist. However,
it does not matter. The Courts have afforded
churces a great deal of protection to be free
to worship as they please—and this includes being very
exclusive in membership policies. A church
can get away with racist and discriminatory
practices that no other institution can get
away with.
About 20-25 years ago, the Supreme Court
ruled that private colleges would lose their
tax exempt status if they had racist
policies. When the case of Bob Jones U. came
up, the university claimed that it was exempt
from that rule because it was a religious
organization. It said that its religious
beliefs were that blacks and whites should
not marry. The Court didn't buy that and
ruled against the college.
So—what a church can
get away with—Bob Jones university cannot.
I don't agree with the Court. I don't see why
a private, religious university should be
treated any differently than a church (I
think private schools should be able to
include or exclude whomever they want to—for whatever reason) but the
Court has spoken and that's the way it is.
About the racist church that I cited the link
to —the church is
despicable and I don't agree at all with
them, but they should keep their tax-exempt
status, in my opinion. We can't have the
Court protecting only the churches that we
"approve" of. |
Nessie
Americanwoman (Jan 13 2004 - 07:58) |
Another thing you might
find interesting---
When I was a kid (and that wasn't so many
years ago!) there was a couple of times when
black families attended our all-white church.
If they came back to visit our church a 2nd
time, our pastor would contact a local black
pastor who would then get in touch with the
black family about attending a black church,
instead of our church. This was just the way
it was back then. Most blacks, along with
most whites, could not understand why a black
person would even want to attend a white
church. The south has changed now, and if you
go to any good-sized Methodist or Baptist
church in the south that was all-white 35
years ago, you will probably see a few black
families there and from what I have seen and
heard, they are totally welcomed by most
whites (there's always exceptions--there will
always be people who are bigoted for whatever
reason). |
americanwoman
Nessie (Jan 13 2004 - 08:10) |
JT Moderator: Please stay
on topic. This thread is about Hillary
Clinton and her remarks about Gandhi.
"doudesuka is right Even 50-60 years ago
in the south, a white person could attend a
black church and the blacks would get up and
move to the other side of the church to make
room for him/her to sit....Now — if a white person tried to
become active in an all-black church and
tried to take a leadership role (even
today)— that would
probably be a much different story, and
that's really what I'm talking about."
Actually, Doudesuka suggested the opposite:
that white churches discriminate and black
ones do not.
I imagine that your example of black churches
50 years ago is true. Your example of a black
church today may be true. So we agree there
may be covert racism. Again, this is not the
overt racism of BJU, my original example.
Incidentally, I think a white church is more
likely to have a minority in a leadership
position than a black church is likely to
have a white in a leadership position, at
least if we talk about Catholic churches.
This is because of the relative strength of
Catholicism among non-whites (Latin
Americans, Asians). I remember seeing a
Phillipino priest in a largely white,
affluent church in the U.S. saying Sunday
mass.
"We can't have the Court protecting only
the churches that we "approve"
of."
We can't and we don't. The tax exemption is
for CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, not for
churches we approve of.
I realize that there are no hard and fast
definitions of charities, but I think you'll
agree that a church is more likely to fulfill
the criteria (open to anyone, providing money
to the poor) than a university. The exemption
is for charity, not religion. I support
freedom of religion, but I don't support
exempting uncharitable groups who pose as
charities. Neither do the courts. |
americanwoman
Nessie (Jan 13 2004 - 08:14) |
"Another thing you
might find interesting---"
Yes, interesting but not surprising. |
Nessie
Americanwoman (Jan 13 2004 - 10:21) |
I don't think that what I
said disagrees with the point doudesuka
made--but I'll let doudesuka decide about
that.
No, tax exemption for churches is not based
upon them being charitable organizations. Tax
exemption for churches is based on RELIGIOUS
freedom, not on them being charitable
organizations. |
Hillary Clinton apologizes for
Gandhi joke
Americanwoman (Jan 13 2004 - 10:25) |
| JT mod--I understand. I
don't think I have anything else to say on
this subject--if I do, I will try to weave
'Hillary' into my post. |
americanwoman
Nessie (Jan 13 2004 - 13:07) |
"No, tax exemption
for churches is not based upon them being
charitable organizations. Tax exemption for
churches is based on RELIGIOUS freedom, not
on them being charitable organizations."
So if I found a religion that is explicitly
devoted to my material gain (The Church of
Latter Day Ne$$ie, perhaps) do you think I'll
get tax exempt status? |
Nessie
Americanwoman (Jan 13 2004 - 13:49) |
What are Hillary's true
feelings about Gandhi? What other kind of racist jokes
will Hillary come up with? What would Gandhi think about
Hillary's joke? --(good enough, mod?)
Nessie--Congress has enacted special tax laws
for churches. These laws only apply to
churches. The tax exempt status of churches
has nothing to do with churches being
charitable organizations.
Some things that the IRS considers when
determining whether a church is really a
church:
-a distint legal existence
-recognized creed and form of worship
-definite and distinct ecclesiastical
government
-distinct religious history
-regular congregations
-regular religious services
-organization of ordained ministers
More about churches' tax exempt status:
http://www.t-tlaw.com/cf-11.htm |
amreicanwoman
Nessie (Jan 13 2004 - 14:53) |
From the IRS tax code:
"Sec. 501. Exemption from tax on
corporations, certain trusts, etc.
(c) List of exempt organizations—
(3) Corporations, and any community chest,
fund, or foundation, organized and operated
exclusively for religious, . . . or
educational purposes . . . no substantial
part of activities of which is propaganda,or
otherwise attempting, to influence
legislation. . . and which does not
participate in, or intervene in (including
the publishing distributing of statements),
any political campaign on behalf of (or in
opposition to) any candidate for public
office." |
Nessie
Americanwoman (Jan 13 2004 - 15:15) |
I'm not sure what you're
getting at.... but this IRS tax code that you
quote is saying that religious organizations
cannot endorse or donate money to a
particular political candidate and keep their
tax exempt status (At least, I think that's
what your quote is saying--it's hard to be
sure without reading the entire section.)
Religious organizations and churches aren't
necessarily the same thing--there are
different tax rules that apply to them.
Churches have special tax rules, apart from
religious organizations ( a church may be a
religious organization but a religious
organization isn't necessarily a church).
However, it is true that a church also cannot
donate money to or endorse a political
candidate and keep its tax exempt status.
Anyway, the IRS has special tax rules that
only apply to "churches" and not to
other religious organizations. And I'm not
sure that the part of the code that you
quoted is even talking about
"churches". |