logo
Remembering the Mother Emanuel Church Shooting 10 Years Later

Remembering the Mother Emanuel Church Shooting 10 Years Later

Yahoo2 days ago

Tim Grant is comforted during a prayer vigil on June 22, 2015 at the Charleston Southern University for the victims of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church mass shooting where nine people were killed, including two of Grant's cousins. Credit - Joe Raedle—Getty Images
Ten years ago this month, a 21-year-old misfit who imagined himself a white supremacist zealot walked casually through the unlocked door of the oldest African Methodist Episcopal Church in the South. Without hesitation, he was invited into a basement fellowship hall to join 12 African American worshippers at their weekly Bible study.
After roughly 45 minutes, once the congregants had closed their eyes in benediction, the young man removed a .45 caliber Glock from his waist pack and began to methodically assassinate nine men and women, ranging in age from 26 to 87. Three were on the ministerial staff, including the pastor, who also was serving his fourth term in the state senate. Each was shot at least five times, with the oldest, church matriarch Susie Jackson, shredded by ten hollow-point bullets. The survivors reported that the shooter made his racist intentions explicit as he fired, and he eagerly confirmed his sickening purpose to investigators after being captured the next day.
As a journalist who had chronicled progress and regress in my native South across four decades, I was deeply affected by the murders on June 17, 2015, at Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, S.C.—Mother Emanuel, as it is known. It was a blunt force reminder of the persistence of racial violence despite our fitful progress on civil rights. The timing toward the end of Barack Obama's second term seemed a pointed rebuke to any who still saw in his elections the heralding of a 'post-racial' America.
Two days later, I was, like so many, simultaneously awed and befuddled by the scene at Dylann Roof's televised bond hearing, when five victims' family members rose one after the next to offer some measure of forgiveness to the remorseless killer. 'I will never talk to her again, I will never be able to hold her again,' wailed Nadine Collier, the now motherless daughter of church sexton Ethel Lance. 'But I forgive you. And have mercy on your soul.' Even to the faithful, it seemed among the purest expressions of Christianity ever witnessed, and it inspired Obama to deliver a stirring eulogy that, while remembered for his warbling of 'Amazing Grace,' also was his most searing and authentic effort at grappling with race.
But what did the extension of grace really mean in the context of this tragedy? What did it mean, for that matter, in the context of 400 years of Black suffering, oppression, and injustice? Was it as simple as 'forgive us our trespasses' and 'forgive them, for they know not what they do?' Or were those Scriptural entreaties the foundation for something more self-protective that had evolved from centuries of systemic victimization?
While writing a book about Mother Emanuel, I devoted much of the next decade to exploring those questions, convinced that answers might be found through a deeper study of the backstories of the congregation and its denomination. Where better to search for the intersections of history and theology, I figured, than in Charleston, the steepled Holy City, where nearly half of all enslaved Africans disembarked in North America and where the Civil War began? As I came to better understand the subversive role played by the Black church in resisting oppression, it grew clearer that forgiveness was not always for the forgiven.
Read More: How Do You Forgive a Murder?
Black Charlestonians, as it ends up, have had a lot to forgive. The intensity of their suffering, and of their resistance to it, reverberates through the now 207-year story of Mother Emanuel and its predecessor congregation. When that body formed in 1818 after a bold walkout from white Methodist churches, it prompted an immediate and ruthless response. Congregants were arrested in mass and ministers jailed. Four years later, a purported slave insurrection plot was uncovered before it matured, and city authorities sourced its incubation in part to the church. Thirty-five men were led to the gallows, 17 with ties to the congregation. By order of the authorities, the sanctuary was dismantled board by board, and church leaders were forced into exile.
What followed was a vicious legislative crackdown on the already limited rights of both enslaved and free Black Carolinians; then the broken promises of Reconstruction; then the lynchings and beatings and Klan intimidation; then the incessant indignities and denial of rights of the Jim Crow era; then the jailings of peaceful civil rights demonstrators, including Emanuel's pastor; then the flying of an offensive Confederate flag over the State Capitol; and then, in 2015, the fatal shooting of an unarmed Black man by a white policeman, followed 74 days later by the murders of nine churchgoers by a young neo-Nazi.
The weight of it all, the duration of it all, can take your breath away. And for many, forgiveness might seem an inadequate response, given available options like anger, bitterness, hatred, revenge, retribution. A more natural one, perhaps a more human one, might even be 'Where was God?' But this presupposes that the forgiveness expressed toward Dylann Roof was for Dylann Roof. That, I concluded after interviewing survivors, family members, and theologians, likely misinterprets its intent and misunderstands the distinctive role that grace plays in the African American church.
Each of the forgiving family members explained that they acted not out of concern for Roof's physical or spiritual welfare, but for their own. No slate had been wiped. Some did not care much whether Roof lived or died. (He remains on federal death row in Indiana, one of three inmates whose sentences were not commuted to life in prison by President Biden at the close of his term.) Survivor Felicia Sanders, who had witnessed the executions of her son and her aunt, wished God's mercy upon Roof at his bond hearing, but damned him 'to the pit of hell' at his trial.
Those who forgave depicted the moment in mystical terms—unpremeditated, unexpected, the words just flowed. It was God talking, and they were mere vessels. But each also recognized in their act a timeworn survival mechanism, a tactic that had helped African Americans withstand enslavement, forced migration, captivity, indentured servitude, segregation, discrimination, denial of citizenship, and the constant threat of racial and sexual violence with their souls still, somehow, intact.
Distilled over the centuries from pulpits and prayer meetings, it had become almost learned behavior, church elders told me, allowing Black Christians to purge themselves of self-destructive toxins. It served as an unburdening, not an undoing, a means not only of moral practice but of emotional self-preservation. Because the choice to forgive was one dignity that could not be taken away, it also served as a path to empowerment. It might be mistaken for submission, but in Charleston it reflected a resolve to leave the killer to the courts and to God. In that way, forgiveness resurrected agency for victims who had been robbed of it.
'He's not a part of my life anymore,' Rev. Anthony Thompson said to me of his slain wife's killer. 'Forgiveness has freed me of that, of him, completely. I'm not going to make him a lifetime partner.'
Read More: Searching for Signs of a Change in Charleston
Telling this history—the history of white supremacy and of Black suffering and resistance—matters now more than ever. It explains our past. It gives needed context to our present. It is a prerequisite to a just and empathetic future, ideals that have somehow fallen from fashion. Yet, we now confront a campaign to banish this history, to deny it and erase it, for crassly transparent political purposes. The telling of the entire story of America, after all, calls into question the greatness that Donald Trump pledges to restore, and agitates a base that remains threatened and excitable by our multicultural reality.
Ten years ago, Roof's self-identification with the Confederate battle flag prompted the Republican leadership of South Carolina to remove it from the state Capitol grounds after more than fifty years of affront to a fourth of the population. A wildfire movement to eradicate Confederate symbolism swept the South, and Charleston's mayor and council used the fifth anniversary of the Emanuel tragedy, three weeks after the killing of George Floyd, to remove a statue of slavery defender John C. Calhoun from the city's central square.
Today, we move in the opposite direction. Personnel and educational policies that recognize the value of diversity and acknowledge past injustices are under withering assault. Within the first three months of this administration, books about racism had been banned from the U.S. Naval Academy library, and a National Park Service webpage had been scrubbed of references to Harriet Tubman (decisions that were eventually reversed in part after public outcry). Pete Hegseth's Pentagon restored the names of Forts Benning and Bragg, asserting that they now honored soldiers who happened to have the same surnames as their former Confederate namesakes. A presidential executive order in March required the removal of "improper, divisive or anti-American ideology" from the Smithsonian Institution and the restoration of monuments and memorials that had been removed 'to perpetuate a false revision of history.' The Orwellian language only reinforced the point.
Read More: The Battle for Our Memory Is the Battle for Our Country
But debasing our history through censorship and ideological cherry-picking insults the memory of the nine saints who were murdered at Mother Emanuel, desecrating its sacred space all over again. In whitewashing the inglorious chapters of America's past, we leave a void in 'these truths' that may not prove forgivable.
Contact us at letters@time.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MORNING GLORY: Antisemitism is shameful and evil. None of us should ever be neutral on such hate
MORNING GLORY: Antisemitism is shameful and evil. None of us should ever be neutral on such hate

Fox News

time44 minutes ago

  • Fox News

MORNING GLORY: Antisemitism is shameful and evil. None of us should ever be neutral on such hate

An attack on any Jew in America is an attack on every Jew in America. It does not matter if the victim of the intended violence was murdered, maimed or escaped unharmed. It does not matter in the least if the targeted Jew was an American, an American-Israeli, a Jew from a third country, or a gentile mistaken for a Jew or an Israeli, or a supporter of either the Jewish people or the state of Israel. The perpetrators of the violence are all evil. Deeply evil. Diseased in mind and soul. Their accomplices, whether in the display of action or via expressed or unexpressed sympathy —and including the apologists thereof attempting to explain motives — all are evil. As a Catholic Christian, I believe in Hell. Those who indulge antisemitism in act or word or in the silence of their mind are headed to Hell absent genuine repentance. For antisemitism is the exact opposite of Christian beliefs and practice. The "Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love," stated the document, "Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, "decries hatred, persecutions, displays of antisemitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." So, let's hear this in some homilies this Sunday and from the pulpits of Protestant churches. The Catholic Church's doctrine was unequivocal in its condemnation of antisemitism: "At any time." By "anyone." Including, of course, the attacks on Jews in Boulder, Colorado, on June 1, 2025, the murder of two Israeli diplomats in Washington, D.C. on May 21, 2025, outside the Lillian and Albert Small Capital Jewish Museum, and the firebombing of the home of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro on April 13, 2025. Antisemitism extends far back in the U.S. to the numerous attacks against Jews on American campuses and streets since October 7, 2023, and to the long trail of antisemitic violence before that horrific massacre which came primarily from the far right, including the attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, on October 27, 2018, and the attack on April 27, 2019, at Chabad of Poway synagogue in Poway, California. The "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August of 2017, like its predecessor proposed march of the Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, in 1976, are more recent examples. (The march in Skokie never happened but was moved to Chicago after extensive litigation upholding the right of the antisemites to march.) Those are just incidents in my memory. American antisemitism has a long and shameful history. But so too does non-Jewish opposition to antisemitism have a distinguished pedigree which includes, most famously, President George Washington's 1790 letter to the Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. The "father of our country" wrote then that the new nation he was helping build would give "to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance." President Donald Trump's condemnations of the violence directed at Jews has been equally unequivocal. Good. There has always been clarity on this issue. Too many, however, dodge the horror. Where is the non-Jewish chattering class today? Mostly silent or mumbling or posting attempts to link the criminals to Trump, or Elon Musk or a dozen different excuses. "But, but, but" is the first refuge of the Jew hater afraid to go public. There are some notable exceptions to the quiet or the equivocal. "The Editors" podcast from National Review of June 2, titled "Horror in Colorado," set an excellent bar of condemnation, but it has far too few equivalents in either the conservative or legacy press. Indeed, there are many accomplices to the ancient evil online and in print. Silence is indeed complicity right now, and outright complicity in knowingly platforming antisemitism is especially repugnant at a moment when diseased minds seem poised to follow the examples of the criminals in D.C. and Boulder. Match meet gasoline. Who and where, exactly, is today's equivalent of the French journalist and novelist Émile Zola played a key role in defending Alfred Dreyfus through his famous "J'accuse" open letter, published in the newspaper L'Aurore in January 1898. (If you'd like to learn the outline of the Dreyfus affair, try the excellent 2013 novel by Robert Harris, "An Officer and a Spy." The complicated persecution of Dreyfus can be difficult to trace more than 125 years after the fact, but Harris does it for the reader in an excellent example of the good that historical fiction can do to repair the damage done by the collapse of elementary and secondary education in world history in the U.S.) There are columnists and platforms of note. Have they filed yet? There are athletes and musicians and actors who are quick to rally to popular causes which trigger cascades of virtue signaling. Have they posted? I have yet to see a hashtag or open letter demanding the shaming and shunning of antisemitism in America. Perhaps such a statement is circulating now and about to appear. Perhaps a "We Are the World" is even now being rehearsed, recorded and set for release that will condemn this latest American variant of the ancient evil. Thus far, though, the silence is deafening. Singer-songwriter John Ondrasik of "Five for Fighting" has set the example. Will anyone else from the vast community of media join him? Hugh Hewitt is a Fox News contributor, and host of "The Hugh Hewitt Show" heard weekday afternoons 3 PM to 6 PM ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh wakes up America on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel's news roundtable hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcasting. This column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/tv show today.

Working Ohioans will lose health insurance under Medicaid work requirements
Working Ohioans will lose health insurance under Medicaid work requirements

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Working Ohioans will lose health insurance under Medicaid work requirements

(Stock photo via Getty Images) If you know anyone who works in the service industry, you should be very familiar with the problem of hour volatility. When work hours aren't set, worker schedules can vary greatly from week to week and from month to month. This can make a steady stream of income difficult to achieve for service workers. It can also affect eligibility for public benefits. The Ohio Department of Medicaid is currently working with the federal government to implement work requirements for Ohio's 'Medicaid expansion' population–the 760,000 Ohio residents who receive health insurance through the Kasich Administration-era expansion of Medicaid. These work requirements would apply to households at 138% of the federal poverty level and below. Low-income households tend to be headed by people who work in the service industry. My colleague Michael Hartnett estimates that cooks and waiters are the second- and fifth-most common jobs among people in the bottom 20% of income in Ohio. A new analysis by Brookings Institution researchers looks at how the volatility of hours for service workers will impact eligibility for benefits like Medicaid and SNAP. One of the things they look at is the mental model that undergirds the current work requirement system. In 1976, only 26% of low-income employees worked in the service sector. By 2024, that number had risen to 38%. This means that 50 years ago, the contours of an unsteady sector had less of an impact on month-to-month hours than it does today. These researchers used data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation to estimate that 64% of service workers worked less than 80 hours in at least one month in 2022. A third (34%) of workers who work an average of 80 hours a month had at least one month that year that they worked less than 80 hours. That means that a monthly work requirement of 80 hours would have disqualified a third of service workers at some point during 2022 from benefits like Medicaid or SNAP. The researchers also find these volatile work hours are largely outside of the control of the workers. According to their analysis, three-quarters of service workers with irregular schedules say their schedules are at the request of their employers, not their own. This is also a high rate among non-service workers, where over 3 in 5 low-income workers with irregular schedules are conforming to employer requirements. So what does this mean? It means tens of thousands of low-income workers in Ohio could lose their health insurance because of work hour volatility out of their control. The labor market has changed a lot over the past fifty years, especially for low-income workers. This has led to less certainty about hours, which makes thresholds like monthly hours not as effective for gauging whether people are participating in the labor force. There are a lot of reasons to be worried about work requirements. The fact that working people will lose health insurance because lack of control over work hours is just another one to add to the list. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Bookman: There's no way to cut $800 billion from Medicaid without hitting bone
Bookman: There's no way to cut $800 billion from Medicaid without hitting bone

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Bookman: There's no way to cut $800 billion from Medicaid without hitting bone

Opinion writer Jay Bookman argues that Trump administration officials are being dishonest when they say cuts to Medicaid won't lead to people losing benefits. the_burtons/Getty Images After repeatedly promising on the campaign trail that he would never cut Medicaid benefits, Donald Trump is pushing a 'big, beautiful' spending bill that would slash Medicaid and other health care spending by $800 billion over the next decade. And if you still believe the administration, they're going to make those cuts without anyone losing benefits. As White House official Russell Vought put in last week, 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense. No one will lose coverage as a result.' If your BS detector isn't ringing by now, you need to take it in for repair. Confronted with the absurdity of claiming that you can cut $800 billion without canceling health care coverage, Trump officials retreat to their fallback position. Yes, they admit, they'll be cutting benefits, but only for those who don't deserve it. 'Medicaid does not belong to people who are here illegally, and it does not belong to capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work,' another White House official told Politico. 'So no one is getting cut.' Once again, though, your BS detector ought to be blaring. Under existing federal law, undocumented immigrants are already barred from getting Medicaid. They're promising to cut benefits to people who are already not getting those benefits. So no savings there. And the truth is, most of the able-bodied men who are too lazy to work are also too lazy to worry about jumping through the hoops needed to get Medicaid health-care coverage. Such men do exist, no doubt, but in numbers far too small to generate $800 billion in savings. To get savings on that scale, you have to look elsewhere. And the truth is that millions of lower-income Americans, many of them working people, would be stripped of their health insurance if the bill becomes law. In Georgia alone, the projections are that as many as 200,000 people would lose coverage. And because Medicaid plays a larger health care role in rural communities, where the population is older and private sector jobs less likely to offer health insurance, the impact would be greater in those areas, putting additional financial strain on rural hospitals and health-care providers already struggling to stay open. (If Congress also refuses to extend subsidies for the Affordable Care Act later this year, as seems likely, the total number of Georgians who lose health insurance could top 700,000.) And no, the money saved by such measures would not be used to reduce the nation's deficit. It would instead be used to finance tax cuts, the overwhelming majority of which would benefit the wealthy. A big chunk of the projected savings, an estimated $280 billion, would come from instituting work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The model for that nationwide requirement is supposedly the Pathways program instituted here in Georgia in 2020 by Gov. Brian Kemp. By most measures, however, that program has proved a massive disappointment. According to the original projections by the Kemp administration, some 25,000 low-wage Georgians should have been enrolled in Medicaid through the program in its first year of operation. The actual number was 4,300. By the end of its second year of operation, which comes next month, total enrollment was projected to be almost 50,000. As of April 25, it was 7,400, according to reporting by ProPublica and The Current. The monthly reporting requirements, record-keeping and bureaucratic red tape proved so discouraging that many Georgia applicants gave up in frustration, choosing instead to take the risk that they would not need coverage. If it seems odd that such a program would be embraced as a model by the GOP, it might be a matter of perspective. It might be that your idea of a failure is somebody else's idea of a success, because the two of you have different goals in mind. In this case, if your goal is to provide at least a bare-bones health insurance plan to lower-income Americans, then Georgia's Pathways program has failed. However, if your goal is to discourage and obstruct as many Americans as possible from participating in that coverage, because you want to generate $800 billion in savings so the rich can get more tax cuts, then it starts to look a whole lot better. Those yachts aren't going to buy themselves. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store