Associating with Apostasy:
Obama’s Troubling Relationship with Black Theology
Politics, Religion — By Joe Carter on March 18, 2008 at 12:44 am It would be difficult to dispute that Barack Obama has a problem. But despite what is being claimed by many bloggers and journalists, the Senator’s biggest problem isn’t his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Sen. Obama’s association with the rogue pastor is forgivable; his association with apostasy, however, is inexcusable.
Obama remains a member of an apostate, heretical church that makes no distinction between faith and politics. Trinity United Church of Christ adheres to a black liberation theology, a strain of heresy that makes Christianity subservient to a twisted, racialist political ideology. The purpose of Black theology is, as the movement’s founding theologian claims, to make political “liberation” the “central theme of the biblical message.”
Consider their introduction on the “About Us” section of the church’s website:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Trinity United Church of Christ is a racist church. That should be beyond dispute. But if you disagree, substitute the word “white” for “black” and “Aryan” for “African.” Now consider how comfortable you would be with Hillary Clinton or John McCain going to such a church.
But it gets worse. Beneath that statement they add:
“The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
Several of the points seem laudatory and explicitly Christian (#1, 2, 3, 5) while a few are unnecessarily divisive (#4, 6, 8, 9). But the use of orthodox Christian terms (salvation, reconciliation) is given perverse new meanings in black liberationist thought.
For example, consider the work of James Hal Cone, the founder of Black theology. (When Sean Hannity interviewed Wright, the pastor asked his interviewer, “How many of Cone’s books have you read?”) Cone once wrote:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. (Via Asia Times)
This dangerous, satanic, perversion of the Gospel is the foundation of Trinity United Church of Christ.
This is the crux of the problem for Obama: Set aside the inflammatory rhetoric of Rev. Wright, even concede that the Senator knew nothing of his mentor’s hate-filled rants, and you’re still left with the troubling fact that for 20 years Obama was member of a church that is founded on this racist and anti-Christian theology.
This is the distorted theology that Obama’s daughters were being taught in Sunday School. This is the despicable theology that was being preached while Obama was asleep in the pews. This is the divisive theology that Obama’s fellow church members embraced and spread throughout the black community in Chicago. And yet we’re to believe that despite being immersed in this wicked, hateful theological sewage for two decades Obama wasn’t aware of what his pastor or his church believed?
At RedState, Jeff Emanuel highlights the horns of a dilemma that Obama faces:
Joining Wright’s church was either about religion — which is evidence that Obama likely has far too much in common race-and-America-hating-wise with Jeremiah Wright than anybody allowed near the presidency can be rightly allowed to have — or it was about politics and snowing the public into thinking that he had certain religious beliefs, until such a time as that relationship of political expediency was no longer needed — something which is troubling in its own right.
I choose to believe that Obama is not a racist and does not agree with the basic tenets of his church. Yet I find the alternative explanation just as troubling.
Imagine if I were to spend 20 years attending the Aryan Church of the White Christ. Unlike the nice people in the pews, I myself am not a racist–but I didn’t disassociate myself with them either. I looked the other way and feigned ignorance of what my church teaches even when presented with evidence that I would have to be a fool to have ignored. Would I be a person of integrity, much less one who is qualified to be the President of the United States?
No. No, I wouldn’t be.
And neither is Barack Obama.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
129 Comments
Marvin the Martian:
Sounds to me like you’re one of the “kill women who want to terminate their pregnancies” thugs.
You know, the kind that equates humans with zygotes.
Now that’s “radical,” and immoral, and ultimately a disgusting devaluation of human life.
But obviously the Civil War thing you don’t like either, because that pretty much defined personhood legally as born persons.
Too bad. We won the Civil War, and the anti-life side (hardly “pro-life”!) did not.
You’re right. This is just a “zygote” not worthy of protection.
Your moral compass is so corrupt it truly defies all description.
Link didn’t work above…
Link didn’t work above…
It really shouldn’t surprise anyone that mumon can’t tell the difference between facts and opinions; after all, he thinks that racism and genocide are synonyms for whatever it is he doesn’t like. I imagine it does make the dinner table rather interesting, for example mumon might say “I am not going to eat these racist brussels sprouts” or “I refuse to eat this genocidal cauliflower”. Must be terribly hard on his wife, though.
ucfengr
No it’s not, it is correcting the lie you are trying to spread that McCain has a relationship with Parsley similar to the one Obama has with Wright. Again I ask, if Obama’s relationship with Wright is no big deal, why do you feel the need to lie about McCain’s with Parsley (and Hagee) to compensate?
Actually you’ve got it upside down. Because Obama has known Wright for so long he does have an obligation to show some measure of respect for the man’s good works while rejecting the bad. Since Obama appears to be a serious Christian, it would be dishonest to pretend to deny the man who he says lead him to Christ. Such a ’stab in the back’ would actually be more of a Clintonian tactic.
McCain, on the other hand, has no serious relationship that I know of with these characters. They are not family members, they never did anything for him and he probably has no idea who they really are. Seeking and embracing their endorsements is troubling because it is purely political.
On the later post, some have criticized Obama for bringing up his grandmother and her sometimes racist views despite being a good person. I think the illustration, though, was telling. If your grandfather was Archie Bunker, I don’t think you need to denounce him and assert you hate him in order to earn national office. If you don’t know Archie Bunker from Adam, though, I’d be troubled if you sought him out as a political authority.
I disagree, in fact I would argue that slavery was more of a hindrance to the US economy than a boon. Look at the economic statistics of the North vs. the South from 1820 to 1860 for a good picture of how slavery stagnated economic growth in the South.
The south, though, didn’t exactly explode economically when slavery was abolished. I’ve seen it asserted by “neo-confederates” that slavery was dying economically ‘anyway’ and therefore the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery and was unnecessary in some way. I don’t see that as being true, though. If slavery was an economic drag then why did slave owners own slaves? Obviously they felt they were getting more in economic value than they were spending in maintaining them. If they weren’t, even in the deep south, they were free to legally free them and let them feed themselves.
Whether or not slavery was a hinderance would also depend on how you measure it. Your case is probably better if you incorporate the slaves welfare into the equation. A slavery defender from 1860, though, would assert that only the welfare of non-whites should count. I would suspect if you did an economic analysis of slavery by only looking at non-slaves in the south you’d find it ‘paid off’ for them. This would hold even though the majority of whites did not own slaves and those that did seemed to make themselves a sort of ‘ruling class’.
Slavery might have been economically incompatitable with an industrial economy but I think if slavery was never challenged all that would have happened is that poor whites in the south would have moved into the industrial revolution while blacks were kept as slaves in agriculture. BTW, maybe a year ago one of my in-laws came by with this DVD. It was a documentary with an alternate history of the South winning the civil War. While it had some corny ‘commercials’ for an America with modern day slavery, it was actually kind of interesting. You might have heard of it or seen it yourself. I forget its title, though.
I stand corrected. However, it is indisputable that many African Americans fought with the British, because they were promised their liberty…
Any many fought on the American side as well. And you know, there were a number of blacks that fought for the South in the Civil War.
And it is also indisputable that the economy of the United States for decades before and after the Revolution was dependent on slavery for its survival, and when slavery was finally abolished, at bloody cost, it was replaced with Jim Crow in the South and Dickensian working conditions in the North.
The cotton gin was the only thing that saved the slave economy of the South. It wasn’t economical otherwise. The North meanwhile was quickly industrializing through a mercantilism policy. So, no, slavery wasn’t necessary for the economic survival of the country.
Mumon, really, read some non-leftist history.
Actually you’ve got it upside down.
No, I really don’t, but I do complement you on the time, effort, and mental gymnastics you must have put yourself through to convince yourself otherwise.
Because Obama has known Wright for so long he does have an obligation to show some measure of respect for the man’s good works while rejecting the bad.
You might have a case if Wright had started preaching the hate-America/hate-whitey stuff, like last Tuesday; clearly that is not the case. He’s started preaching it long before Obama joined up. You may as well argue that Frank Nitti had an obligation to Al Capone (2 other Chicago boys) because Al started some soup kitchens during the Depression.
The south, though, didn’t exactly explode economically when slavery was abolished. I’ve seen it asserted by “neo-confederates” that slavery was dying economically ‘anyway’
That might have had a little something do with the Civil War and the near complete destruction of Southern infrastructure that it caused. This is really outside the scope of this discussion, so I don’t want to go into any depth, but if you are interested in the Civil War and some of the economic aspects of it I suggest you read McPhearson’s “Battle Cry of Freedom”. The first section is about the economies of the antebellum US and it’s impact on the two sections (North and South).
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/marchweb-only/112-44.0.html
Here is a good article on the subject.
Actually you’ve got it upside down. Because Obama has known Wright for so long he does have an obligation to show some measure of respect for the man’s good works while rejecting the bad.
I doubt you would be very accepting of this argument if it were McCain who had been a long-time member of Hagee’s or Parlsey’s church, instead of Obama.
That might have had a little something do with the Civil War and the near complete destruction of Southern infrastructure that it caused. This is really outside the scope of this discussion, so I don’t want to go into any depth, but if you are interested in the Civil War and some of the economic aspects of it I suggest you read McPhearson’s “Battle Cry of Freedom”. The first section is about the economies of the antebellum US and it’s impact on the two sections (North and South).
I’ll try to keep the book in mind. But I have to ask first what infrastructure? An agricultural economy does not have as much infrastructure as an industrial one. Second, economic growth, ironicially, should be stronger after a massive amount of destruction. Capital has more opportunities to invest.
(Why, then, do we simply not generate economic growth by randomly nuking ourselves every few years? Because it’s better to have a high degree of wealth with small increases in it than a very low degree with high increases. I’d rather be Bill Gates getting 3% COLA’s than a burger flipper with 10% yearly raises).
Look at Japan and Germany after WWII. They rapidly industrialized and quickly recovered from the war. The south was plauged by slow economic growth until today when the economy has shifted to a service based one.
I doubt you would be very accepting of this argument if it were McCain who had been a long-time member of Hagee’s or Parlsey’s church, instead of Obama.
Perhaps, we are all human and bias influences us but we should try to be consistent.
Obama, though, has very specifically explained what he does and doesn’t like about Wright and why Wright is wrong. Correct me if I’m wrong, but McCain has done nothing to tell us where he differs from Hagee. Last I heard he said something like he doesn’t agree with him “on everything”. Catholics, then, might take comfort in knowing maybe McCain doesn’t agree they are cultists worshipping “The Great Whore” or whatever.
Chris Lutz:
Read some William Blake and get back to me before praising the Cotton Gin…
Marvin the Martian:
Your equating of fetuses and zygotes with born people denigrates experiences, denigrates actions people do with each other, and denigrates what people and beings really are.
As such, it’s your lack of a moral compass, and many others like you that have brought us Iraq, Katrina, the blindness towards the threat of 9/11 before it happened, the deterioration of our military and economic security, and a host of other ills.
Also, cut the BS about the “Militant Black Panther Party.” Obama didn’t seek out their endorsement, so by continuing to find a tu quoque, you’re only proving what a hateful, spiteful, small racist you are.
I’ll try to keep the book in mind. But I have to ask first what infrastructure? An agricultural economy does not have as much infrastructure as an industrial one.
The South did have a railroad system that they used to get their cotton to port for transport North or overseas. This was one of the main targets of Sherman’s March to the Sea. They also had some industrial capacity, for example the Tredegar Iron Works in Richomnd, which the war pretty much destroyed.
Second, economic growth, ironicially, should be stronger after a massive amount of destruction. Capital has more opportunities to invest.
Well, much of Southern capital was tied up in slaves and land, so the South didn’t have capital to invest. The North had lots of capital, but the opportunities for investment were better in the North and West. Remember, during the Civil War, the plan for the East to West railroad was finalized. Also, one of the consequences of the War was creation of alternate sources of cotton (specifically Egypt), because Southern cotton couldn’t get to port due initially to a Southern embargo designed to encourage European participation in the war, and later to the Northern blockade. So after the War, Europe didn’t need Southern cotton, and the North had better investment opportunities elsewhere.
Obama, though, has very specifically explained what he does and doesn’t like about Wright and why Wright is wrong.
What is your premise here, that Wright has been preaching like this for at least as long as Obama has been a member or that Wright just started preaching the hate-America/hate-whitey shtick, last Tuesday? If Wright has been preaching this stuff for decades, than your excuse for Obama rings pretty hollow, after all he sat through his rants for a long time before he had had a chance to develop a close relationship Wright. If the latter, then you really need to offer up some evidence, because that is not what is out there. Also I really don’t accept your assertion that Obama has been specific. In reality he’s been quite the equivocator, trying to compare Wright’s decades of hate to Geraldine Ferraro’s one comment about Obama’s race and its impact on his Presidential campaign and his grandmother’s fear of an aggressive black panhandler.
but McCain has done nothing to tell us where he differs from Hagee. Last I heard he said something like he doesn’t agree with him “on everything”. Catholics, then, might take comfort in knowing maybe McCain doesn’t agree they are cultists worshipping “The Great Whore” or whatever.
I just don’t equate a one time meeting with a 20 year relationship and apparently nobody else does either, judging by McCain’s poll numbers. This Wright thing must really have Obama supporters scared if they have to try to make this connection. I really surprised you guys haven’t pointed out that both McCain and Hagee are named John, it’s about as strong a connection as the Wright-Hagee one.
Your equating of fetuses and zygotes with born people denigrates experiences, denigrates actions people do with each other, and denigrates what people and beings really are.
I get it already. You think it’s OK to slaughter unborn babies that are as human as you and I. Have fun in hell. I am sure you will find lots of company.
As such, it’s your lack of a moral compass, and many others like you that have brought us Iraq, Katrina, the blindness towards the threat of 9/11 before it happened, the deterioration of our military and economic security, and a host of other ills.
Your moonbattery truly knows no bounds.
And calling me a racist simply becuase I don’t agree with your myopic view of things, you only are demonstrating what a hateful, spiteful, intolerant, bigoted liberal you are.
Marvin the Martian:
All you have are insults, when it’s all said and done.
Nothin’ else.
Please, for the sake of all Americans who cherish their liberty, and ought to be rewarded for their labors, find some other country in which to reside.
It’s clear you and your folks detest what America truly stands for: liberty.
Now that’s “radical,” and immoral, and ultimately a disgusting devaluation of human life.
Something else we can add to to the list of terms mumon’s thinks are synonyms for things he doesn’t like.
All you have are insults, when it’s all said and done.
I guess the irony of this coming from someone who laces practically every post with some sort of “you’re a racist” blast or “you’re responsible for every evil under the sun” is lost on you.
Please, for the sake of all Americans who cherish their liberty, and ought to be rewarded for their labors, find some other country in which to reside.
You first.
It’s clear you and your folks detest what America truly stands for: liberty.
Kind of like how you come here and try to shut up anyone with whom you disagree with “you’re a racist, bigot, homophobe” or whatever you say to try and cram you morally twisted, political correctness bile down our throats.
Mumon:
I’ve been blogging other stuff and came back to see to your response, and I see that others have already taken care of that for me!
This string has meandered. Nevertheless, Mumon said:
Your equating of fetuses and zygotes with born people denigrates experiences, denigrates actions people do with each other, and denigrates what people and beings really are.
So tell us, what people “really are.” The longer you talk, the sooner you should realize that the subjugation and oppression of one race by another for convenience (aka economic gain) is not much different than the elimination of unborn people for convenience as well. It’s just another form of slavery.
To quote one famous philosopher, Guinan: “thousands of disposable people…”
Marvin the Martian:
…you come here and try to shut up anyone with whom you disagree …
Letitia :
So tell us, what people “really are.” …
Well…http://mumonno.blogspot.com/2005/05/who-are-you.html
When you stop confusing what you are or what people are or what zygotes are or what fetuses are with your idea of what they are (or even my idea of what they are), then you may begin to respect life.
When you stop confusing what you are or what people are or what zygotes are or what fetuses are with your idea of what they are (or even my idea of what they are), then you may begin to respect life.
Your repugnant verbal sophistry aside, you fail to address the specific question.
Is this life worthy of respect and protection? There is no middle ground. There is no “my idea” or “your idea” of what this life is.
Marvin the Martian:
Hardly sophistry, rather I’d say, your attempts to evade the unpleasant consequences of what I wrote would qualify as sophistry.
Your pictures of an aborted fetus are of course an attempt to subvert actual consideration of the situation.
Are the lives of fetuses worthy of respect and protection?
They do not exist in a vacuum. In fact they do not exist as independent entities, but as interdependent entities.
If that is not understood, then you cannot be truly respecting them, but rather you are enamored with your idea of “See the nasty aborted fetus!!!”
I’m pretty certain you want to keep attachment to your “See the nasty aborted fetus!!!”
It’s a form of greed.
Maybe not sinful to you, but it is certainly part and parcel of the poison of conservatism.
Are the lives of fetuses worthy of respect and protection?
They do not exist in a vacuum. In fact they do not exist as independent entities, but as interdependent entities.
Translated…
They are not worthy of respect or protection. It is OK to slaughter the baby because the woman had sex with a man that she deemed worthy of sleeping with, but not worthy of being a parent. Or the rubber broke. Or I can’t afford to raise a child. Or I am not mentally ready to be a parent. Or whatever selfish excuse you can imagine. Just don’t let that damn baby get in the way of me living my life the way I see fit!!!
It’s a form of greed.
Kind of like the abortion industry.
Marvin the Martian :
So you are no better nor worse than the evils you claim you fight against.
Your point is again???
To Marvin the Martian:
Thank you for your spirited and persistent defense of the humanity of the pre-born. I observed and learned many years ago that liberal/leftists who harp so much on “human rights” are usually not so fond of rights when the rights of another interferes with their own personal desires and actions. Their elevation of personal sexual practice above the humanity of the pre-born is an example. I have also learned that the leftists protestors for peace can often be very violent and that in fact they are often not really against war as long as revolutionaries or leftists are winning the war.
http://gogogolemjhuyjmh.com/ gogogolemjhuyjmh
gogogolemjhuyjmh
[url=http://gogogolemjhuyjmh.com/]gogogolemjhuyjmh[/url]
While the article specifically mentions Trinity, I would like to add that the AMEC (African Methodist Episcopal Church) supports Rev Jeremiah Wright and the heretical Black liberation doctrine he espouses.
Ok, Why can’t people of certain races take charge…meaning; Instead of continuing to blame other races for their continued history of poor judgment and lack of self discipline, to try looking for leaders of their own race to guide them to self improvement.
Quit pointing fingers, pull your pants up, speak proper English, then you will get the respect and support you believe should be handed to you on a silver platter.
Take some responsibility for your own actions, instead of blaming others.
By not doing so, is keeping racism alive and strong.
BTW, when a certain person G-Damned America, isn’t that taking the Lord’s name in vain? (Good Christian huh)
Hey guys,
I found a great deal on http://www.MemorySticksPro.com for 2gb 4gb 8gb and 16gb memory sticks.
I purchased one 2-3 days back and already received it so the deal seems sound. I am bargain hunter and I
looked all over ebay, amazon, buy.com, etc. but this was the cheapest I found so thought I’d share with
everyone as my first post on this forum ever.
Hope it helps! Give me some reps!
Looking to be a contributing member here!
Regards
Matt