Why Barack Obama WAS at church while Wright ranted
- Posted by Beth on March 17th, 2008 filed in 2008 election, Barack Obama, Candidates, General, Moonbats, Politics, Video Jeremiah Wright · religion
Apparently, there’s at least one time that can be pinned down. Of course, it’s impossible for me to believe it was only once, but that’s beside the point, except for the fact that he claims he was “not there.” Also, “The story points out that Oprah herself stopped attending the “church” years ago, and has been a target of Wright’s wrath.” I wonder why Oprah left that church? Maybe it’s because she not only thought it was too inflammatory, but disagrees with the theology.
This is a church of liberation theology, black liberation theology, which is pure left wing. Liberation theology isn’t just for black churches; it’s big in Latin America as Catholic liberation theology as well. It’s politics for the “oppressed.” Here’s a very short introduction from a critical perspective, another introduction, and commentary from the Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger) on liberation theology. More pertinent in this case: James Cone, in an interview with Bill Moyers.
Who subscribes to liberation theology? Leftists. Marxists. It isn’t just a few video clips from Jeremiah Wright; it is the ideology/religion of “the oppressed.” It is the ideology of Barack Obama.
For Obama to pretend that Wright is like a sometimes bumbling uncle, and that familial disagreement is really all there is in reference to the controversial videos that most of us have seen in the last few weeks, is disingenuous. Jeremiah Wright is not a singular voice, he voices the sentiments of those who founded Black Theology, and those who follow it, and his praxis explicates what he has been taught and what he believes.
Obama may disavow certain inflammatory remarks that Wright makes, but that is really a matter of adroit packaging because Obama believes in the same underlying theology that Wright does and has consistently repeated the same message - just purposefully packaged to make it more palatable to a broader base of potential voters.
It isn’t about the rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright, blaming “Europeans” (what he calls white people) or “God damn America,” it’s what drives that rhetoric–hard left ideology, just like the ideology of the ANSWER Coalition, Cindy Sheehan, et cetera.
Sorry, but I’ve never been a fan of the far left, whether it comes from a black man, a white woman, or a white man. Race doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it, in my eyes. It’s the ideology.
Barack Obama knew Reverend Wright’s “God damn America” rhetoric and ideology would be offensive to most Americans, yet he didn’t find it offensive enough to leave the church himself. It was offensive enough for Oprah Winfrey to leave years ago, but not enough for Barack Obama. Seeing how Obama’s political record is very left-wing, I’m not surprised. What Reverend Wright says is merely rhetoric–rhetoric that supports an ideology to which Obama subscribes. Pay attention to who says “Wright is right.” It’s people of all races who come from the Left and believe America to be “the oppressor.” Obama may not like the way Wright says what he does, but he must believe the ideology behind it. Why else would he stay?
UPDATE: Rod Dreher has more about Liberation Theology at BeliefNet. Via Karl at Leaning Straight Up, who has still more.
Lord Bitememan says:
Unfortunately this same pope who pointed out the Marxist underpinnings of Liberation theology is now trying to force the Catholic faithful to become political advocates in the struggles against such things as “social injustice” and “pollution.” Now I’m forced with a dilemma, do I up and leave the Catholic Church because I have issues with some of what they’re now saying, or do I stick with it and be associated with doctrines I fully disagree with? I suppose this isn’t unrelated to the Obama issue either, though I’m not sympathetic to Obama in this matter.
Beth says:
I haven’t read the text of what the Pope said, but from what I’ve briefly read elsewhere, that agenda was sort of a mainstream media interpretation. I’m interested in finding out, because it seems rather out of character for BXV to espouse leftist theory.
Gus says:
Beth, just a random observation into political strategy, but we might want to lay off decimating Obama until after Hillary pings him to death. If it’s her destroying him on this she’ll win the DNC vote and all the disenfranchised dems will either give up or vote republican in protest. If we mangle him the republicans look like the bad guy and they’ll “partially” flock around Hillary.
Just some food for thought.
Sure, it’s the easy road to take in beating him down, but it might not be the most strategic right now.
Stix says:
Both Pope John Paul II and Popoe Benidict XV scolded many in Latin America for their Liberation Theology. It goes against many of the Catholic Churches tenets.
Liberation Theology has nothing to do with the Catholic Church persay, it is just a political movement that has taken root in Latin American countries that have gotten in bed with Socialist and Marxists leaders. The Main leader in thought of Liberatio Thelogy has been told by the Pope t not teach it anymore. If he does, he will probably get excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Obamassiah has taken the hook line and sinker of Liberation Theology that has been taught by Jeremiah Wright. It is basically a political organization and not a chuech. they usethe church description to use the church as a tax free entity. It hasnothing to do with Christianity also, mostof wahtthey teachis againstthe Bible and most Christian teachings.
Foxfier says:
Lord Bitememan — if you’re talking about the supposed “new sins,” it was just more standard liberal media BS and failure to have a bloody clue what they were talking about.
TC says:
Liberation theology is a contradictory concept. Christian duty is for individuals to help the needy and to render to the government what is due (taxes). It’s for the church to teach the gospels and the lessons of Christ. Those lessons are far from Marxist and are counter to the gospel of victimhood perpetuated by leftist clergy.
Liberation theology is borderline heresy.
Reverse_Vampyr says:
As far as Obama trying to distance himself from the minister who married him to Michelle, baptized their children, acted as his spiritual mentor and whose church he attended for the past 20 years:
You don’t keeping going to eat at a restaurant where you don’t like the taste of the food.
Barack Obama’s speech: Fine, if you’re from the Left, I guess | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy says:
[...] is “quintessentially American” and conservative, but liberation theology or Marxism has little to nothing to do with “self-help.” The profound mistake of Reverend [...]
Lord Bitememan says:
K, I read and read everything I could find on the issue. Unfortunately the actual Vatican newspaper article from which the big news was derived is not available in English as far as I could see. I asked my priest about it, and he said that, by his reading, indeed these new sins are meant to serve as a collective guideline to how society manages these issues. Of course, I also can remember Father Ivan using the pulpit to condemn the Israeli policy of bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers in the West Bank and Gaza, so I entered in the possibility that he may have a political agenda. Then I was able to find this tidbit from the Vatican’s press releases from 1999:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/5792.php?index=5792&po_date=28.10.1999%20%20&...
Basically, read that press release and you, with some tweaking here and there, have the brand new deadly sins displayed before you as early as 1999. That says to me that not only did they intend this to have a collective activist aspect to it, but this has been Vatican thinking for a long time.
I have no love of mainstream media, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. They have it dead to rights on this issue. The church intends these to be collective social sins upon which they expect all members of society to take policy stances. I have a problem with that, but I’m not about to renounce a church I view as spiritually legitimate simply because I have a tiff with it over this issue.
Enter the Obama problem and why I can’t agree with the calls on Obama to disavow his church. Barack Obama, like anyone else, has a right to affiliate with a church he feels is spiritually legitimate. As a soul seeking a religious home this is his prerogative, not ours, and this cavalier attitude of “go find another church because this one is politically objectionable on some level” smacks of pimping out religions on the basis of their electability. Moreover, as a free thinking individual, Barack Obama has a fundamental right to his own opinions, even when those fly directly in the face of a church elder or even theological tenant. There are many reasons not to vote for Barack Obama, his tax stances, his dispositon as a political neophyte, his naive foreign policy notions, but that he picked the wrong church and our subsequent assumption that his not leaving it entails political support for its stances is the weakest and most disingenuous one of those. I proudly stand up and say that I care not one whit that the Roman Catholic church thinks my stomaching the Kyoto Protocol is my path to salvation, but my disagreement with the church on this issue is not nearly enough to jar my affiliation with the church Jesus himself vested in Peter.
DoraMia says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Bill Kristol:
In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Senator Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.
Ambrosiality says:
wow “Catholic Liberation Theology” definitely havent heard that before
raz0r says:
What Coach said.