RSS Feed
Obama, For the Love of God, Get Nasty!
Yesterday, I implored Barack Obama to re-energize Progressive Evangelicals. He needs to convince them afresh that a Christian's political portfolio extends beyond opposition to abortion and gays. He needs to convince them that his policies better address their concerns about the environment, poverty, sexual trafficking, genocidal regimes and AIDS, than those of McCain. And he must convince them to spread this Gospel to their fence-sitting co-religionists
Today, I wish to stress that his campaign had better rethink its reluctance to get nasty in the domain of Faith and Values politicking. Obama, I think, tends to see this domain as some sort of sacred space, one in which laudable religious virtues should inform his behavior on the campaign trail. He appears to subscribe to an unwritten commandment (inscribed in no political Torah that I know of) stipulating that anything touching upon God or belief must remain strictly in the realm of the positive.
Think of him waiting months before disassociating himself from Reverend Wright. Think of him (belatedly) leaving Trinity United Church of Christ and expressing concern not for his own tarnished prospects, but for the well-being of the parishioners he left behind. Think of him walking into Rick Warren's megachurch unarmed without as much as one zinger or snarky aside about John McCain (or operative stationed outside the "cone of silence").
But most importantly think of him not responding in kind to John McCain's raucous "The One" ad. Why he didn't return fire within 24 hours is as much a mystery to me as his lawyerlike performance at Saddleback. But the lines of attack he could have exploited were plentiful and obvious.
To begin with, he could have reminded Conservative Evangelicals of their difficulties with McCain. How about running some video of the Maverick excoriating the "agents of intolerance" back in 2000? How about a radio ad rehearsing Dr. James Dobson's views on the Republican nominee? And if Obama got bored with softening up this segment of the GOP base, how about insinuating that McCain does not only know how many houses he owns, but whether he is an Episcopalian or a Baptist (Alternative strike: "John McCain--an Episcopalian 90% of the time")?
But Obama just won't go there. He has missed opportunities to defend himself against attacks on his religious image. Worse still, he has made the crucial error of permitting McCain to define McCain in his capacity as a Christian. And while this may indicate that Obama is a good and principled man, it also suggests that he and his team operate under false assumptions about the way the religion card is played in American politics.
For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
September 9, 2008; 12:01 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: How McCain Far-Righted the Ship |
Next: Trash Talk in Ghana
Posted by: Amy_Biola Student | September 15, 2008 4:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree Senator Obama has backed off the christian front because of the Jeremiah Wright and him being accused of being a Muslium. I think Mccain has dogged the questions and changed the subject by giving excuse for being a POW which has very little to do with the issues.
Senator Obama is picking a choosing which attacks is going to stick to him and he countering them but he needs to speak out more like he did today in Northfolk, Va he gave a great speech and he didn't hold back. If he continues layout his policies like that I think independents and undeciders will pay more attention to his message.
Posted by: Jacques | September 11, 2008 7:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hey 66-
My 4 cats were all rescued- now they have babies (6)- who turned 2 months old 2 days ago- I'm putting up their videos and pics on craigslist tomorrow- I'll post a link. :)
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 11, 2008 1:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
People want to play cat and mouse games with you. You need to keep killing mice. Get a cat.
The instinct to survive stays with us until the end.
http://www.homelesscatrescue.com/ivory.shtml
Posted by: 66 | September 10, 2008 5:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Senator Obama/Senator Biden is sure to win the election!"
Cromwell is marching troops across Ireland. He leaves a village and they ring the church bells because he left the place standing. Cromwell turns the troops around, goes back and orders the church burned down. Let that be a warning to you about celebrating a victory too early he tells the sad people watching their church burn to the ground. That's burning down the church.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2008 4:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi Farnaz-
I couldn't find any stats from the Times (but I didn't look that hard) but I did find this survey which I thought was interesting-
http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/SurveyJewish07.PDF
It's true jewish liberal intellectual types have been solidly democratic- but the neo-conservatives have skimmed alot of conservative jewish votes over the last 30 years.
Look at that survey from 2007- it bears that out.
Now, Jews for Jesus are definitely as evangelical and salvation oriented as any christian- I'd say they can be even more enthusiasitc.
And look at the Lubivitchers- if that isn't salvific, i don't know what is.
There were alot of J for J's in Calif.
I worked closely with them when I ran a program feeding homeless people in Venice Beach and they were numerous and service oriented and all believed in salvation through Jesus (and all born and raised Jews)
but, since this story just really broke yesterday- I was making another of those predictions.
But the point is not at all what they or christians believe necessarily- (there are also many christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus-Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses for example)
The point is that Palins, 3 weeks ago, sat in her church while David Brickner gave a speech claiming that Israel was being punished for not being a saved nation-
And then had her spokeswoman remark that Palin did not 'disbelieve' (which means believe) what Brickner stated, and that she would continue to go to hear him speak at her church.
I'm not Jewish- but but I do know that many Jewish people fled to the GOP because they felt that it protected Israel's interests more aggressively than the Dems.
It was just a predicition based on the newest stories. Actually today's story is the bridge to nowhere, but I must have been prescient on that one because I already made my argument for that-
I like to keep ahead of the pundits, ad foresee what their stories will be tomorrow, and comment on them today- and then come back and see how close I was.
Earlier i was wondering if Palin will use her son's deployment , politically and expeditiously dated for Sept 11- for her own political gain.
But politicians, as i always say, are not who I listen to for spiritual guidance.
:)
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 10, 2008 4:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Jewish voters vote Democrat, overwhelmingly, and always, overwhelmingly in presidential elections."
Farnaz, that's either overly hopeful or silly. Haven't you noticed that this presidential election is like no other presidential election in the past?
Check out the latest turn in the road-
Revolution You Can Believe In
"In her game-changing convention speech, Sarah Palin took a swipe at Obama for having been nothing more in his life than a ‘community organiser’.
This prompted the Obama campaign to issue a pained defence of community organisation as a way of promoting social change ‘from the bottom up’. The impression is that community organising is a worthy if woolly and ultimately ineffectual grassroots activity. This is to miss something of the greatest importance: that in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.
The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.
His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’."
More at link
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2073071/revolution-you-can-believe-in.thtml
Posted by: IMHO | September 9, 2008 11:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
PS:
Meanwhile it is only fair not to demonise Senator McCain and Governor Palin. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, just like Senator Obama and Senator Biden.
Keep in mind, saints usually don't run for public office.
Posted by: Obama Well Wisher | September 9, 2008 10:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OBAMA, THE ANGEL OF DEATH
Sen. Obama promised to a gathering of Planned Parenthood last July that his first act as president – and that’s what he said, “my first act” — won’t be to bring home the troops from Iraq, or to set up a government health care system or any of the other things that Barack Obama has promised. The Number One thing, the top priority, his first act, is to sign a bill called the Freedom of Choice Act, which re-legalizes partial-birth abortion, among other things. Fine. People have all kinds of opinions about abortion. People are pretty much in agreement about partial-birth abortion – that they don’t want it. But that will be his first priority, and that he would go so far as to pander to Planned Parenthood and say that at their gathering last July, is really, really amazing to me.
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 10:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"I think this will not sit well with Jewish voters and anticipate a pulling away of their support."
Jewish voters vote Democrat, overwhelmingly, and always, overwhelmingly in presidential elections. This is interesting since it cuts straight across class lines, as it does not with other religious groups. This infor. is easily accessed on the Web. A simple search of the Times for each election year breakdown makes the point.
In the present race, McCain could exploit certain issues, but, thus far, hasn't bothered. (Understandable. It's a lost cause.)
***************************************
"I can't find his name right now) the founder asserted that Israel was under attack by her enemies because she has refused to accept Jesus as her savior and rejected him as the messiah."
This group has been around for quite awhile and has great importance in its own mind. It's membership is minute, despite its claims, for reasons that would be evident to anyone knowledgeable in Judaism. Judaism is incompatible with salvific religion.
Because Christianity is the dominant religion, most Jews and most Muslims are aware that Christianity holds that one cannot be "saved" unless one accepts Christ as his/her savior. Nonetheless, Jews don't, and Muslims don't. With or without Palin's having heard this speaker, we Jews and Muslims would assume she subscribes to the basic tenets of Christianity.
Posted by: Farnaz | September 9, 2008 10:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I intend to post next only to congratulate Senator Obama and Senator Biden as the next President and Vice-President of the United States of America!
Posted by: Obama Well Wisher | September 9, 2008 10:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oops, that was Obama Well Wisher
Posted by: Obama Well Wisher | September 9, 2008 10:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator Obama/Senator Biden is sure to win the election! What is unknown is only how small or large the margin of success would be.
Obama-Biden make a great team and the world is already waiting for the Americans to elect them.
Why it makes no sense for Senator Obama to defend his religious image: he is a politician not a religious leader; his politics must withstand scrutiny not his image as a religious persona. If his spirituality and religion is genuine, it need not be defended. His policies and his conduct will speak for themselves.
Posted by: Obama Well Wishes | September 9, 2008 10:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Getting nasty just means you can't get smart. The stupid are nasty and most of us can get stupid from time to time. Getting smart takes more time and effort. This guy is playing gutter politics and reaching out to worst in people. I'm sure he will find it. Who cares?
Posted by: 66 | September 9, 2008 10:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The day religion rules in this country is the day the country is lost. Cynical politicians care nothing about religion, but they know their voters. They will sell you religion, and you will buy it. They will own you, body and soul.
Posted by: point of view | September 9, 2008 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The media needs to stop their lies about women favoring Palin. People who have women in their lives such as mothers, daughters, sisters, etc. know darn well that women are smarter than ass. Though I acknowledge that the weak and ignorant ones will vote for Palin and McCain. Others who are advanced thinkers and knowledgeable about the make up of our economic system (Dow, Nasdaq, etc. had been in the red for too long now), the needs of our ordinary citizens and especially the needs of our children, they will vote for a change regardless of party or race. Period.
Posted by: Marie Edith | September 9, 2008 8:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Daniel - how many black people are members of Sarah Palin's church"
POV-
Sarah Palin grew up in the Assemblies of God Church and is currently a member of a non-denominational church.
These churches are multiracial all over America and are growing in membership. These large churches are filled with Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and in Palin's Alaskan home churches Inuits (Eskimos).
If you don't believe me take a look at a sermon preached on Christian TV. When the camera pans the congregation you will see faces of all races.
Don't guess an answer. It makes you sound biased. Inform yourself.
Christians are becoming knowledgable about Obama's associations within his home church. The vast majority of American believers do not hold to Black Liberation Theology. They will vote faith not race.
Posted by: Daniel | September 9, 2008 8:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hey Freddie, I got a snake you can handle. I wish you well, too.
Posted by: Cooder | September 9, 2008 7:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Daniel - how many black people are members of Sarah Palin's church in Alaska? To imagine that she represents mainstream America is beyond ridiculous - she and her husband were Alaska secessionists.
How many people have you ever known that wanted to secede from the USA and form their own government? Unless you're from Texas, of course -and in which case I highly recommend secession. We'll keep Austin though, and thank you.
The fact that Obama is black is the problem for half of America - period. White fundamentalists ignore the fact that they're blatantly racist, and project their own issues on the usual scapegoat - the black guy. Make the black guy the racist and you're home free.
At one point, many democrats were hopeful that America was beyond it - frankly, the Hillary people doubted it, and this is in part why they are bitter now.
If Obama is defeated, it is purely white racism and for no other reason. McCain/Palin is a joke, even to republicans....but Karl Rove will have the last laugh. The electorate is dumb and getting dumber.
White christian evangelicals and fundamentalists are the biggest sinners that we've ever had in these United States of America - by their own definition. There blatant racism is disgusting.
Fred Jones, you were never a 'former' democrat. Time to tell the truth Fred.
Posted by: point of view | September 9, 2008 7:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Daniel: You are correct. And, I believe that even though many Americans have seen some of Rev. Wright's rants, still most Americans don't really understand the true nature of the theology of Obama's church. Right now, Obama is relying on the ignorance of the public when he states that he "wasn't present" during any of the sermons which many of us have seen. Notwithstanding the fact that his assertion strains credulity, does it really matter which sermons he heard, when the basic theology of his church is divisive and racist? I think not. The fact that he attended a racist black liberation theology church for 20 years, and considered its racist pastor to be his "mentor and spiritual adviser," speaks volumes about his character and judgment.
Black liberation theology is a divisive and racist theology, dedicated to, as its founder James H. Cone wrote, "the destruction of the white enemy." The more Americans find out about the theology which Obama has subscribed to for over 20 years, the lower his poll numbers will fall.
Finally, I'm am very disheartened the extent to which Obama supporters excuse the racism of his church. Racism is wrong, period, no matter what color the racist. As a former Democrat, I thought our party was better than that.
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 7:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred is pointed to the downfall of your candidate. You should have never nominated someone who belonged to a blatantly racist church. Its not just a hardsell in the heartland of America- its a no sell.
Posted by: Daniel | September 9, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Praise The Lord: Thank you for your not so kind and compassionate comment. Whether we agree or not, I wish you well.
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hey Fred Jones, you're a natural. I recommend a large Western Diamondback - just grab him in the middle anywhere and pick him up. He will be very responsive to your touch. Praise the Lord!
Posted by: praise a serpant | September 9, 2008 6:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Some Obama supporters say, as you have, that Hillary supporters should support Obama rather than McCain because Obama’s policies are similar to Hillary’s. However, they are assuming that Obama's policy statements are the only issues in the election. Yes, Obama claims that his policies are very much like Hillary's, but being the most deceptive politician of my lifetime, how can we know if that's true. Moreover, after all of the recent flip-flops, who can be sure where Obama really stands on any of the issues. The only thing about which I am certain, is that he will do anything, take any position, and jettison anyone, to win this election.
In addition, before you analyze anyone's policies, you must look at their character. Obama has shown, time and again, to be deceptive, ruthless and divisive. If anything, Obama has shown himself to be more dishonest and ruthlessly ambitious than any politician this side of George Bush. And, his 20 year allegiance to a racist and anti-American "mentor and spiritual adviser" destroys his pretense as a candidate who can bring America together. All we have left now, is a typical politician with little experience, who is trying to perpetrate on the American public, one of the most terrible hoaxes of our time.
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 6:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I really hate to see pro-Hillary, anti-Obama forces begin to infect the blog here. The current divisiveness is bad enough.
And I never thought I'd see the day that certain democrats would threaten to undermine the election of the duly nominated party candidate because it wasn't their candidate of choice. This is a travesty.
I would like to say that if pro-Hillary forces in any way sabotage or cause the defeat of Obama based on their own selfish motives, Hillary is dead in the water in 2012. Please do not doubt this. She will not even be nominated, there will be such rancor among democrats. This may be something the Hillary people are not seeing.
I further predict the party faithful will desert in droves, as well they should. If the democrats can't unite behind the candidate they have, then it's time for their demise.
The death of the Democratic Party as we've traditionally known it could well be a natural outcome of this election if McCain wins - something I didn't think possible following 8 years of Bush. Now I'm beginning to believe it's just possible.
I'm not predicting election results quite yet.
Posted by: nostradamus II | September 9, 2008 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm loving the blast from the past. I'm getting real comfortable with death now. I feel at peace. If life doesn't work the way it should, go where the spirit guides you. Why be nasty about things? I'm glad I'm dead. It beats the old living hell on earth I was in while alive. There are no elections here. We just get along.
Posted by: 66 Above and Beyond | September 9, 2008 6:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Better a snake handler, than a snake like Obama.
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 6:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm just excited about Palin being Pentecostal. I've been waiting a long time to see a snake-handler in high office.
Posted by: cooder | September 9, 2008 6:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Victoria,
Nice web site - definitely neutral.
As for 'speaking in tongues' - I gotta be Christian here. It is told in the NT, in Acts. The disciples were visited by the Holy Spirit, and began speaking what seemed nonsense and babbling. But here is the meaning:
Acts 2: 6
At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. ('them' refers to the Apostles.)
'Speaking in tongues' is the gift of speaking in a REAL language, different from your own, so that you can go spread the Good News of the Gospels.
Apparently Palin does not routinely speak in tongues, nor is she a 'Holy Roller'. But, IMHO, anyone who babbles in church better be speaking in a known language, new to them, or they are just fooling themselves. God knows the truth, for sure.
Posted by: Arminius | September 9, 2008 6:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius: Ah, the gratuitous race card. You do your Master proud.
I used to think that the ultra-right-wing zealots who supported George Bush were bad, but Obama's supporters have been the most abusive, threatening, and hostile group towards opposition that I have ever witnessed or heard about. They have caused blogs opposing the Senator to be shut down. They have made threats of physical violence and death threats against people who oppose Obama. They have made threats against Hillary Clinton's delegates. The actions of the people who follow a person, sometimes give a clear indication about the person they are following - consider the racist Rev. Wright and the terrorist Bill Ayers. They are either the most mentally challenged or the most brainwashed supporters to ever sully the face of the earth since the hoards who worshiped Hitler in Nazi Germany. They can see no wrong in their Messiah, and hurl insults, attacks and race cards against all who dare criticize Obama. They are as flawed and dangerous as Obama himself, and should give all of us one more reason why the inexperienced, deceptive, ruthless, arrogant, divisive, race card throwing, racist black liberation theology believing, fraudulent Obama must be stopped in November.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 5:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred Jones:
Isn't there a Klan meeting you need to go to, instead of polluting this blog with your racist remarks?
Posted by: Arminius | September 9, 2008 5:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria: You Obama supporters are truly pathetic. You criticize Palin because a representative from Jews for Jesus spoke at her church ONCE, and yet I suppose it's OK with you that Obama attended a racist black liberation theology church for TWENTY YEARS, and exposes his innocent children to the racist, anti-American and crude rants of Rev. Wright. Where is your perspective?
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You might like this Arminius-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
They seem to be equal opportunity
If politicans were truly defined entirely by their religions, they would not have chosen to be politicians.
There are many vocations that would satisfy that inclination.
So, I don't really define politicans by their religious base- BUT- if theu define themselves that way, and USE it as vehiclke to further their agendas- they open themselves up to investigation into their spiritual life- by their own self-proclamation.
The founder of Jews for Jesus, spoke at Palin's church not long ago- Palin was present, and has since, through a spokewoman in her home state- stated that she did not disagree and would continue to attend churhc services where he was a speaker.
The sermon given by (forgive my rush- I can't find his name right now) the founder asserted that Israel was under attack by her enemies because she has refused to accept Jesus as her savior and rejected him as the messiah.
I think this will not sit well with Jewish voters and anticipate a pulling away of their support.
My source is a show on MSNBC last night- I searched the net a little but not fully.
Palin was pentacostal for 20 years, and switched to a 'mainstream' Assembly of God church 6 years ago.
The image of her rolling around on the floor and frohing at the mouth in the throes of rapturous ecstasy, may have been a bit overstated on my part. (Ialso could never find evidence of speaking in tongues- it says clearly do not be as a clashing brass cymbal etc etc...
and clearly the absence of love (or charity depending upon your tranlsation) invalidates some glossalia.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 9, 2008 5:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Robert B.:
You are completely correct about experience. I have given the stats about Lincoln many times in On Faith, but no one really listens. We can't tell what anyone will do in the oval office until we get there. So I look at the people, the character - and I don't care for Palin at all. At one time (2000) I admired McCain, but not now.
Yeah, the search for a neutral news source - tilting at windmills for sure!
Posted by: Arminius | September 9, 2008 5:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius --
Of course they're promoting her as "The One". What other choice do they have? Personally, I have little doubt that McCain bullied this choice through the GOP handlers. Though I can respect that, it still doesn't mean that she's a good choice.
Palin's lack of experience doesn't disturb me too much. If experience in government was all we looked for in our president, our two greatest presidents (Washington and Lincoln) would never have been elected. Judgment matters at least as much as experience and I don't have a good impression of the judgment of the GOP ticket.
Good luck in your quest for a truly neutral news source, quixotic though it may be. :)
Posted by: Robert B. | September 9, 2008 5:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred- you are right about James Cone and Black Liberation Theology.
American Christians of all races are taking a closer look at Pastor Wright, and the long personal relationship the Obama family has had with him.
Many are choosing to vote faith over race.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 4:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Robert B.:
The phrase 'mis-spoken' about 'deference' is a bit of a red flag. My impression is that the Repubs are promoting St Sarah as their version of 'The One'. Well, that is politics. Us Dems ain't exactly exempt. By the way, I don't much like the MSM either. Still searching for something approaching a neutral news site.
Posted by: Arminius | September 9, 2008 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Adelaidea1: If you are an Obama supporter, you are extremely hypocritical. You oppose McCain by calling him an "adulterer," and yet Obama supports not only abortion, but he has supported partial birth abortion and live birth abortion. He would rather see a live baby killed, than "burden" the mother with its survival. How anyone who professes to be Christian can support a man like that, I'll never know.
P.S. If I am incorrect in my assumption that you are an Obama supporter, then of course, the above discussion does not apply to you.
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 4:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius,
From what I've heard, this was a "mis-statement" by the McCain campaign. Apparently, Gov. Palin is not impressed by the media in this country and, as such, does not wish to be associated with them until they clean up their act.
And you all thought GWB lived in a bubble...
Posted by: Robert B. | September 9, 2008 4:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The evangelical right is blood thirsty. They never see a war that they don’t like. They will vote for McCain who is an admitted serial adulterer. I haven’t heard them condemn the pregnancy of unmarried, 17 year old Bristol Palin.
How they distort the Christian message! Jesus was a peace maker and cautioned repeatedly about the sins of fornication and adultery.
And the “faith”based initiative--giving our taxes to preachers--isn’t that unconstitutional?
Posted by: Adelaidea1 | September 9, 2008 4:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Victoria,
Deference?!? Palin demands DEFERENCE? What the bloody HELL are we supposed to do, crawl on our hands and knees to kiss the holy spike-heel shoes of St Sara the Moose Slayer? Pardon me while I vomit.
And as an addendum, IMHO as a Christian, the obsession of certain groups with speaking in tongues is a gross misinterpretation of Acts in the New Testament.
Posted by: Arminius | September 9, 2008 4:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator Barack Obama’s Faith: Is It Black Liberation Theology?
To understand Obama’s legislative agenda, it is essential to understand the ideology espoused by his former Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
August 15, 2008 – Black Liberation Theology is the basis for former Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American sermons at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago – a church attended by Sen. Barack Obama and his wife Michelle for more than 20 years.
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and is expected to become the Democrat nominee for President of the United States after the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this year.
Obama’s legislative record includes opposition to bans on partial-birth abortion; opposition to marriage protection amendments and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); opposition to our war on terrorism in Iraq; opposition to expanded military defense research and deployment of nuclear weapons to deter aggressors; and promotion of the Global Poverty Act, which will funnel billions of American tax dollars into United Nations’ poverty programs.
A politician like Sen. Obama is guided by a political and moral philosophy. What does he believe? To understand Obama’s legislative agenda, it is essential to understand the ideology espoused by his former Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
Why is this important? Because Wright served as Obama’s pastor for more than 20 years as well as his mentor and spiritual advisor. It is unlikely that a person can sit in a pew of a church for 20 years and not understand or disagree with the ideology being promoted every week in Sunday sermons and in published materials distributed by a church.
Only when Wright became a political liability did Obama eventually decide to leave the church. (His decision may also have been pushed forward by the rantings of Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger who ridiculed Sen. Hillary Clinton in a sermon at Trinity on May 25.) He accused Clinton of thinking she deserved the nomination because she’s white and “there’s a black man stealing my show.”
Pfleger has been a long-time confidant of Obama. According to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004, it described Pfleger as one who helped Obama keep his moral compass. Pfleger claims that America is the greatest sin against God.
What is Wright’s theological viewpoint and where did it come from?
The Trinity United Church of Christ web site provides ample evidence and Wright’s own sermons show clearly that Black Liberation Theology is the foundational philosophy of this church and its leadership. The church has a Black Values System that each member must agree to. It is totally Afrocentric. (More about this later.)
Black Liberation Theology is the creation of Professor James Cone, who currently serves at New York’s Union Theological Seminary. In 1969, Cone wrote Black Theology and Black Power, which has become required reading at Trinity. In it, Cone observed: “When we look at what whiteness has done to the minds of men in this country, we can see clearly what the New Testament meant when it spoke of the principalities and powers.”
This reference from Ephesians refers to spiritual powers in Heaven, not whites or earthly governmental institutions.
Cone has also written:
... 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.
Professor Cone’s Black Liberation Theology is a mixture of Marxism and Afrocentric thinking. According to Cone, “Together, black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society.” Capitalism is economic slavery imposed upon black Americans by whites. Cone serves as a contributing editor to Sojourners Journal, run by Jim Wallis whose leftist leanings are well documented in a report by TVC.
Cone has openly admitted that Pastor Wright “is really the one who took it [his philosophy] from my books and brought it to the church.” This Black Liberation Theology was adopted by Trinity 10 years before Sen. Obama and his family joined it in 1991. Every person who joins Trinity goes through a new member class, where he is taught Black Liberation Theology.
Cone has also written: “To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores.”
According to Black Liberation Theology, divine justice will only reign on earth when the black Jesus enables African-Americans to gain sufficient power to destroy “white greed” and white institutions and to replace them with a black value system.
James Cone writes a great deal about “hope” in his books and speeches. According to Cone, so-called “hope theology” “places the Marxist emphasis on action and change in the Christian context (and) is compatible with black theology’s concerns.” Pastor Wright’s sermon on the audacity of hope was adopted by Obama as the title of his second book, The Audacity of Hope. The “hope” theme appears to have gone from Cone to Wright’s sermons and into the book by Obama.
According to Cone, “I don’t see anything in (Obama’s) books or in the (Philadelphia race) speech that contradicts black liberation theology.” Obama simply sanded over the “radical edge to it” [Black Liberation Theology].
Pastor Wright’s sermons are the direct result of his adoption of Cone’s views on Black Liberation Theology. This is why they are filled with hateful comments about whites, America or are supportive of Marxist regimes, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and include wild conspiracy theories about how the U.S. government supposedly created the AIDS virus to kill black people.
Sen. Obama and his family sat in the pews listening to these sermons for 20 years. Are we being naïve to assume he wasn’t influenced by any of these sermons?
What Is The Black Value System?
Trinity United Church of Christ’s web site was sanitized after Wright became a political liability to Obama earlier this year. The original Black Value System site has been removed and replaced with a more harmless series of statements about this system.
The original version, however, is archived on the Internet and describes the real Black Value System advocated by the church leadership. In the original version, it states, in part, that members of the church must be committed to:
1. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
2. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
3. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
4. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
5. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
And:
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.
This listing includes a “non-negotiable” commitment to the continent of Africa, but not a commitment to the United States. The entire list is Afro-centric and, by implication, anti-white in its expression. Instead of viewing themselves as Christians committed to Jesus Christ and loyal citizens of America, members of Trinity apparently identity as Black only with a loyalty to Africa, not this nation.
The idea of “economic parity” refers to Pastor Wright’s belief that America’s capitalistic system results in what he calls “economic mal-distribution.” This is basically a Marxist viewpoint that seeks to “take from the haves, and give to the have nots.” Wright clearly favors a socialist welfare state. As Dr. James Cone has written in For My People: “…the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are.”
The newly sanitized version has an obvious anti-Capitalistic and anti-white viewpoint. Under “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness,” it describes the relationship between capitalism and blacks. It refers to blacks as “captives” and capitalism or whites as “captors” who train blacks to serve the capitalistic system.
The Black Value System criticizes those blacks who wish to achieve economic success in America and says that once they earn more money, they think they are better than others who are not seeking wealth. The statement warns against “the psychological entrapment of Black ‘middleclassness.’”
The Black Value System should be of great concern to most voters who are being asked to choose between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain to become the next President of the United States.
The Black Value System, the writings of James Cone and the sermons preached by Pastor Jeremiah Wright have clearly influenced the thinking of Sen. Obama.
Marxist Connections?
Black Liberation Theology is an admittedly Marxist worldview and one that has shaped the thinking of Sen. Obama.
However, there are more Marxist connections to Obama that must be taken into account.
In an earlier TVC report, we discussed the relationship between Obama and a member of the Communist Party, USA named Frank Marshall Davis.
Davis became a key mentor to Obama during his high school years in Hawaii. According to Marxist Professor Gerald Horne, Davis had a profound influence on Obama’s sense of identity and career moves. In fact, it was Davis who convinced Obama to move from Hawaii to Chicago, where he became a political community organizer for a Saul Alinsky-inspired group.
Chicago has been a hotbed of radical black and white Marxist organizing since the 1930s. In fact, TVC’s report on David Axelrod, Obama’s key strategist and speech writer, details the existence of Black Power radicalism in Chicago over the decades. (Axelrod’s own mother was involved in Marxist publishing back in the 1940s.)
Investigative journalist Cliff Kincaid and his associates recently published lengthy exposes on Obama’s Marxist ties both in Hawaii and in Chicago: Communism in Hawaii and the Obama Connection; Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection.
What Are We Getting This November?
Liberal pundits routinely defend Obama when critics bring up Pastor Jeremiah Wright. They claim that Obama isn’t responsible for Wright’s comments any more than John McCain is responsible for any inflammatory statements made by TV evangelists who have openly supported his candidacy.
This is a bogus comparison. Sen. Obama, his wife Michelle attended Trinity for 20 years sitting under the teachings of a blatantly anti-American, anti-capitalist and racist pastor. If McCain had attended an anti-black church for 20 years, the comparison would be valid. He did not.
Intelligent voters must carefully consider the records and philosophies of McCain and Obama when they go to the polls in November. We must be well-informed about the choices we have for President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mark: Actually, I believe that the race-baiter Marc Edward would say that Rev. Wright is not a racist. The real racists, in his view, are those who are disturbed by the racist nature of James H. Cone, Rev. Wright, and Obama's church. Those who believe in black liberation theology believe that only white people can be racists. As James Cone himself said: "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism."
By the way, Marc Edward, I noticed that you could not come up with even one of my comments which is racist. Your apology is accepted.
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 4:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Try and stay focused-
You see the repeated sneaky distractions, even on this board.
While we allow ourselves to get into 30 year old debates about to abort or not abort-
the republicans have been raping our system-
As long as we're arguing Roe v Wade- or being terrified of terrorists- we are NOT holding our admin to account.
I hope Palin doesn't sink down to using her son's deployment to Iraq- on SEPTEMBER 11TH no less- (and he signed up- SEPTEMBER 11TH- {how does one get such interesting deployment dates? It must surely be the will of god to promote the GOP and get those patriotic juices flowing)
But I don't have hope that she will not use her son, her baby, or anyone else to advance her ambition.
If only she was using her intellect and vision-
o, that's right- she has to get that in church, after god touches her with the holy spirit- speaks in tongues-
have any of you ever SEEN someone speaking in tonuges?
What are her ideas on the economy, the Iraq War (less than a year ago sh said she had o interest n Iraq- and that was AFTER her own child is on his way there- if her own SON doesn't garner her symapthetic attention- at least enough for hert be INTERESTED enough to have an opinion- what hope does the millions of americans have?
What is her ideas on education?
social security?
national and domestic security?
health care?
She won't tell us- she's cramming for her first interviews- which won't happen because she is not being treated with DEFERENCE by the media-
what christian humility!!!
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 9, 2008 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The GOP laughs at the good manners of the Dems-"
Oh yeah- like those mannerly loons on DailyKos and DU. They are wild rabid dogs.
You're half right- The GOP does laugh at you:
Posted by: Tom | September 9, 2008 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria,
I see your point and I certainly sympathize with it. But I think that unless candidates try to elevate the conversation, American civic education will continue to wallow in the gutter of "gotcha-last" sound bites and 30-second attack ads that say absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Robert B. | September 9, 2008 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The last elections were lost because the Dems sat politely on their hands while the GOP tore them up with vicious attacks.
Fighting back when attacked and for what you believe in, is as noble as polite reservation.
The GOP laughs at the good manners of the Dems- and they count on it while they are sharpening their swords.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 9, 2008 4:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Marc Edward:
Is Pastor Jeremiah Wright a racist??
Posted by: Mark | September 9, 2008 4:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John McCain promised to keep his campaign above board and civil, and not go negative.
Well, John lied, didn't he?
He broke the agreement- his choice his actions.
Now, Sarah Palin says she won't talk to reporters until they treat her with DEFERENCE.
Yes, she actually demanded deference from reporters. Or she won't talk.
Palin says she is a maverick for change- and compounds her doublespeak- and deserves to be challenged and treated like every other politician that ever ran for VP.
Against earmarks- but accepted the 369 million earmark for that bridge to nowhere.
Claims was against it, and stopped it.
Was first for it- and after the outrage created and the deal was dead- came in at the end- against it and now claims she ended the condtruction.
she needs her feet held to the same fire she is holding her opposition's feet to-
She needs to come out speak to reporters- it's 2 months- she can only hide for so long.
Biden is going to wipe her out on the 26th.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 9, 2008 4:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred Jones writes (goodness knows how with no opposable thumb)
"Marc Edwards (alias "race-baiter): Marc, you say that I'm a racist"
Sure do! I think anyone who tried to fan the flames of racial hatred for any reason is a racist. You are trying to paint Senator Obama as a racist when he has never said or done anything remotly racist. Obama has never used his race to promote his candidacy. You mischaracterize black liberation theology.
You're a racist. I've been dealing with your kind since you were in diapers baby, and your kind have no place in America anymore, period.
Who knows, maybe you just love all people regardless of race, and you just promote racial fear and hatred to promote your candidate, but in my book that makes you a racist as well.
Hopefully the keeper of this blog will erase your tedious and idiotic racist screeds.
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 9, 2008 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques,
Why should Obama get nasty? It would only undermine his standing with people who see him as the charismatic, intelligent, caring and upright person he is. Most of us had enough of "nasty" politics and wish candidates would debate their vision for the country, not their religion, family issues, and self-righteous holier-than-thou attitude.
I am sick of peple like Palin who has barely entered the race and already snipes like a pro. That woman is an Alakan Barracuda.
Although I am a registered Republican, for this race I will vote for the person whom I have come to respect as an honest and intelligent leader who can represent America in a precarious world.
Posted by: Gaby | September 9, 2008 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I just ran into MLK here. I said, I thought you were JFK. He just laughed and pointed the other way. I look the other way and JFK is drinking a black Irish beer with John Wayne. I could believe my own eyes and they looked happy. Oh when Irish eyes are smiling, you know they are up to something. There are 40 shades of green here and still nothing rhymes with orange. Life wasn't good to me, death has been a blast though.
Posted by: 66 Above and Beyond | September 9, 2008 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Marc --
Kudos to you on taking Fred Jones to task on the "pro-life" view. You would think that after so long in power, the GOP would have put this issue to bed by now...
Posted by: Robert B. | September 9, 2008 3:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred Jones writes "OBAMA AND HIS UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR THE HORRIFIC PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION PROCEDURE"
Gee Fred, the ALL CAPS sure makes you look like a seriously intelligent person!
Here's a clue, and I'll type it real slow so it doesn't get too far ahead of your racist little brain.
1) The Republicans have no intention of ever ending legal abortion in the USA. If you want to debate that point, feel free, but I'll rip you a new one.
2) Under Democrats, the rate of abortions in the USA went DOWN. Once Bush was in office the feds stopped counting abortions because Bush knew the rates would go up under his policies.
3) There never has ever been a procedure known as "partial birth abortion", period. That's a title invented by your side. The procedure you might be referring to accounts for .17% of abortions, and in most cases it takes place between 20 and 30 weeks, not "when the baby is born". Odd how you don't give a rat's rear end about the other 1,000,000 + abortions anually! And of course when they outlawed "partial birth abortion" Obgyns just used a different method.
DOH!
4) Obama is not an Abortion supporter. He supports the current US Law, Roe vs Wade, which is supported by a majority of Americans. Learn the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion if you have the wit.
You are clearly one of those people who pretends to care about the "life issue", when in fact you, like most Republicans and all "pro-life" leaders wants to see abortion continue forever, because you like to mobilize well meaning pro-life folks.
Spare us your phoney concern. You're a racist and a bit of a liar, just like your hero "Gelding" McCain.
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 9, 2008 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Here is Trinity United Church's Black Value System that Obama adhered to for 20 years:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
ARE THESE VALUES APPROPRIATE FOR SOMEONE WHO WILL BE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REPRESENT "ALL" AMERICANS?
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau,
Why do I get the feeling that people in the media wants Obama to hit back just so they can have something easy to fill their columns and blogs with? After all, why go through all the trouble of reporting on issues and the plans of both candidates when you can just cover a mud battle? Such articles will be read by more folks while being far less mentally taxing to write...
Posted by: Robert B. | September 9, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
How can Obama claim to be a "uniter" when his religion is based upon racism, i.e. black liberation theology. Here are a few statements from James H. Cone, one of the founders of black liberation theology, about the nature of Obama's religion, and you tell me if they are consistent with Christianity or "unification."
(1) "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."
(2) “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people."
(3) "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism."
(4) "All white men are responsible for white oppression."
(5) "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil."
(6) "If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it."
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Marc Edwards (alias "race-baiter): Marc, you say that I'm a racist because I point out the racist nature of black liberation theology. Please post any comment of mine which is racist. If you cannot, then consider your apology to be accepted in advance.
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 3:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I says, God what about this nasty business. If they have grace enough to redeem with, and there's need enough for redemption for a great many of them, they should make it and if not it could get as nasty as hell. I guess the moral of the story is that sour grapes don't make sweet wine and as we all know sweet wine is the same thing as sweet love. The older it gets, the better it becomes and you can't rush a good time or it fails to be a great time. You can go to hell in hurry and nobody will stop you. The children don't vote, but they can get to heaven faster than you. The most important people don't vote and then all this money is spent trying to send the other person to hell. I got free tickets if anybody is interested. I have to warn you, it can put you in the hot seats with some nasty fans.
Posted by: 66 Above and Beyond | September 9, 2008 3:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Think of him walking into Rick Warren's megachurch unarmed without as much as one zinger or snarky aside about John McCain"
Obama entered Saddleback without his brain- a BIG mistake:
Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 3:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Here's the rub -- JB is essentially stating that a good and principled man cannot win in American politics. If that is so, we are all doomed.
It would be better to let McCain win than have Obama go ballistic. Then we know that we as Americans are the real problem, not our politicians.
Obama should defend himself as a good and principled man, and let the others attacking him expose him for what they are.
Posted by: AgentG | September 9, 2008 3:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred Jones writes
"Obama is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to religion. He doesn't want the American public to too closely scrutinize his religion, i.e. black liberation theology, because of its racist nature."
Seems rather obvious that you're the racist here. You don't know what black liberation theology is, and you're calling it racist. Obama's church included white people racist. Moreover, Black Liberation Theology has to do with LIBERATION - maybe if you had the wit to read a little history, you'd know that during most of the history of this country blacks have been kept down - slavery, jim crow laws, etc. To quote your own "source"
'Cone based much of his liberationist theology on God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt in the book of Exodus. He compared the United States to Egypt, predicting that oppressed people will soon be led to a promised land.'
It's not racist, but you are.
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 9, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Think of him walking into Rick Warren's megachurch unarmed without as much as one zinger or snarky aside about John McCain"
Shouldn't that recomment him as a Christian, over the people who use their religion to bash others? It seems about as un-Christian as you can get to use a church visit to beat another "Christian" over the head. To me this just emphasized the un-Christian nature of Sarah Palin and "gelding" J. Sidney McCain.
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 9, 2008 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
We always get the leaders we deserve. Too bad.
Posted by: norman ravitch | September 9, 2008 2:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela said-
"But I've noticed, this seems to be the norm now. Just take a look at MSNBC, NBC. Chris Matthews and another newscaster on MSNBC because of their biased journalism."
There is no news objectivity available there anymore. When I watch- I truly wonder what will become of these people when Obama loses. They give the immpression they are mentally and emotionally unstable.
Posted by: Jeremy | September 9, 2008 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Nothing has done more to discredit religious faith in recent years than the self-righteous overconfidence with which our leaders have “listened to God” instead of listening to the knowledgeable secular advisors who have warned them, repeatedly, of the follies they were embarking on.
Defenders of religion are eager to point out that the motivation for this war was not religious, in spite of President Bush’s blunder in calling it a “crusade,” but they must admit that the administration’s faith in faith over faith in facts has probably been the principle cause of the moral calamity that now confront.
As far as we know there are no gods. We are as brainwashed in this country as are the Muslims in the middle east. It is time we woke up to the reality that we are alone on this planet, and gods were created by our ancient ancestors to explain that which they did not understand. It is time we put aside such childish nonsense
Posted by: yoyo | September 9, 2008 2:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OBAMA AND HIS UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR THE HORRIFIC PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION PROCEDURE:
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart the federal ban on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Congress overwhelmingly passed the ban in 2003. Even some of the most liberal members of Congress experienced unexplained fits of common sense, voting for the ban in the face of angry demands from mouth-foaming feminists.
Although the American Medical Association has determined that partial-birth abortion is never necessary under any circumstances, Obama threw a hissy, nonetheless, after the opinion came down. While deriding the Court for its ruling, he whined, “For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors.”
So what, exactly, did the ban ban? What “hard-won right” – as he later called partial-birth abortion – was Obama so steadfast to preserve?
DURING A PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION, THE ABORTIONIST PULLS A FULLY DEVELOPED, FULLY “VIABLE” CHILD – OFTEN KICKING AND THRASHING – FEET FIRST FROM HER MOTHER’S WOMB, LEAVING ONLY THE TOP OF HER HEAD IN THE BIRTH CANAL. HE THEN STABS HER THROUGH THE SKULL WITH SCISSORS OR SOME OTHER SHARP OBJECT, PIERCING HER BRAIN UNTIL HER KICKING AND MOVING ABOUT SUDDENLY AND VIOLENTLY JERK TO A HALT. HER BRAINS ARE THEN SUCKED OUT – COLLAPSING HER SKULL – AND HER NOW LIMP AND LIFELESS BODY IS TOSSED ASIDE LIKE SO MUCH GARBAGE.
Again, medical science has determined that this horrific practice, which is nothing short of infanticide, is never necessary. But Barack Hussein Obama – the man who would be President – doesn’t see it that way. He called the partial-birth abortion ban, “a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women.” OBAMA AND MICHELLE EVEN THROUGH A FUNDRAISER IN 2004 TO RAISE MONEY TO SUPPORT THIS HORRIFIC PRACTICE.
I BELIEVE THAT EVEN MOST PRO-CHOICE INDIVIDUALS WILL FIND THIS PRACTICE BARBARIC. WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT OBAMA THAT HE WOULD FIGHT SO VOCIFEROUSLY FOR THIS?
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 1:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am horrified by what I've seen in this election. Is this about the getting our country on the right track or winning for the wrong reasons.When did we become a nation that will drag someone to the ground to win by any means necessary. We've all probably noticed how mean and nasty this has been. But I've noticed, this seems to be the norm now. Just take a look at MSNBC, NBC. Chris Matthews and another newscaster on MSNBC because of their biased journalism. Why is this so; how can we agree to disagree without character assaults and devouring one another where after everything's over, no one has really won...Why should we be surprised by the candidates. There's a fundamental issue here....Are we as a nation so prideful, arrogant and mean, that we will devour one another to ensure that the other side gets it.
Galatians 5:13-16; 13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
The apostle Paul was one of Christendom's most fiery, passionate, assassins of Christianity and would do anything in his passion to destroy what he thought was idolatry to the only true God he knew. He sat and watched Stephen stoned to death and those who stoned him, left Stephen's clothes at Paul's feet. Of course, we know the story, he was someone who grew up with the teachings of Judaism to the letter but once Christ knocked him over on that road to Damascus, he was never the same: He wrote most of the New Testament thousands of years ago, and he still teaching us how to live in Christ. Paul definitely understand who he was before that Damascus encounter and he never forgot it. He wrote: Timothy 1: 13-15 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
Can we take this in for a minute, Paul wrote most of the New Testament and he saw himself as a wretch and knew he was shown mercy. Why can't we use this example to learn to have passionate conversations without trying to destroy each other because we don't agree on each other's points. I am grieved when religion or politics come up, it brings out the worst in people. Why is that? Because someone may have not agreed or maybe they disagreed and the worst comes out; which never is done in truth or love. It becomes a disdain or vendetta for those who don't agree with your position. This should not be...!. We have an assortment of different stories, from our wonderful tapestry of backgrounds, faiths and heritage. Why do we tend to make things so horrible where restoration cannot take place as no one can take the opportunity to agree to disagree. We have to be right and we want the world to know and will share the horrible stories and ways of getting around someone's opinions by tearing them down or having others do it for them.
We have to be so careful to examine ourselves and our motives. We have all been in this position. 2 Corinthians 2-8; 2I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, 3since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. 4For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God's power we will live with him to serve you. 5Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? 6And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. 7Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. 8For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.
Let's take this opportunity to repent and ensure that we change the way we view our opinions and others without devouring one another.
Posted by: Angela | September 9, 2008 1:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The election is all about smart and stupid.
Vote Obama/Biden and we all live to see another day. That's smart.
Posted by: common sense | September 9, 2008 1:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Elect John and Sarah, nice white folks; or Barack and Michelle, scarey black folks."
Well Norman- race is an issue but not in the way you suggest.
Obama cannot "get nasty" because he will expose his own "faith" weakness. Obama's "faith" history is buried for now and his campaign can only hope no one steps on it because they know it is explosive.
The real race issue is not "nice whitey" against "scary blackey". Its do you vote your race or your faith. This will become a more ardent question for many as the time to vote draws near.
Best wishes.
Posted by: Michael | September 9, 2008 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm better dead than I was alive, because I took a leap of faith in my country. I'm all gone and she is still there. Keep on rocketing in the free world and we'll keep rolling in the after world. It will all work out because it has to. Bite the Big Apple and plant your seeds and watch something good grow. It's a great day for ducks here.
Posted by: 66 Above and Beyond | September 9, 2008 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This election is about one thing and one thing only: race. Elect John and Sarah, nice white folks; or Barack and Michelle, scarey black folks.
Posted by: norman ravitch | September 9, 2008 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightening and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful abilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life.
Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws that we do know. The human mind remains extraordinarily difficult to understand, but so is the weather. We can't predict whether it will rain one month from today, but we do know the rules that govern the rain, even though we can't always calculate their consequences. I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of our understanding it as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.
There do not seem to be any exceptions to this natural order, any miracles, I have the impression that these days most theologians are embarrassed by talk of miracles, but the great monotheistsic faiths are founded on miracle stories - the burning bush, the empty tomb, an angel dictating the Koran to Mohammed - and some of these faiths teach that miracles continue at the present day. The evidence for all these miracles seems to me to be considerably weaker than evidence for cold fusion, and I don't believe in cold fusion.
Above all, today we understand that even human beings are the result of natural selection acting over millions of years.
I'd guess that if we were to see the hand of a designer anywhere,it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena. We don't know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life. There is no life force.
As Richard Feynman has said,when you look at the universe and understand it's laws "the theory that it's all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate".
Posted by: freda jones | September 9, 2008 12:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The study of theology ,as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing."
Thomas Paine 1737-1809 "The Age of Reason
Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Today the average Christian goes to church every week or so - shakes hands with a few Christian friends and says "God bless you" - listens to a gentle sermon and a few quiet hymns - then goes home feeling the 'peace of God' in his heart.
Because the Christian church now conducts itself in a relatively civilized manner, a false perception is created that religion has always been a tranquil force for good. That is not the case. Aside from the wholesale extermination of 'witches', the Christian Church fought bitterly throughout its history, and is still fighting today - to impede scientific progress. Galileo, remember, was nearly put to death by the Church for constructing his telescope and discovering the moons of Jupiter. For centuries, moreover, the Church forbade the dissection of a human cadaver, calling it "a desecration of the temple of the Holy Ghost." Medical research was thereby stalled for almost a thousand years. It is no coincidence, therefore, that Christianity's longest period of sustained growth and influence occured during what historians refer to as the Dark Ages.
David Mills. "Atheist Universe." pub.Ulysses Press.2006 page48
Posted by: david mills jnr | September 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The enemies of peace are the radical Christians who would rather see the world in wars and turmoil so their messiah might hasten his return; they are counting on being spirited away in the clouds and the rest of us stay here on earth and suffer. They may claim that they preach a message of love but what they hide and wish for is destruction, suffering and annihilation of the non-Christains.
Sixteen words may be all that stand right now between the apparatus of government and the Founding Fathers' worst nightmare. And those words are starting to give.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
When George Bush, in the wake of 9/11, puffed himself into Richard the Lionheart and declared he would lead the country in a "crusade" against terrorism - you know, crusade, as in slaughter of Muslim infidels - turns out . . . oh, how awkward (if you're on White House spin duty) . . . he may have been speaking literally.
What's certain, in any case, is that a lot of people in high and low places within the Bush administration - and in particular, the military - heard him literally, and regard the war on terror as a religious war:
"The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Fallujah. And we're going to destroy him," a lieutenant colonel, according to a BBC reporter, said to his troops on the eve of the destruction of that undefended city in post-election 2004.
"I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol," Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jerry Boykin notoriously boasted a few years back, speaking of a Muslim warlord in Somalia. And by the way, George Bush is "in the White House because God put him there."
And, of course, just the other day, Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, who conducted the first official investigation into Pat Tillman's death, opined that Tillman's family is only pestering the Army for the, ahem, truth about how he died because their loved one, a non-believer with no heavenly reward to reap, is now "worm dirt."
Until I read the newly published "With God on Their Side" (St. Martin's Press), Michael Weinstein's disturbing account of anti-Semitism at the U.S. Air Force Academy, I shrugged off each of these remarks, and so much more, as isolated, almost comically intolerant noises out of True Believer Land. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do . . .
Now my blood runs cold. Weinstein, a 1977 graduate of the Academy and former assistant general counsel in the Reagan administration, and a lifelong Republican, has devoted the last several years of his life to battling what he has come to regard as a fundamentalist takeover of the Academy, turning it, in effect, into a taxpayer-supported Evangelical institution. He charges that the separation of church and state is rapidly vanishing at the school, which routinely promotes sectarian religious events, tolerates the proselytizing of uniquely vulnerable new recruits and, basically, conflates evangelical interests and the national interest.
If you think this is just a fight over some abstract principle, with ramifications only for atheist, Jewish, Buddhist and other cadets who may be "offended" by fundamentalist God talk, I urge you to check out Weinstein's book or website (militaryreligiousfreedom.org). He documents a chilling phenomenon: The whole U.S. military, up and down the chain of command, is coming to be dominated by members of a small, characteristically intolerant sliver of Christianity who truly regard themselves as Christian soldiers, on a God-appointed mission to harvest souls and battle evil.
Weinstein, whose family tradition of national service is pretty impressive, does not do battle lightly with those who now run his alma mater. One of his sons is a recent graduate of the Air Force Academy and the other is still a cadet there. The fact that both of them endured anti-Semitic harassment initially spurred him to take action. But this goes deeper than disrespect for other faiths. The attitude he has encountered in his attempt to hold the institution, and the rest of the military, accountable smacks of a coup: "The Christian Taliban is running the Department of Defense," he told me. "It inundates everything."
Can you imagine a contingent of religious zealots, with their contempt for secular values (and such manifestations of secular order as the U.S. Constitution) - and with their zest for holy war - in control of the most potent fighting force and weaponry in human history? Is this possible?
Well, said Weinstein, consider the 523rd Fighter Squadron, based at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., which calls itself The Crusaders, and whose emblem consists of a sword, four crosses and a medieval knight's helmet. Check 'em out at globalsecurity.org, which reports that the payload on the F-16s they fly consists of "a wide variety of conventional, precision guided and nuclear weapons."
And listen once again to Commander-in-Chief Bush, speaking in 2003 to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
If this is a religious war - a "clash of civilizations," waged by competing agents of God's will - victory may be indistinguishable from Armageddon. God help the human race.
Posted by: minterle drajjit | September 9, 2008 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is it not foolish to close one's eyes to the reality that much of the Christian faith is simply impossible to accept as fact? And is it not a fundamental error to base one's life on theological concepts formulated centuries ago by relatively primitive men who believed that the world was flat, that Heaven was "up there" somewhere, and that the universe had been created and was controlled by a jingoistic and intemperate diety who would punish you forever if you did not behave exactly as instructed?
Listed below is a repetition of some of the questions raised in the pages of "A Farewell To God". Put them to yourself.
Is it not more likely thst had you been born in Cairo you would be a Muslim and, as a billion people do, would believe that 'there is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet?
If you had been born in Calcutta would you not in all probability be a Hindu, and as a billion people do, accept the Vedas and the Upanishads as sacred scriptures and hope sometime to dwell in Nirvana?
Is it not probable that, had you been born in Jerusalem, you would be a Jew and, as some 15 million people do, believe that that Yahweh is God and that the Torah is God's word?
Is it not likely that had you been born in Peking, you would be one of the millions who accept the teachings of the Buddha or Confucious or Lao Tse and strive to follow their teachings and examples?
Is it not likely that you, the reader are a Christian (or Muslim etc) because your parents were before you?
From "A Farewell to God" by Charles Templeton, as reprinted in "The Portable Atheist". page 285. Pub.DaCapo press
Posted by: bert cert | September 9, 2008 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
George Carlin, You Are All Diseased
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.
-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997
Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 12:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
When Barack Obama was asked on the Christian Broadcasting Network about a controversy over his opposition to legislation in Illinois protecting infants born alive after surviving abortions, an irked Obama replied, "I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying." Obama’s problem is the unsustainable exertions necessary to attempt to square his reasonable-sounding rhetoric on abortion with the extremism of his record.
Asked by Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback when a baby gets rights, Obama said, "I'm absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." This is a crashing banality couched as thoughtfulness. If Obama is so sensitive to the moral element of the issue, why does he want to eliminate any existing restrictions on the procedure?
In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.
At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is "above his pay grade." He told Warren that he favors "limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health." But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34 respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.
It's not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act -- the occasion for his televised accusation of lying.
In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. It passed the House 380-15. Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted "present" -- effectively "no" -- on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.
In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a "neutrality clause" specifying that it didn't affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn't have the same "neutrality clause" as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.
Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.
Here's one of the central dilemmas of Obama's candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he's a post-partisan healer. So, he's forced to lie about his record.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/barack_obama_abortion_extremis.html
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I was getting in good mood, so I was hoping it would get nasty, so I could bring out the worst in myself and join all the fun. I guess I'll go do something else and see what happens later. If it can wrong, it can go right and then everything can go wrong for all the right reasons. I think I'll go and go back to sleep and have a dream. You wake up and here is a nightmare in the middle of the day, so it gets nasty. What can you do?
Posted by: deflag | September 9, 2008 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What scares me the most is: 1) People are actually willing to vote for McCain over Obama. (I am a very politically active person and have done some research on this.) Never mind we get 4 more bush years and the frightening posibility of losing a womens right to choose. Hockey Mom, my backside, she a Polar Bear with with an attitude! 2) If Obama doesn't convince people he's the man, and stop the seemingly rampant racism,(call a rose a rose, that's me), we are all doomed. Please Mr. Obama, get off your backside and kick some serious butt. Times running out! Thanks.
Posted by: bjsbluemax2 | September 9, 2008 10:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to religion. He doesn't want the American public to too closely scrutinize his religion, i.e. black liberation theology, because of its racist nature. He is much better off merely claiming to be "Christian," and leaving it at that. For those of you who know little about black liberation theology, here are a few quotes from its founder, James H. Cone, about the nature of Obama's so-called "religion":
(1) "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."
(2) “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people."
(3) "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism."
(4) "All white men are responsible for white oppression."
(5) "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil."
(6) "If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it."
Posted by: Fred Jones | September 9, 2008 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You have DOA and DOD. One has a possible mission and the other a nasty mission that is impossible. East Germany was nasty and West Germany went DOD. There's always another airlift and then twisting in the wind can be a nasty business. I think McCain has more jets. Then there are political footballs, so Obama has the New York Jets or does he? It takes time and the clock is running. Time for nasty might of already expired. There's always time for nice, because nothing makes people feel nicer than being made to feel important. There are drivers and passengers, fighters and bombers. It can get nasty and then get deadly. We are to busy to be afraid. Nasty is a result of fear. That used to be called going negative. Nasty is the new negative. It's the old negative too. Think positive and your dreams will come true. There's always trouble on the New Frontier cowboys and girls. You need to ride rough and be tough. Stay locked and loaded and stay positive.
Posted by: deflag | September 9, 2008 10:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If Dems lose this election, it's for one reason: the failure to understand this has become a battle of sparkling personalities. Obama and Biden et all, INCLUDING BILL CLINTON, have to stand up and fight for what we believe in. Everybody has to get spectacularly attractive/super sexy again. I'm so disgusted with the fact that we seem to have lost our spirit just because the Republicans threw a flavor-of-the-month into the mix. I thought we'd come out like a house afire the morning after the Republican convention, but we did not. And we're still languishing on the sidelines, being suave and mellow. WAKE UP! Obama is ever the gentleman and I like that about him, but now, he absolutely must become the cutest boy in school again, cause that's the game they're playing. He must become cuter and more clever than John McCain (not too difficult) and more exciting (may be difficult because she's so all-brand-new) than Sarah Palin. GUYS! You have to sparkle out there. I'm a woman, a Democrat living in Indiana and I love the Obama/Biden ticket, but I'm feeling a little sick with our lack of understanding of what this fight requires. It doesn't bode well for the future when we're taking so long to see what's happening right here, right now before our eyes. LET'S DON'T SCREW THIS UP. LET'S GET BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. WE CAN'T DO SQUAT ABOUT ANYTHING UNTIL WE DO THAT.
Posted by: Chris Trainor | September 9, 2008 10:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What part of not the same old politics can't people understand. How can Obama speak out against it then engage in it. The minute Obama follows the poor advice in this article he will be labeled hypcritical
Posted by: Denice | September 9, 2008 10:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
As my Journalism professor said today "The two most touchy subjects to never bring up at a dinner table are politics and religion."
It seems as though Obama is too scared to mixed them together. He seems dry of information when it comes to pleasing Christians. I bet his spiritual views aren't even right on the line. How is he supposed to please the Christian voters if he doesn't know what to say?
The most common and cliche arguments are abortion and same sex marriage. It seems like he just glosses over the subject because going elsewhere is dangerous. And i agree. Why go into a field that you aren't familiar with right? It will just make him look even worse.
I agree that if he wants to get right with the Christian voters, start talking about the other important subjects that concern Christians.