In “Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 1“, I examined the Black liberation theology of Jeremiah Wright and how the leftist radicalism at the heart of this worldview serves as the foundation of the belief system of President Barack Obama and forms the basis of many of his policies. And even though Obama claims to have renounced his connections to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, since Obama sat under this pastor for nearly 20 years and continues to advocate these kinds of policies, it is obvious Obama has not distanced himself from sociopolitical radicalism to the extent he claims he has.

Even if Obama is successful in tossing under the rug the insinuations of having embraced Afrosupremacist theology, he has gone out of his way repeatedly to let the world know he spent the early years of his career as a community organizer. Obama supporters would have average Americans believe that this position involved little more than getting the plumbing fixed in rundown apartments or organizing senior citizens outings to the local supermarket for the elderly without their own transportation.

While these are laudable undertakings, these tasks do not encapsulate the true purposes and intents of community organizing. These are just the bait to lure the needy yet unsuspecting into deeper levels of manipulation.

Though Barack Obama looked to Jeremiah Wright to provide a theological foundation for his ambitions and life’s work, the danger the President represents goes beyond even the vile message propagated by his religious mentor. For despite his egregious faults, one has to hand it to Jeremiah Wright that at least he is upfront about what he believes and speaks his mind.

Obama’s apostles have tried to place their liege’s hallowed past beyond the realm of critical scrutiny by insinuating it is now racist to look into what exactly community organizing is and that Jesus Himself was one. However, it is anything but holy and nothing whatsoever to do with race.

At its heart, community organizing is about Communist agitation. In a National Review article titled “What Did Obama Do As A Community Organizer”, Byron York defines community organizing as “the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population…and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem often by giving the affected group money.”

It sounds like such an approach is morally neutral as it doesn’t differ on the surface all that much from the tactics employed by any group along the political spectrum. However, in the case of Barack Obama, this strategy would be used to implement the kinds of things he learned from Jeremiah Wright and the other acolytes of perdictious revolution.

The school of activism with which Obama aligned himself employed such tactics in pursuits of obviously radical leftist ends. Obama’s employer the Calumet Community Religious Conference embraced the doctrines of Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky’s magnum opus Rules For Radicals is dedicated to none other than Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness. Thus, if Obama was mentored by those who in turn took their inspiration from the devil, by definition, doesn’t that make Obama none other than Satan’s intellectual grandchild?

The original purpose of the Church was to use its resources to assist the individual to get their lives straightened out in the name and power of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, under the rubric of social organizing, we are to no longer view ourselves as responsible for ourselves but instead as part of a COMMUNITY and with docility take commands and instructions from those that have set themselves up as the vanguard of the proletariat who are not bound by the restrictions placed upon we lower breeds of humanity.

This is seen in terms of the denigration of American icon John Wayne. In most of his films, John Wayne portrayed characters that looked to their own moral wherewithal or their families to solve their own problems. Such thinking that is nowadays mocked used to be admired as self-reliance. In the worldview of Barack Obama, we are to have both our guns and our God wrest from us and are instead to look to the state for purpose and to solve our problems as epitomized by his remark that he wanted to “make government cool again”.

Though he may not say it directly, but by examining what Obama says and in analyzing it in light of its implications and how he himself lives, one can legitimately conclude that this would-be messiah thinks that you exist for the benefit of the state and those like himself better than you. For example, at the cornerstone of Obama’s social philosophy is the plan to reduce the standard and quality of life for the vast majority of Americans. In May 2008 in a speech in Oregon, Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUV’s and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.”

Does the average American really comprehend the level of control being proposed here? Why in the name of perdition does anyone want a president that thinks it is his place to tell you what to drive, what you can eat, and how warm you can keep your house? For any government that can tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home to that extent will eventually no longer permit you to live in your own home for reasons of national security, environmental sustainability, or whatever other bogus excuse will be bandied about the day the mass roundups start.

Even worse, Obama does not live by the standard he thinks out to be imposed upon you. For while you are not to eat anything not on a government approved menu or go anywhere beyond the radius one can travel by unicycle or pogostick, Obama does not sit home in the dark, shivering with a blanket draped over his shoulders, munching on saltines.

The environment is no where near the point of collapse that he wants you to be duped into believing. One of the places Obama vacations is the U.S. Virgin Islands. Though some esteem Obama with an almost messianic aura and he has come close to applying such rhetoric to himself in prattle about turning back the seas and such, I some how doubt he walked to that particular destination.

Yet it is not enough for Obama that your life comes to a screeching halt to assuage the environmental consciences of big shot liberals such as himself and Al Gore (who has obviously been eating whatever he wants since leaving the Vice Presidency). Obama also wants your life regimented and under close government scrutiny.

According to the sacred Barack, it is not enough for the average citizen to mind their own business and take care of one’s own family. Rather, one must surrender oneself to the will of the group or the COMMUNITY.

As the next stage of the liberation theology he sat under for nearly 20 years in the church overseen by Jeremiah Wright, Obama postulated in a commencement address at Wesleyan University in June 2008 that “our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” This is quite revealing as to the underlying religious orientation of this particular president.

In traditional Biblical theology, salvation is a state of grace or unmerited favor imputed to the INDIVIDUAL pardoning one from the penalty for sin because it the individual that must believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God who lived the perfect life we could not, died, and shed His blood as the penalty for our sins and rose from the dead that we have eternal life. However, to Barack Obama, salvation is not about an eternal reward for loving Jesus with one’s mind, body, and soul; rather salvation to Barack Obama is about conformity to the group. You, as a distinct consciousness, do not matter all that much.

This is evident in both Obama’s policy proposals as well as in his disdain for the behavioral principles underlying the moral code based in Scripture that prevents some of man’s tendencies from degenerating into tyrannical anarchy or collectivism if these desires become unshackled from the realist perspective that man is a sinner and still hears sin’s siren call even when forgiven and redeemed through the shed blood of Christ.

To prevent the masses of the Biblically illiterate from being swept away by Obama’s rhetorical manipulations, Dr. James Dobson spoke out against some of the secular messiah’s misinterpretations of the Good Book. Falling for some of the hype that he’s the best thing since Jesus Christ and actually the Lord’s replacement in the hearts of many, Obama has proceeded to inform the rest of us which parts of his “predecessor’s” Word may apply in the new “AB” era, as some have suggested all of history now be divided between before and after Obama.

Without a more careful exegesis into and research of the Biblical text, the holy Obama concluded that, if one thinks that prohibitions against homosexuality still apply today, than those against the consumption of shellfish still apply as well. In response, according to a 6/24/08 Associated Press article titled “Obama: Dobson Is Making Stuff Up With Bible Criticism”, Dobson dared to say of Obama’s assertion, “I think he’s [Obama] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.”

Dobson’s opinion is actually closer to the historic Christian position. Most denominations and theologians claim that the majority of Israelite dietary guidelines do not apply to the Church composed of both Jews and Gentiles because these restrictions were not reiterated in the New Testament and in fact were set aside in various passages.

For example, in Matthew 15:11, Jesus Himself assures that that one is not defiled by what goes into one’s mouth but rather by what comes out of it. And in Acts 10, the Apostle Peter is told in a vision to deliberately eat of an animal said to be ceremonially unclean. If the act of eating a particular kind of animal was in and of itself immoral and sinful, would the God of the universe have given instructions to have done so?

The same cannot be said of homosexuality. Nowhere are the Old Testament injunctions labeling the practice as wrong rescinded in the New and in fact they are reemphasized in passages such as Romans 1 and included in a list of offences barring their perpetrators from entering Heaven if one does not seek forgiveness for them through the shed blood of Christ.

And contrary to all the sissies in a hissy over Rick Warren offering the inauguration prayer because Warren did not endorse the notion of gay marriage, insisting that this lifestyle is wrong does not mean that those falling into this temptation will be rounded up and sent to prison (though a percentage would probably enjoy that) or be put to death. It could be argued that Jesus softened the penalty for the transgressions of the lustful flesh.

Though Jesus was merciful He nevertheless retained the position that what the women at the well did was sin by telling her to sin no more. Today, those wanting to air their dirty laundry with pride rather than keeping it between only God and themselves as those with a tender conscience would prefer, vociferously insist that what they have done isn’t even sin.

And in the eyes of mystical humanists such as Obama and his ministerial supporters in the Order of the Scarlet Woman, this is the area in which Dobson has done something unforgivable. Dobson has held on to the notion that sin, in its most basic form, is an individual act.

According to Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who basically endorsed Obama for no other reason than that Obama is Black as before Caldwell supported George W. Bush, said Dobson was “a bit over the top”, and “crossed the line”. More importantly, Caldwell admonished, “There has been a call for a higher level of politics and politicking. So to attack at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we at least want to hold everybody accountable.”

Ladies and gentlemen, what is being called for here is an abridgement of the fundamental constitutional liberties of anyone daring to disagree with or even question the new messiah. For while Dr. Dobson has been told to essentially sit down and shut up, a cabal of leftwing clerics of which Cadwell has been numbered established a website called JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com. Examining the groups fundamental principles is quite instructive regarding the new social gospel that elevates the group above the individual.

For example, the website proclaimed regarding Dobson, “He doesn’t speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide.” Let’s look at this for a moment.

Aren’t Obama, his false prophet Jeremiah Wight, and lesser luminaries such as Rev. Caldwell each riding the coattails of each using religion to divide? For crying out loud, the Black liberation theology expounded by Jeremiah Wright thinks God doesn’t even love you if you are White.

Furthermore, who says religion is not meant to divide? While Scripture tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, there are just as many other passages informing us that Christ came to separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff.

Also, interesting, isn’t it, how in the coming together in unity that it is those holding to a traditional understanding of Biblical morality that are to compromise their standards rather than those who fall short of these principles and from then on strive to elevate their conduct?

As the declaration points out, “What does speak for me is David’s Psalm celebrating how good and pleasant it is when we come together in unity.” That is true, but in order to unite, there must be considerable agreement as to what principles one is going to unite around. Of those with whom one disagrees considerably, the Bible commands, “Come from out among them and be ye separate.”

The declaration continues, “James Dobson doesn’t speak for me when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of attack; He doesn’t speak for me when he denigrates his neighbors’ views when they don’t line up with his.”

As noted earlier, by criticizing Dobson’s criticizing, aren’t they themselves guilty of criticizing? Did not the holy Barack partake of the same act?

What if Dobson’s neighbor was a vile skinhead that plucked the eyes out of newborn kittens? Is Dobson just suppose to sit their and not say anything about this ethical transgression as well if we are to take the mutated uncontextualized version of judge not to its ultimate conclusion?

Contrary to the Obamaist declaration, Dobson does not confine the values of faith to two or three issues. First off, Focus on the Family is not a church.

Thus, the organization does not necessarily have the same spiritual mandate to address to the same extent the totality of existence of life that God’s sacred assembly has been called to. Yet that said, Focus on the Family addresses a wider array of issues and concerns than these liberal Black churches that have for the most part confined their message to propagating the blame Whitey mentality of whom Republicans and Conservatives rank their primary targets.

From the tone of the declaration, Dobson stands accused of not seeking justice, encouraging the oppressed, or defending the cause of the vulnerable. Yet when Dobson rises to do so, these collared hypocrites accuse him of reducing the faith to two or three issues and not working to restore what is broken in our communities. If the efforts of Focus on the Family have been reduced to two or three issues, it is only because that apostates like Obama and his supporters have focused their war against Christ and the Bible towards a few central cultural pillars in the hopes of causing the entire edifice of our heritage of liberty to implode in upon itself.

Unable to speak or act on their own behalf, who is more than the unborn that the babykillers can’t wait to hack apart with their meat cleavers? What institution is more vulnerable than the contemporary family with the assorted threats out to achieve its abolition through easy divorce, its dilution through its alleged recognized extension to homosexuals, and through the proliferation of government programs that make parents of both sexes feel either redundant in the case of men as providers or obsolete in the case of work at home mothers.

Leftist clergy drone on and on about the beauty of religious unity and cooperation. However, if they are going to embrace practices such as infanticide and sodomite nuptials as good and positive things, one might as well toss the Bible in the paper shredder and sleep in Sunday morning. Under such a worldview, nothing is wrong anymore and you might as well do whatever the Sheol you please.

Under the Obama regime, while your obligation to God might be diminished, don’t think you are going to slide by on easy street in terms of guilt being toned down. Rather a whole new litany of demands will be placed upon an otherwise productive citizen.

In commencement addresses given in both 2008 and 2009, Obama repeatedly called for a renewed spirit of national service. To most Americans accustomed to working for what they have, on the surface this may sound like little more than what they are already doing. However, the plans go much shockingly further.

In the free market economy of the United States, the individual offers some kind of commodity — be it labor, a tangible good produced, brainpower, or time — in exchange for monetary compensation. And though the system is not perfect, the higher the participant rises in the system, the greater the rewarding compensation one is able to accrue.

However, that may come to a screeching halt if our Seigneur and Chief gets to have his way. For in his worldview, no longer will it be enough to strive within the rules to get the things one wants. Rather in a manner not unlike a medieval manor, if the New World Order advocated by a succession of presidents each in their own way with distinctive emphases comes to pass, you will be bound to the same occupational station and residential area not until you as a free person decides to change it but rather until those higher up the system decide to amend such biographical characteristics.

In his 2008 commencement address, Obama said, “There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one is forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things our money, culture says, you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.”

Obama cites as precedent his own case where he took a position as a community organizer making $12,000 per year while driving a $2,000 car. But whereas you are suppose to remain content at a life of minimal toil, since Obama has always been in his own mind the man who would be king, he was always entitled to possess so much more.

According to an Investor’s Business Daily article posted at Yahoo News on 6/2/2008 titled “Living On Obama’s Collective Farm”, Obama made over $4 million that year. But I guess that’s what it takes to keep a ball-and-chain like Michelle in $500 athletic shoes far uglier than my $20 K-Mart ones and $5000 handbags (a good used automobile doesn’t cost much more than that).

From comparing these dichotomies, one can conclude that Obama does not really care so much about the poor. Rather, in true Alinskyite fashion, he sees those in such circumstances as pawns to agitate into a froth through which to seize power and advance his own status. If it had meant a life of toil and anonymity as it does for most dedicating their lives to uplifting the poverty-stricken, would Obama have even pursued this path in his early career?

As to whether or not Obama will allow participation in national service to remain an individual choice is open to interpretation. In the 2008 address, Obama went on to say, “On the big issues that our nation faces, difficult choices await. We’ll have to face some hard truths, and some sacrifice will be required — not only from you individually, but from the nation as a whole.” But in light of $5000 handbags, weekend jaunts onboard Air Force I to Broadway plays, and pizza chefs flown in from the Midwest to appease a gastronomical hankering, that call does not apply to his highness of course.

Often, those without an inclination towards politics shrug their shoulders at these grandiose pronouncements and go about their business thinking that those in authority won’t go much beyond the stage of public elocution. However, this time around such disengaged citizens might not be so insightful.

The President’s ball-and-chain Michelle said in a campaign speech, “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone…Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Listen up, you battle ax, I’ll be as cynical as I want to be. Your hubby might have been a Professor of Constitutional Law, but apparently he was as dedicated to that occupational station as he was to his seat in the Illinois State House, where he regularly and decisively voted “present, and to the U.S. Senate, where his attendance was shoddy at best as he merely used that office to campaign for the presidency and to pull down a hefty paycheck while doing it.

The First Amendment protects the rights of the individual to believe whatever they want and to enunciate their opinion as to the actions and motivations of the nation’s leaders. This includes saying that these politicians are little more than frauds. Any legislation or executive order to the contrary is an infringement of this Constitutional protection.

And as to being isolated and in one’s “comfort zone”, so long as one pays their bills and stays to themselves, they have the right to be every bit of a hermit as they want to be. Until any President can lock down the border and prevent illegal aliens from violating the territorial integrity of the United States, the Chief Executive has so failed in his fundamental responsibility that he ant those that work beneath him should have no spare time whatsoever to be concerned with how I spend my own time.

Though the discerning might have to weave the disparate fragments together into a complete tapestry, the minions of despotism and iniquity are so full of themselves that they cannot resist scattering crumbs and often wholesale cognitive meals detailing their intentions to destroy liberty and reduce the population to the level of modern day serfs. Shame is, the election of Barack Obama is proof how a significant percentage of the American people would rather ignore the harsh realties staring them right in the face.

© Dr. Frederick Meekins

 

WesternFront America

Progressives are like pig farmers. In an effort to bury opposing viewpoints they sling pejorative slop, labeling as “bigot,” “hater,” “wingnut” or “racist” those with whom they disagree. It’s the height of intellectual sloth.

~ J. Matt Barber

What is intellectual racism? It is the opposite of intellectual diversity and tolerance. It is the paucity of freedom of thought; a repressive ideology that forbids true freedom of speech and freedom of ideas to such a degree as to amount to a de facto disregard or outlawing of all other competing ideas, worldviews or political ideologies.

In modern times, the progressive movement, including the totalitarian political cult of liberalism, comes closest to intellectual racism, for it holds that all other competing ideologies, particularly Natural Law, constitutionalism, capitalism and conservatism, are dangerous and must be purged from the arena of ideas.

The black church has been in the vanguard of promoting intellectual racism since the advent of the civil-rights movement in the early 1960s. Today, virtually every black church in America is corrupted by liberalism and controlled by the Democratic Party, which is why 96 percent of blacks voted for Obama.

I believe that intellectual racism was on garish display when on Palm Sunday my church, Hartford Memorial Baptist Church in Detroit, had invited one of America’s most notorious preachers, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, to deliver the sermon. I chronicled that message in an article titled: “Palm Sunday with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.”

In an effort to combat Wright’s blatant display of intellectual racism, below is the letter I sent to my pastor and to his entire pastoral staff:

Dear Dr. Charles G. Adams,

Not everyone who attended the Palm Sunday service last week was happy about listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s radical sermon.  Where is the balance of religious and philosophical views at Hartford Church? Remember, it was the Republicans under President Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves and eventually gave the black man the vote. The Democrats, whom you support, have fought to keep the black man in physical and mental chains for hundreds of years and under the radical, President Barack Hussein Obama, continue to abort us and our future to this day.

I have been a member of Hartford since 1987, for over 23 years, and not once have I ever been asked to give a conservative point of view at any conference, meeting or before the congregation. For 23 years I have given you books, law review articles and op-eds I have written, and not one time did you ever say “thank you” or “Ellis, come to my office. Let’s talk about how you can become a greater resource of intellectual diversity at Hartford.” Rev. Adams, you are the man who married my wife and me on Sept. 11, 1993, and christened my two children in 1997 and 2001. … Is your treatment of me fair and just? I say not!

When will the intellectual racism and discrimination against conservative philosophical thought out of the Booker T. Washington tradition be stopped and a fair and balanced exposition of conservative ideas be allowed at your church? How long, Rev. Adams must I wait for justice?

Here is my article about Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermon last week that was published in WorldNetDaily.com:  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135881

Rev. Adams, I challenge you to a debate at Hartford on the best philosophical ideas black America should follow. You can take the W.E.B. Dubois view, and I’ll take Booker T. Washington.

Will you accept my challenge, Dr. Adams, or will you and Hartford Memorial Baptist Church continue to treat me as … The Spook Who Sat by the Door?

Peace,

Ellis Washington, J.D.
Grosse Pointe, Michigan, U.S.A.

The above letter is demonstrative of the fact that intellectual racism is alive and well in America, particularly in big-city black churches, and that the greatest purveyors of intellectual racism are the progressives, socialists and liberal Democrats like President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel.

Besides Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin and Mao, remember that one of the great patron saints of modern liberalism and progressivism was the father of community organizing, Saul Alinsky (1909-72) who wrote in his 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals” – Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. This is the same Saul Alinsky who dedicated his treasonous book to Satan; the same Saul Alinksy who said, “‘The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. ‘Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Alinsky was a master purveyor of intellectual racism and creating societal chaos as a pretext to erecting Marxist statism in America. In 1969 Hillary Rodham [Clinton] did her senior thesis on Alinsky at Wellesley. Obama worshipped Alinsky as a novice community organizer in the mean streets of Chicagoland and in all his political campaigns and his first 15 months in office as president of the United States exploited classical Alinsky tactics designed to turn a Christian nation like America in a pathetic, servile banana republic like Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia.

Why do I stay at Hartford Church? It’s complicated, but understand that in order to convert the enemies of God sometimes you have to go to their territory.

Until God calls me to a different mission field, I will continue to attend Hartford Church and through a robust exchange of ideas seek to convert my people away from the dangerous and destructive ideas of intellectual racism, liberalism, socialism and fascism that have turned most of America’s big cities into hellish ghettos or, like Detroit, the city of my birth, back to 19th century urban farmland.

Since the advent of the progressive movement in the 1890s, modern liberalism has been expressly about deconstructing American society from within through various philosophies – humanism, naturalism, eugenics, neo-paganism, liberation theology, socialism, communism, environmentalism, abortion and other perverted ideas, all under the rubric of intellectual racism, which is the Big Lie.

© Ellis Washington

Ellis Washington is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He hosts a radio program Thursdays at 11 a.m. Eastern on 1620 AM in Atlanta. It can be heard online at the Radio Sandy Springs website. His weekly podcasts are available Mondays at The Conservative Beacon. Washington is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

 

WesternFront America

Senator Barack Obama has captured the world’s attention unlike almost any other political figure of the era in which we live.  However, despite all the theatrics surrounding the candidate and the almost messianic adoration displayed on the part of his followers, very few can possible tell you what he actually believes other than in ‘change’, which, though sounding like everything you ever dreamed of, can actually consist of the stuff of nightmares.

Discerning Americans caught an early glimpse of what was beneath the facade of intoxicating rhetoric when it became more widely disseminated what Obama’s spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright actually believed and what Obama had to have soaked up philosophically during the formative years of his early adulthood.  Devoted acolytes will respond that his holiness has distanced himself from such racialism.

David Duke made similar claims during the early to mid 90′s until falling back into similar patterns of extremist thought.  So if few believed Duke back then, why should we extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama now since a leopard seldom changes its spots?

Before the Jeremiah Wright incident, many White Christians felt considerable guilt over the constant harangue invoked by the more liberal among the clergy about 11 o’clock Sunday morning being the most segregated hour of the week.  However, with the exposure of the disease of Black liberation theology eating away at the heart of many Black churches, it has turned out that any sincere Christian irrespective of their ethnic background ought to be cautious about entering these ‘synagogues of Satan’ as Scripture itself calls such hovels of doctrinal compromise.

By more closely examining what liberation theologians actually expound and what is mediated to the broader public by politicians such as Barack Obama, one realizes that the threat posed by this pseudo-messiah and false prophet goes much deeper than the lamentable historical animosities between the races.  And even though this animosity against what this great country was built upon goes much deeper than race and ethnicity, it is the jumping off point into the radical circles in which Obama is being heralded as an almost messianic figure.

Many Americans of goodwill no doubt think Jeremiah Wright and his warped theology are a rare aberration on the American religious radar screen.  His kind of outlook is actually more widespread than one might actually think.

To many of the influential in Black ecclesiastical circles, the problem was not so much with what Jeremiah Wright said but rather that Whitey found out a bit about what was being planned for him among those whose ultimate loyalty is not to the God of the universe and His revealed word but instead to race as a manifestation of the COMMUNITY.  Most American Christians steeped in commonsense and the truths of the Bible would consider the things espoused by Jeremiah Wright beyond the bounds of propriety; however, the assessment of liberals is considerably different.

According to an article in the 5/5/08 edition of The Nation titled ‘The Liberation Of Reverend Wright’ by Eudora Smith, Wright’s elocutionary peeks such as ‘God damn America’ represent the ‘rhetorical traditions [that] meld biblical allegory with contemporary political concerns and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a collective black racial consciousness can be expressed uncensored by others.’  I don’t remember Italians being referred to as long-nosed garlic eaters as part of the Biblical literary heritage.  Eudora Smith continues, ‘It may surprise many in white America…that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there…’

Perhaps even more frightening than that there is a kook like Jeremiah Wright espousing the kinds of things that he does is that there are so many that believe as he does or look to him as an honorable man of God.  Many simply excuse Wrights preaching, according to an MSNBC.com article titled ‘NYT: Black Churches In NC Torn Over Wright’ as ‘a prophetic style that combines spiritual guidance with often harsh social criticism that has its roots in Old Testament prophets.’

The reflections of a number of Wright’s supporters are documented in a 5/11/08 Baltimore Sun article titled ‘Black Preachers Agree To Disagree.’  However, from the article, the disagreement is not so much with Wright’s message but that the world found out about it before their pony Obama won the horse race and it would have been to late for America to do anything about it until the next election.

Rev. Johnny Golden of New Unity Ministries told the Baltimore Sun, ‘We see a lot of what he is saying and we understand it, but his comments have wounded the opportunity of Mr. Obama to make gains and opportunity for America to embrace his ideals.’

Rev. Marshall Prentice of Zion Baptist Church went even further in his support for Wright when he told the Baltimore Sun, ‘To attack any pastor for what he says from the pulpit is an attack on all pastors.  Whatever we say on a given Sunday, we truly believe is given to us by inspiration of God.’

Oh really?  There is a cultic movement known as Christian Identity that is essentially a religious form of Nazism; if someone claims to be a pastor within that pernicious sect and disseminates their poison from behind a pulpit, by the standard advocated in the previous quote, are we as mere laymen permitted to speak out against such error?

Protestantism broke with Roman Catholicism largely in part over the realization that clergy are not infallible and that there must be an objective standard that exists above the mere opinions of man even if we as finite individuals do not yet understand the entirety of the divine plumline.  However, leftist denominations such as the United Church of Christ of which Wright is a part hold that Scripture is no more a definitive rule of faith and practice than any other piece of religious literature.  So when clergy speak to matters beyond and that even blatantly contradict revelation’s scope, why should the Christian in the pew have to defer to someone just because they wear a clerical collar?

Such nonsense may be rife within denominations dominated by African American religionists.  Yet as a group largely Protestant in orientation, one ought to expect rigorous pastors and theologians to protect Evangelicalism against such doctrinal toxins as expounded by the likes of Jeremiah Wright.  However, the same spirit of relativism and timidity infecting the rest of our culture now paralyzes some of Evangelicalism’s foremost institutions simply because the heretic making the claims happens to be an ethnic minority.

Christianity Today was initially founded as a conservative alternative to more liberal religious periodicals such as Christian Century and Sojourners.  If that is the case, its founder Carl Henry must be rolling over in his grave.

Eager to achieve the appellation of “relevant” as did the Social Gospel and Death of God movements from previous generations, insecure Evangelicals are quick to latch onto any intellectual fad that comes along (especially if it happens to be anti-American as of late).  And since all things Obama are all the rage, the editors of Christianity Today can’t help but get on the bandwagon by posting sympathetic viewpoints.

According to the article titled “Jeremiah Wright, Evangelicals’ Brother In Christ”, the disputed pastor is no worse than John Hagee and ought to be accepted as one of our own.  But what exactly does Jeremiah Wright believe?  Shouldn’t we examine this before we extend him unreservedly the hand of fellowship?

The theology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is known as “Black liberation theology”.  However, there is more to this than Black people wanting to go to church predominately with other Black people.  Even those who painstakingly go out of their way to avoid making distinctions between right and wrong are forced to admit there was something profoundly incorrect going on at Wright’s church.

According to the 5/12/08 edition of Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey use to be a member of Wright’s church not so much out of theological conviction but rather because she simply wanted to go to a Black church.  Before we return to the primary thrust of this analysis, that admission is of such significance that it needs to be examined a bit further as it expresses a mindset relevant to this essay.

If a Black person wants to make being around other Black people their highest priority even above fidelity to God Himself, liberals and multiculturalists don’t have a problem with it.  However, if White folks are reluctant to go back to Black churches not so much because of anything against Black people per say but because what rational White person is going to want to sit week after week hearing sermons that do not exposit the Word of God for our daily lives but rather how wretched White people.  And furthermore quite frankly, in many Black churches, the congregation can’t simply sing in the pews but must also jump over them and roll around in the aisles.

For refusing to patronize such ecclesiastical confusion, we get lengthy lectures how we are all one big human family.  But even in families, don’t siblings enjoy different ways of relating to their father?  One might enjoy going with him to the duck pond while the other prefers taking him to car shows; does there really need to be all that much hand-ringing about these things being enjoyed separately?

Since Oprah Winfrey ultimately worships Oprah Winfrey (a claim backed by her embrace of Eckart Tolle), Oprah realized her own deification among the masses of ignorant feminists with too much money would be at stake if she bent her knee to a false god other than herself.  So she parted.
There is more to Black liberation theology than looking to Christ to free individuals from their sins.  In fact, a traditional Jesus plays a very small role in this worldview and the individual is valued even less as one is only important as part of the larger group or COMMUNITY.

John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that He gave us His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  However, to Black liberationists, this most fundamental of Gospel Scriptures contains nothing but error.

According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled ‘Christians Copy Christ Killers Says Obama’s Pastor’s Magazine’, Jesus doesn’t really love the little children, not the Red, nor the Yellow, and  the White ones especially aren’t really so precious in His site after all.  According to theologians subscribing to this school of thought such as Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, Jesus came only for Black people.

Cone is quoted as saying in the WorldNetDaily article, ‘The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self determination by picturing God as the God of all peoples.  Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism.’

Thus, one is a racist if one DOES NOT show preferential treatment towards Black people.  It must be noted that this is not the only kind of double standard advocated by those in Jeremiah Wright’s circles.

In orthodox Christian theology, since all races and ethnic groups are equal ontologically or biologically even if the ways certain cultures manifest themselves are better than others, particular standards and expectations can be applied to individuals irrespective of their background.  However, if one follows the thought of Jeremiah Wright to its logical conclusion, then Black folks should not have to adhere to so-called ‘White man’s law’.

In his remarks before a 2008 NAACP anniversary dinner, Jeremiah Wright contended that European-American children are ‘left-brained’ in that they are logical and analytical whereas African-American children are ‘right-brained’ making them creative and intuitive. On the surface, such theorizing does not really sound like all that big of a deal as often different ethnic groups tend to excel at specific things.  But one must ask the question what will this alleged bit of scholarship be invoked to justify in terms of public policy.

Wright quips in his NAACP remarks, ‘When they [public schools] were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out.  Why?  Because black kids wouldn’t stay in their place.  Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.’
In other words, since their brains process information differently, it is unacceptable to expect Black people to abide by the same set of expectations White folks are expected to adhere to.  Why, how dare you expect order in the hallways of America’s inner city public schools!!!  You’re a racist if you expect Black children to sit there and conduct themselves in a disciplined and studious manner.

Think I am exaggerating?  Both the American Enterprise and Washington Post Magazines have run stories in the past where White teachers were categorized as racist for not having a big smile plastered across their faces about minority children labeled as learning disabled rampaging as they wished in the classrooms of these respective teachers.

Where does this line of reasoning end?  If it is discovered that Blacks have a more difficult time curtailing the compulsions driving one towards reproduction, does that mean we are just suppose to keep handing out the welfare checks and Food Stamps without nary a word of rebuke about the moral decay gripping our nation where the unmarried don’t simply have one child outside of marriage and learn from their mistake but irresponsibly continue having one child after the other without a trip to the altar?

If it is proved that the “Black brain” has a greater propensity towards violence, does that mean we may not condemn the warlike conditions plaguing our city streets?  If one takes Black liberation theology to its logical conclusion, even if Jeremiah Wright won’t admit to it publicly, according to this warped worldview it might not even be wrong to put a bullet in Whitey’s head and take his property; some might even call it an act of love or (as Jeremiah Wright said in his NAACP remarks) “just different”.

In the history of Communism, Marx is remembered as the thinker providing much of that philosophy’s theoretical basis whereas Lenin was the politician who implemented these doctrines into an actual political situation with slight adaptations.  Likewise, Jeremiah Wright contributes significantly to the ideological foundation that Barack Obama would build upon whether the candidate is willing to admit to it or not.

 

WesternFront America