Surely we have misunderstood and exaggerated the situation with Barack Obama’s minister and spiritual advisor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright? So the media on the left would have us believe. Obama has settled the Apostle of Apartheid question, and the campaign can move on. … Not. As Jeffrey Schmidt points out:
“Neither the Reverend Wright nor black liberation theology is being misunderstood. Both, thanks to the candidacy of Barack Obama, are being exposed. God, in fact, works in mysterious ways. And unless it’s the aforementioned liberals and Democrats who are trying to hush up Wright, Moss and others of their ilk, sensible Americans want to hear more, for knowledge is power, the power to combat hate.
“And make no mistake, what Americans are hearing, they don’t like. In the Rasmussen poll, 73% of voters find Wright’s comments to be racially divisive. That’s a broad cross section of voters, including 58% of black voters. …
“For the left, black liberation theology makes for close to a perfect faith. It is a political creed larded with religion. It serves not to reconcile and unite blacks with the larger cultural, but to keep them separate. Here, again, The Washington Post reports that “He [Wright] translated the Bible into lessons about…the misguided pursuit of ‘middle-classness.’” …
“All the kooky talk about the government infecting blacks with HIV is a fine example of how the left will promote a lie to nurture alienation and grievance. To listen to Wright — more an apostle of the left than the Christian church — the model for blacks is alienation, deep resentment, separation and grievance. All of which leads to militancy. Militancy is important. It’s the sword dangled over the head of society. Either fork over more tax dollars, government services and patronage or else. And unlike the Reverend Moss and his kindred, I’ll specify the “else.” Civil unrest. Disruptions in cities. Riot in the streets.”
Schmidt does not exaggerate. What did Reverend Jeremiah Wright mean when he used the term “the audacity of hope” in a famous sermon to his Chicago congregation? And what did Barack Obama mean, when he borrowed that term and made it the catchy title of his book, The Audacity of Hope? Does that have some meaning for the initiated that is inaccessible–intentionally or otherwise–to those who aren’t?
“Liberation Theology was written in 1984 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,” known today as Pope Benedict XVI, and “introduces its readers to the dangers inherent in Black Liberation Theology.” In that belief system, which is in reality a political movement, Cardinal Ratzinger tells us “hope is interpreted as “confidence in the future” and . . . subordinated once more to the history of class conflict.”
In this belief system, salvation and liberation are synonymous. Hope, which most Christians associate with salvation, is specifically connected to the Marxist tool of class or racial conflict. In the words of James Cone:
“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.” [Emphasis added.]
That isn’t funny enough to joke about. That is what Jeremiah Wright, and his successor, Otis Moss III, preach. It is what the movement as a whole preaches. It is not Wright’s invention, and it is well-known among those of leftist leanings. The movement originated in South America’s grinding poverty in the fifties and sixties.
By the early seventies, its founding father, Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Catholic priest in Peru, was combining principles of Marxism with elements of Christianity to answer the needs of the continent’s suffering poor. Gutiérrez retained Marxist principles such as class struggles, while opposing private ownership of means of production and capitalism as a whole. Gutiérrez taught:
“The poor must be freed from economic, political and social oppression. This will involve both struggle and conflict, but Gutiérrez does not shy away from it. Such a willingness to countenance violent actions is one of the reasons why Gutiérrez’s ideas have not always been warmly received by Catholic leaders in the Vatican.” [Emphasis added.]
The movement grew – and prospered.
“It started in South America in the turbulent 1950’s when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.”
“Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model (gained in the turbulent 1950’s), the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes.“As a result of its Marxist leanings, by the 1980’s the Catholic hierarchy, from Pope John Paul on down, had criticized liberation theology as practiced by the bishops and priests of South America. As a result, they have been accused of supporting violent revolutions and outright Marxist class struggle by the top hierarchy of the Catholic Church.” [Emphasis added.]
As Reverend Wright’s existence indicates, the movement has moved north of the border.
“Liberation Theology has moved from the poor peasants in South America to the poor blacks in America. We now have Black Liberation Theology being preached in the black community. It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than the South American model has. False doctrine is still false, no matter how it is dressed up or what fancy name is attached to it. In the same way that revolutionary fervor was stirred up in South America, Liberation Theology is now trying to stir up revolutionary fervor among Blacks in America.” [Emphasis added.]
We may wonder why Wright does not wear a brown shirt instead of his dashing clerical robes. When interviewed by Sean Hannity, Wright repeatedly demanded that Hannity tell him how many of Cones’ books he had read. The Reverend left no doubt that everything hangs on Cone and Dwight Hopkins, another high priest of black liberation. The central purpose of that congregation’s existence clearly has been to raise up more black liberation disciples. Don’t ask us to believe Cone’s teachings were the subject of only a few aberrant diatribes over all those years, while the other 90% were standard Christian fare. And with a minister that insistent, what chance exists that Barack Obama could be in Wright’s congregation for twenty years and not have read (at the very least) one or two of those books?
Most of us will also discern little difference between radical Islam and this brand of alleged Christianity. Which may explain why Jeremiah Wright can pile honors on black separatist and hate monger Louis Farrakhan, and why he was comfortable traveling to North Africa with Farrakhan to pay a call on terrorist Moammar Qaddafi. It may also explain how allegedly-Christian Obama can happily campaign in Kenya for his Muslim terrorist cousin, Odinga, whose Luo tribesmen have slaughtered several hundred of defenseless Christians in Kenya. If one can slay Gods because they don’t comply with the demands of Black Liberation Theology, a few hundred Christians shouldn’t be a problem.
Obama urges us to see the Wright picture in context. His own requires examination even more. For starters, the orientation of the church is basically the same as his mother’s. Along with Wright, it is his mother Obama claims as the source of his political views. He has said of her, “The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics.”
Add in the Odinga campaign factor, the inevitability of Obama having read Cone and Hopkins –thereby having no excuse for not understanding where Jeremiah Wright’s sympathies are, and the Michele Obama ashamed-of-America element. Then there is his expressed pride in his brother Roy in Africa, a Luo lieutenant of Odinga, and with him, a Muslim jihadi. That is all part of Obama’s history, his context. If we give any credence to reason and to context, Barack Obama selected Wright’s church because he shares its philosophy. He cannot distance himself from Wright for the same reason. Nothing else works, not even political opportunism, although that no doubt plays a significant and contributing role.
If for nothing else, we are indebted to Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright for having exposed this cancer in our society to open view. Without radical treatment, however, it is not the last we will hear of it.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Reference the last sentence ” Without radical treatment, however, it is not the last we will hear of it.”
What “radical treatment”, under the freedom of speech provisions in the constitution, is possible?
Shunning? Boycotting? Yawning? How about the “Christian” community (especially evangelicals) speaking out about Black Liberation theology? For the most part, have not the national councils been silent over the years?
The National Council of Churches has had a long history of sympathy with Marxism and was at one time “an overt supporter of the Communist left.” Created in 1950, or perhaps we should just say “renamed” it grew out of a Communist front group and still sits far to the left. No help in dealing with this will come from them.
Hopefully, the force of public opinion, as generated through blogs and talk radio, will have an impact. Brighter ideas would surely be welcome–at least on the right.
How much black on white crime–which is hugely disproportionate in numbers as well as vastly underrreported in the media–is generated and justified by preachers of anti-white hatred? How many black men are serving prison terms for crimes incited by the Jeremiah Wrights of North America? He has railed against Three Strikes laws; it’s on the videos. How many men from his own congregation are currently in the tank because he encouraged them to violence?
Last but not least, how many judges Obama appoints to the bench would release such criminals from prisons before their time, if , as it appears to be the case, he believes in the violence against whites discussed in this post?
Sorry to ask such questions, but the answers are better searched out now than later. Thinking in terms of specifics is a necessity when a civilization is under attack.
While we would love to think that such questions overstate the threat, Central America and South American history of the last fifty years says that ain’t so.
Obama’s reaction last year to Don Imus’ tasteless remarks: “I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”
This was claimed at the same time Obama continued to attend the services of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who routinely, not just once, vilified whites and spewed hate at them. Obama’s claims about who would continue working for him were an out and out fraud. He is a Class A hypocrite.
Attention should be focused, by someone, somewhere, in the responsibility the Rev. Wrights of this country have for inciting crime. He has accountability not only for the direct victims of crimes he incites with his hate speech, he is responsible for the incarceration of the criminals he inspires. To them for their loss of liberty, to their families, and to the taxpayers who foot the bill for all of the above. When is someone going to call Rev. Wright to account? Hate speech is actionable in courts of law. But does a connection have to be proved between that speech and a specific crime, or is hate speech actionable in and of itself?
Someone needs to get to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, etc. and ask them why they have not either researched this more or let more be known about Barack Obama and the Black Liberation Theology. If I can help in any way, please tell me how.
FYI, I trust Hannity and Limbaugh — but OReilly is a large question mark. As to what you can do: Read up on it, check out what you can Googling. You might even want to read James Cone’s book. Read what Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, has written about Islam. Then letters to editors of newspapers or blogs are helpful. People are likely to be interested in what other people are interested in. Minds are changed one at a time. Stick your neck out and tell people what you think: mail your observations to friends; recommend the books you’ve read, if you found them helpful.
The United States of America is based on White Supremacy Racism. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not created for the benefit of non-whites. When these documents were written, Blacks were held in slavery while the Native Americans were robbed of their lands and nearly exterminated out of existence. It was white people who imposed these horrors.
Despite the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights act of 1964 et al, White Supremacy Racism still operates in the United States today. U.S. Census statistics of every year on record show that Blacks receive lower salaries than whites– EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE THE SAME EDUCATION!
Reverend Wright has merely addressed White Supremacy Racism truthfully. White people have done serious and CONTINUING wrongs against Blacks. Any resulting Black hatred for whites is the logical consequence.