Doctrines of Obama's Church

The following are excerpts from an article written by Margaret Talev for McClatchy Newspapers:

Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama's church....

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright's inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn't address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."

Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....

In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Obama, 46, who's biracial, joined Trinity in his late twenties when he worked as a community organizer. He says he'll continue to worship there...

It isn't clear where Obama's beliefs and the church's diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology... 

(For the full article, click here. )

Did Obama attend the church knowing some of these radical doctrines that the church is founded on?  Thats a question that needs to be answered.  

McCain's Secret Weapon...

Obama has Obama Girl.  Hillary has "Hot 4 Hill" Girl.  John McCain has...the McCain Girls.  Take a look if you need a quick laugh:

"A Typical White Person"

Those were the words that Sen. Barack Obama used to describe his white grandmother.  Many in the media seem to be giving Barack Obama a free pass on this one, as are many in the liberal blogosphere.  Yet, in the interest of fairness, let's replace the word "white" with the word "black" and let's say that it was Hillary Clinton who said it.  

We all know what would happen.  There would be outrage.  She would be called a racist.  She would be thrown under the bus and criticized for days and days.  It's not that I'm necessarily saying that Barack Obama hates whites, I don't think he does, but many are not covering this the same way they would if the situation was as I described above.  I'm getting sick and tired of the double standard out there, where Obama gets a pass on controversial statements and Clinton gets bashed and buried.  People are ultra-sensitive when African Americans or Latinos are stereotyped (which is completely understandable), but when whites are stereotyped, the one making the comments gets a free pass.  It's just not right.  We need to start covering the candidates all equally.    

This Can't Help...

Asked why Sen. Barack Obama was qualified for the job of the Presidency, John Kerry told a Massachusetts newspaper that Obama is "uniquely qualified" because "he's a black man".  I don't want to bash Sen. Kerry, whom I have much respect for, but I do think it's outrageous to claim that race, gender, religion, etc., makes one individual "uniquely qualified" over the other to be President and deal with the many issues that face our great country.  Here's the full video:

Obama's Evolving Position on the Iraq War

Just yesterday in North Carolina, Sen. Barack Obama told a large crowd that he has always been opposed to the war since it began.  The facts and quotes, however, tell a different story.  Watch:

Calling Out Daily Kos

I just made a now rare visit over to the Daily Kos website only to find the radicalization of the site bordering on un-American.  Whether you agree or disagree with the author of this user's post (named Red Wolverine), he was instantly censored and troll rated for posting a YouTube video that was apparently in opposition to Sen. Barack Obama.

Again, I'm not saying whether or not I agree with the content of the video since I didn't get a chance to see it due to the Obama-biased moderators deleting it.  What I am saying is that it is completely wrong for someone to be censored and their words and thoughts edited just because their opinions might be unpopular.  

This has become an disturbing issue that is growing on some blogs which heavily support Obama.  Anyone who disagrees with them, or posts something controversial, is censored, verbally attacked, and told never to come back to the site again. Many people with whom I do not agree post comments here at POLITIDOSE, however, I don't go around and delete their remarks simply because I disagree with them.  This is America.  Regardless of which candidate we support, we must be willing to have a serious, honest discussion about the candidates and what is at stake in this election.  This can not happen, however, if we shut everyone up who we disagree with.  

For those reasons, I am calling on Daily Kos and like websites to respect others' views and allow them to be respectfully discussed.  Those were the ideals that America was founded on and they must be allowed to continue.

For those wishing to see the censoring and bashing of the post to which I refer, click the following link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/205116/282/734/480325.

Obama's Big Speech: My Take

Sen. Barack Obama, without a doubt, gave a great speech today.  The substance can be debated, but the delivery and tone were spot on and brilliant.  The overall message was correct and is one which I agree with. Racism (along with sexism and homophobia) is an underlying current in American society today and that needs to change.  Prejudices, from both sides of the isle, white and black, need to end.  We need to judge people for who they are, looking not at the color of their skin but at the character demonstrated in their actions.  

With that being said, however, some parts of the speech I still have some problems with.  For starters, Barack Obama refused to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright again today.  He, once again, compared him to a family member.  Again I'l say it: you don't choose your family, you're more or less stuck with them, but you do choose your pastor.  You do choose what church you attend.  Obama chose Wright and stuck by him for 20 plus years.  

Why is that a problem?  Jeremiah Wright is a man who preaches hate and bigotry.  He claims that the U.S. government introduced AIDS to kill off African Americans.  He claims that the U.S. deserved the tragedy that was 9/11.  He claims that god should damn, not bless, this great country.  

Obama can say he wasn't there to hear Rev. Wright make those remarks live.  He can say that he rejects them now that it is the politically necessary thing to do.  But even today, while giving that great speech, Obama didn't explain why he stuck by Wright for 20 years.  Surely he had heard of those remarks.  Surely Obama has been present for some of Wright's many outlandish and incendiary statements.  Why didn't he reject the comments then?  Why didn't he stop attending the church then?  Why wait until now, when the press brings up the story?   It's a little known fact, but Oprah Winfrey used to attend Trinity United Church.  She stopped attending, however, many years ago when apparently Wright began preaching his vulgar, hate-filled sermons.  If Oprah could recognize when something just wasn't okay, she got up and left and never came back. Why didn't Obama do the same?  I'm going to stay on top of Obama until he answers that question because the American people deserve an answer.

Another thing Obama said that I have a problem with is his game of blame the media for taking Wright's remarks out of context.  Exactly how much context do you need when someone says "god damn America"?  Or AIDS being created by our government to kill African Americans?  For Obama to blame the media is simply outrageous.  He has gotten the smoothest ride by the media of anyone who every ran for President.  Trust me, I know the media can be unfair at times.  This just wasn't one of those times and Obama is wrong for trying to make it one.  

Abrams and Gregory's New Shows: A Quick Review

Today was the debut of David Gregory's new show on MSNBC, Race for the White House.  In essence, the show features 6 segments discussed over by a 4 member panel.  Tonight's panel was great, with Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Eugene Robinson, and Chuck Todd offering their opinions and views. Okay, maybe Robinson and Todd are no good, but I hope Maddow and Scarborough remain regulars, as both got into several heated arguments with each other that were both highly substantive and highly entertaining.  

The biggest surprise for me, however, was how well David Gregory fit into his new role as host.  Think of him as a more lively, more personable Tim Russert, or a less lively, less opinionated Dan Abrams.  As long as the panelists stay as good and the segments stay as lively as they were today, Race for the White House could prove to be a huge success for MSNBC. 

Verdict with Dan Abrams also debuted tonight.  Nothing much to note here, as Verdict pretty much follows the same format as Abram's old self titled show, but again I must say that I love the "On Their Trail" segment. Abrams, although he blatantly injects his opinion into topics, is never tilted towards one candidate, or for that matter, one ideology, over the other. On one issue he might agree with Obama; the next McCain; the next Clinton.  It's just really refreshing to get commentary without a clear bias behind them.  

With that being said, I encourage all of you to check out MSNBC's new primetime lineup.  Gregory's show looks very promising, Matthew's is getting better, and Abrams continues to "tell it as he sees it".  (The only downside is the none-stop bias of Keith Olbermann, formerly the best MSNBC host.)  

Obama and The Preacher (Part II)

It's really disturbing to see how many people are out there defending Rev. Jeremiah Wright over the comments he made. They were not, in any way, okay.  God should not damn America.  America, with all its flaws, is the greatest country in the world.  Whether or not you've been called a n****r should not be a qualification for being President.  The horrific attacks of 9/11 are not the fault of Americans.  

Some comments have been made here at POLITIDOSE defending Wright by arguing that other preachers have said "God damn America" and other outrageous comments.  Let me make myself clear: just because I don't mention other preachers' by name and their comments does not mean I agree or condone their remarks.  Indeed, Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc. are all equally despicable as Wright for making the comments they have made.  But I want Wright supporters to think of it this way:  They defend Wright by demonizing Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc. for saying such outrageous things.  But isn't it only fair then to demonize Wright too if he said the same thing?

Some say that Wright is justified in what he said because all he is trying to do is combat hate.  Well, at least in my view, you don't deal with hate by preaching hate, which is exactly what Wright has done.  Do people really think it's okay to preach hate of white people in order to make up for some whites being racist?  I'm a white man; I don't hold any hate for African Americans.  Yet, according to Wright, I'm an evil person who his entire congregation should hate.  Here's a lesson Wright and his followers need to learn: hate breeds hate.  The more Wright and his followers preach hate of white people, the more white people will hate them, and the cycle goes on and on and on.  The way to end hate is to bring people together.  That was Martin Luther King's message and goal.  He didn't preach hate for whites; he preached equality for all.  He didn't demonize whites, rather he invited them to join him and his followers in ending racial divides.  

Again I'll say, preaching hate is never okay.  But even I, an avid opponent of John McCain, can not hold him as accountable for Hagee's remarks as I hold Obama for Wrights.  Hagee endorses McCain.  McCain, however, has not been a personal friend of Hagee for over 20 years.  McCain did not choose Hagee to be his pastor.  McCain did not put Hagee on his campaign.  

It's not that I necessarily think Obama shares Wright's views, but I do want to know why Obama has befriended this man.  You can't tell me that Obama didn't know that Wright made these horrible remarks.  Obama certainly knew and then proceeded to continue to attend Trinity United Church.  He proceeded to continue his very close, personal relationship with Wright.  He proceeded to put Wright on his campaign.  I want answers from Obama.  I want to know why he choose to associate himself with Wright.  

(P.S.)---My Personal Connection: I fight hard everyday to end racism and sexism.  My friends frequently get annoyed when I call them out on prejudiced language, but I continue to do it.  Why?  Because I see the elements of discrimination alive in society and they sicken me.  I want them to end as much as the next person.  But what good would it do if, instead of calmly explaining to my friends why their comments are inappropriate and asking them to change their ways, I began spewing hateful language towards them.  It would just allow for their hate to deepen.  Again, only more hate can come out of hate.  We must end the cycle.  Wright preaches hate of whites in redemption for hatred of blacks. Hatred, of any kind, is wrong.  But if we're going to call one group out on hate and racism, we have to do the same for the other.  What Wright said is non-defensible.  The fact that Obama remains friends with him raises serious questions that I feel the American people deserve having answered.  

Obama And The Preacher

As is well known, Sen. Barack Obama's pastor for 20 plus years has caused some controversy recently, and, in my mind, rightfully so. Many people, from the Obama campaign, as well as Clinton's, have downplayed Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments.  But they still bother me.  As much as I do want to move past them, I just can't.  The words "God damn America" and "She ain't never been called a n****r" just keep replaying in my head.  Phrases such as those are utterly disturbing and there is no excuse for them.  It is horrific to watch the tapes of these comments and see the congregation stand on their feet to applaud Wright's inexcusable language.  As much as I don't want to blame Obama, I kind of have to.  Here's why:

First of all, Obama says he never heard Rev. Wright make such statements.  Okay, I accept Obama at his word that he wasn't in the congregation when those specific remarks were made.  But, in Obama's 20 year long history with Rev. Wright, did he ever hear Wright make such statements?  Did he ever hear of Wright making the statements even if he wasn't there at the moment? 

Surely Obama knew Wright was a controversial man.  If Obama didn't think so, then why did he ask Wright not to speak at his announcement to run for President.  He clearly didn't want Wright brought up in front of the press.  He obviously knew this man was controversial.  If all Obama knew was, as he now claims, that Wright preached about Jesus and was a great man, why did he have to ask Wright not to show up.  Obama obviously knew of Wright's history and past remarks.  Maybe not the exact ones now being played in the media, but some of the many, many anti-American, racial, bigoted remarks Wright has apparently made, even if we don't yet know them all. And if Obama knew of Wright's history, why did he continue to attend Trinity United Church?  I'm not a very religious person, so I don't go to church, but if I did and I heard anything close to the type of remarks that Wright made, I would get up that instant, walk out that church, and never, ever have anything to do with it again.  Obama clearly knew that Wright had made these type of statements in the past, why else would he ask Wright not to be there for his announcement, and if he did know of some of these statements, why did he continue to befriend Wright and attend the church?

Secondly, Obama is going around using the excuse that Wright was like an uncle who says stuff you completely reject, but you stay friendly with.  Let's make it clear, you don't choose who you're uncles are.  There part of the family.  You can't stop being a part of the family you were born into.  Obama, on the other hand, chose Wright as his pastor.  And at any time that Obama though Wright was being inappropriate, Obama could have chosen to leave Trinity United.  He didn't and I have a problem with that.

I'm sick of people coming out, that includes Clinton supporters, and saying that Obama shouldn't be held accountable for what his pastor said.  Obama admits that he has been a pretty regular church goer and a good friend of Rev. Wright for the past 20 years.  We just have two clips of different sermons that Wright made, but I'm sure there are many more inexcusable comments out there.  And it's not just Wright.  I don't like to demonize people, but how could the congregation stand up and applaud Wright's comments? How could they cheer for "God damning America"?  Why would Barack Obama want to associate himself with people like that?  

It's not enough for Barack Obama to come out now that it is politically necessary and reject Wright's statements.  Obama had 20 years to do that.  No one forced him to attend that Church.  No one force him to befriend Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  No one forced him to put Wright on his campaign.  Obama himself chose to associate himself with Wright and the Church.

The comments by Wright don't need to be put into context, as some have suggested.  Wright's comments speak for themselves. His comments are no more acceptable than the evangelical preachers who say that 9/11 was punishment for abortions or for gay acceptance in America.  And there are those who of course will say that Obama didn't know about Wright's statements. Who are we kidding?  Of course Obama knew; maybe he wasn't present in the congregation, but surely he knew about them.  

The whole thing is really a sad story.  It tears me apart, because I do want to like Barack Obama.  I do want to wholeheartedly support him if he is our nominee.  But when you build your campaign on judgment and your judgment leads you to believe that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a good man, something is very wrong about your judgment.  It's not enough now for Obama to distance himself from the comments, he should have done that a long time ago, and it really damages my impression of him.