Yurt
03-31-2008, 09:21 PM
Pastor preached what Obamas believe
Posted: March 25, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
"More Perfect Union" speech of March 18 was a transpicuous opprobrium intended to obfuscate, shift blame and cast all churchdom in the same light as his mentor and pastor. In reality, his speech provided us with a closer look into Obama the man, and suffice it to say, he came up woefully lacking.
In his speech, Obama called slavery America's original sin. I beg to differ on strict theological grounds (of which he and/or his mentor/pastor are welcome to debate me). America's original sin is the same as original sin has been from the beginning – it was and it continues to be man's disobedience to God. Obama, as a self-professed "devout Christian," should know this, but he chose instead to play the race card.
....
Posted: March 25, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech of March 18 was a transpicuous opprobrium intended to obfuscate, shift blame and cast all churchdom in the same light as his mentor and pastor. In reality, his speech provided us with a closer look into Obama the man, and suffice it to say, he came up woefully lacking.
In his speech, Obama called slavery America's original sin. I beg to differ on strict theological grounds (of which he and/or his mentor/pastor are welcome to debate me). America's original sin is the same as original sin has been from the beginning – it was and it continues to be man's disobedience to God. Obama, as a self-professed "devout Christian," should know this, but he chose instead to play the race card.
He continued his remarks with a quasi-elegant, albeit factually incomplete and misleading treatise, pursuant to racial inequality, all of which was intended to set the stage for what was to come – a thinly veiled defense of his mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright – a gymnastic feat so adroit as to be the envy of the most nimble prevaricator.
(Column continues below)
To add insult to that injury, he conveniently omitted any reference to the fact that it was the party he represents that opposed every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860s up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
He fanned the flames of racism in mentioning his being black. He left unmentioned that it was members of his own party that made his ethnicity an issue. And it was noted black journalists, not least of which is Stanley Crouch, of the New York Daily News, who argued that while he was black, he didn't share a heritage with the majority of black America. (See: "What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me"; New York Daily News; Nov. 2, 2006.)
But the part of his speech that I found most troubling was when he said, "Did I know [Rev. Wright] to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
The problem I have with his attempted fence straddling is his usage of the words "occasionally" and "that could be considered." When Jeremiah Wright said, "God damn America," and when he in effect said Natalie Holloway got what she deserved – I submit his words went beyond that which "could be considered controversial." When he alleged white America got its just comeuppance on 9/11, and when he attacked Israel as a racist state – I submit his verbiage went beyond that which "could be considered controversial." When he accused the United States of creating the AIDS virus and spreading it abroad, when he called America "these racist United States" and accused America of imperialism – all of which were delivered from the pulpit – I submit his words went beyond even the most liberal definition of "could be considered controversial."
...
Even more troubling than the fact that he and his family sat under Wright's contemptuous hate-mongering, is he expects us to believe that though Wright was his mentor, none of Wright's dogmas took root in himself or his family's being. Are we to believe that Wright mentored him with a different worldview?
Obama's undisguised attempt to cast all pastors in the same light as Wright is an insult to true Christians. There is a difference between being convicted by the Holy Spirit and passionately preaching the inerrant Word of God, and that which Obama casually gives attribution to, as being "something our pastor might say with which we disagree."
..
Obama and his wife have been very adept at secreting from public scrutiny the views they share with Wright, but as their carefully constructed veneer is removed, the would-be emperor and empress are exposed as sharing more in common with Wright than they do with the everyday citizens.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59771
Posted: March 25, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
"More Perfect Union" speech of March 18 was a transpicuous opprobrium intended to obfuscate, shift blame and cast all churchdom in the same light as his mentor and pastor. In reality, his speech provided us with a closer look into Obama the man, and suffice it to say, he came up woefully lacking.
In his speech, Obama called slavery America's original sin. I beg to differ on strict theological grounds (of which he and/or his mentor/pastor are welcome to debate me). America's original sin is the same as original sin has been from the beginning – it was and it continues to be man's disobedience to God. Obama, as a self-professed "devout Christian," should know this, but he chose instead to play the race card.
....
Posted: March 25, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech of March 18 was a transpicuous opprobrium intended to obfuscate, shift blame and cast all churchdom in the same light as his mentor and pastor. In reality, his speech provided us with a closer look into Obama the man, and suffice it to say, he came up woefully lacking.
In his speech, Obama called slavery America's original sin. I beg to differ on strict theological grounds (of which he and/or his mentor/pastor are welcome to debate me). America's original sin is the same as original sin has been from the beginning – it was and it continues to be man's disobedience to God. Obama, as a self-professed "devout Christian," should know this, but he chose instead to play the race card.
He continued his remarks with a quasi-elegant, albeit factually incomplete and misleading treatise, pursuant to racial inequality, all of which was intended to set the stage for what was to come – a thinly veiled defense of his mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright – a gymnastic feat so adroit as to be the envy of the most nimble prevaricator.
(Column continues below)
To add insult to that injury, he conveniently omitted any reference to the fact that it was the party he represents that opposed every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860s up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
He fanned the flames of racism in mentioning his being black. He left unmentioned that it was members of his own party that made his ethnicity an issue. And it was noted black journalists, not least of which is Stanley Crouch, of the New York Daily News, who argued that while he was black, he didn't share a heritage with the majority of black America. (See: "What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me"; New York Daily News; Nov. 2, 2006.)
But the part of his speech that I found most troubling was when he said, "Did I know [Rev. Wright] to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
The problem I have with his attempted fence straddling is his usage of the words "occasionally" and "that could be considered." When Jeremiah Wright said, "God damn America," and when he in effect said Natalie Holloway got what she deserved – I submit his words went beyond that which "could be considered controversial." When he alleged white America got its just comeuppance on 9/11, and when he attacked Israel as a racist state – I submit his verbiage went beyond that which "could be considered controversial." When he accused the United States of creating the AIDS virus and spreading it abroad, when he called America "these racist United States" and accused America of imperialism – all of which were delivered from the pulpit – I submit his words went beyond even the most liberal definition of "could be considered controversial."
...
Even more troubling than the fact that he and his family sat under Wright's contemptuous hate-mongering, is he expects us to believe that though Wright was his mentor, none of Wright's dogmas took root in himself or his family's being. Are we to believe that Wright mentored him with a different worldview?
Obama's undisguised attempt to cast all pastors in the same light as Wright is an insult to true Christians. There is a difference between being convicted by the Holy Spirit and passionately preaching the inerrant Word of God, and that which Obama casually gives attribution to, as being "something our pastor might say with which we disagree."
..
Obama and his wife have been very adept at secreting from public scrutiny the views they share with Wright, but as their carefully constructed veneer is removed, the would-be emperor and empress are exposed as sharing more in common with Wright than they do with the everyday citizens.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59771