Obama and the Religion of Race War

By: Erik Rush

“Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not.”
Black Theology and Black Power, Dr. James Cone, 1969

Barack Obama must be called to renounce Black Liberation Theology. Can an American be compelled to renounce their religion, a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and one which has been so dearly held by Americans for over 200 years? No, but there is a major distinction between asking someone to renounce their religion versus a highly controversial school of so-called theology.
Obama claims to be a Christian, and no one can or should demand that he renounce Christianity. He must, however, publicly clarify his beliefs with respect to what is considered Christianity in America compared to the destructive, racist creed taught at Trinity United Church in Chicago, where he has been a member for the past 20 years.

If Barack Obama indeed subscribes to Black Liberation Theology, whether he admits to it or not, this will make him the most dangerous individual to ever aspire to the Presidency. There is no debate on this point.

Obama must be asked directly whether or not he accepts Black Liberation Theology as preached by pastors who subscribe to this doctrine and as described in James Cone’s book, Black Theology and Black Power, the chief text of BLT (as admitted to by Rev. Jeremiah Wright on March 1, 2007). No less will do, and unless he is asked this question, Americans will have been grossly irresponsible with regard to their civic duties. In truth, were the establishment press not corrupt and Americans more scrupulous in their discernment, Obama’s campaign hopes would have been dashed in March 2007.

One of the most prominent of our broadcast journalists has all but pledged to interview Obama on his television program, perhaps the most widely-viewed of its kind in America. This gentleman was duly critical of the candidate and Reverend Wright when the issue of the pastor’s racist and anti-American sentiments came to light. Will he ask Obama the all-important question?

At this juncture it appears extremely unlikely that he or anyone else will. Should this occur, it is even less likely that Obama will comply, so grave would be the implications of such action.

Were Obama to renounce Black Liberation Theology, the backlash from militant BLT pastors, their cohorts (such as the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan) and black Americans who have been brainwashed into maintaining solidarity with influential blacks even if they are far wide of the mark would be so severe, not only would the candidate lose the black vote, but his campaign might all but disintegrate. His renouncement would be framed as a rejection of the aggregate of black Americans.

This columnist has stated on national television venues that Barack Obama lied about his knowledge of Rev. Wright’s militancy. Given the nature of Black Liberation Theology and those who preach it, it is an impossibility that he was never present when statements were made similar to those which aired. Such verbiage is the meat of this doctrine. That an adherent to this vile cult would lie in order to attain the presidency is no stretch, of course, but the glaring evidence of this lie must come to light.
Barack Obama was (as he says) “drawn to” Trinity United; it is the belief of an increasing number of America’s more astute observers that this was because he recognized it as a strategy whereby he might put an acceptable face on his religious and sociopolitical leanings, which are actually more akin to that of the Nation of Islam and more generic black nationalists than any Christian denomination. Join a radical Christian church; at least it has the word “Christian” tied to it. Perhaps the “Jesus” BLT promotes was one in whom Obama could believe (difficult though he may be to find in the New Testament). Inasmuch as there are almost innumerable varieties of Christianity in the U.S. and criticism of black culture is not considered politically correct, I am certain much calculation arrived at the likelihood that he would get away with it.

He was right, of course. The genesis of Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, which helped pave the way for his candidacy, was a sermon delivered by Jeremiah Wright. This insight with respect to who the candidate is or might be remains a surreal paradox: Audacity is an acclaimed literary work (which some pundits claim Obama didn’t actually write), but one which has failed to serve as the red flag it really is.

The reason Obama must be called to renounce Black Liberation Theology is twofold: One, to determine his sincerity or depth of his duplicity. Two, is in order to hold him accountable at a later date, sort of like: “I did not have sex with that woman.”
If cornered as candidate or President, Obama might conceivably spin BLT into a far more innocuous phenomenon that it truly is, but having been cornered, Americans will be “looking at his feet,” if you will: Scrutinizing his actions rather than his words.
For my part, I submit that if Obama was sitting in the pews of Trinity United Church as a member for 20 years, he has no place anywhere in American government, let alone holding the highest office in the land.

Americans have every right to elect an odious and treacherous individual to the White House if they so desire – assuming they know what they are getting. Right now, they have no idea.

Erik Rush is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org).

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.