Excellent comment!

I agree with your analysis of how the Left leverages the liberals to advance their own interests, and how they respond to conservative counter-attacks. Reminds me mostly of infiltration tactics…

Which reminds me: we need a rubric for actually measuring where in xGW something falls, rather than relying on heuristics.

…because Obama is a politician running for office.

“The assumption goes like this: he must have either entirely embraced the literal interpretation of everything said from the pulpit of the church, or he must have abandoned the church very early on (which he didn’t.) ”

I think I said the ideology must be somewhat in harmony with his real views – or he couldn’t sit through 20+ years of that crap. To what extent I can’t be sure.

I for one don’t believe that it Obama was snoozing in the pews for 20 years and missed all of the ideological crap. I don’t believe it is coincidental (I would have to be a fool or an Obamaniac to believe that) that now that when the media happens to cover a few recent expressions of the ideology at Trinity (which were themselves not unusual for black liberation theology) Obama realizes he must leave his church. His “resignation” wordage isn’t even a criticism of Trinity. It is a wink wink to the left as he continues to maneuver for the American political center.

“…since speaking up and being quite vocal…”

Obama is a politician too. I think he considers that when shaping his messages. Occasionally stuff slips outs (e.g. praise for his Marxists real father in his book, long time association with a leftists domestic terrorist, his wife’s leftists rant from a few months ago).

It might be strange for readers of this and my blog to see me go off so quickly on this religion. As a young purpleslog in college is when I first came across this crazy theology. I saw firsthand the human capital it wasted, the bureaucrats and students cowed by accusation of of racisms by supporters of BLT.

I am amazed by how much the poltical struggle of today resembles that of my college years.

Then there where three broad groups of primary players:

Group A: A coalition including leftists, Marxists, BLTers, actual-supporters-of-USA-enemies.

Group B: A coalition of ideologically-driven Conservatives and non-ideologically-driven Moderates (though usually with pro-national security views and practical fiscal concerns)

Group C: This was by far the largest group. It consisted mostly of well meaning liberals who tended to not be well informed on issues and mostly preoccupied with their activities of personal life.

Policy debates and actions were usually an attempt by group A to co-opt the manpower and support of group C to advance the agenda of group A while at the same time denying/hiding most of the A agenda to the the members of group B.

Group B would try to oppose and point out what group A was doing.

Group A would accuse group B of racism (which group C new was bad, even if group C didn’t understand the issue at hand), or being evil, of being stupid, of being nazis, etc.

Group A would attempt to use the institutions of the City and University to counter Group B (e.g. lawsuits, charging with thought university thought crimes, vindictive supportive professors) and direct action (demonstrations aimed at cowardly and mildly supportive leaders, theft, vandalism, mild violence, veiled threats of more violence).

In many ways, this is the American political landscape today.

Hmm…there is some 5GW to explore in this.

Whether Obama believes that American blacks are an oppressed internal nation (analogous to the Kurds in Turkey) is a legitimate question. Obama’s words do not give us an answer, though they do raise questions.

I wonder if Curtis would say “It is precisely that kind of view that has pushed some people away from organized religion” next time this-or-that figure is criticized with belonging to a klavern.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/19/obamas-awful-speech-on-race.html

I am quite familiar with that ideology and its rhetoric.

How does that square with your parenthetical “(actions, not words)” ?

I could care less the specifics of a particular sermon of that catholic priest or of Wright. I am quite familiar with that ideology and its rhetoric.

What does matter?

That Obama could be a member of such a place for 20+ years tells me what I need know about his real views on race and ideology (actions, not words).

Purpleslog,

What seems odd in your view — and it’s the same view being espoused almost word for word, down to the labels, across a segment of the conservative blogosphere — is the disconnect in the quote above.

For one, “that rhetoric” coming from Wright and the Rev. Michael Pfleger does not match the rhetoric coming from Obama. Even a cursory review of black liberation theology would show up the disjunction, since speaking up and being quite vocal about those tenets re: “the oppressor” and “the oppressed”, in the orthodox tradition of the church, is integral to the theology. In fact, given Obama’s own rhetoric, he would appear to be some sort of apostate within the church: not “Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian” in his approach — not to mention his overtures regarding uniting the country, working together, etc.

Secondly, you make an assumption about Obama’s “real views.” The assumption goes like this: he must have either entirely embraced the literal interpretation of everything said from the pulpit of the church, or he must have abandoned the church very early on (which he didn’t.) That’s a false dichotomy built from absolutes to purposely label Obama as Darth Vader or bogeyman. Nothing Obama has said about the church and particular statements made by Wright and Pfleger matters; if his ass was on the pew, he bought the messages hook, line, and sinker without questioning them, contemplating them, or finding some truth in them beyond a literalist interpretation. Incidentally, this reminds me of what I once labeled “the grossest form of Objectivism possible,” i.e., the belief that reason and reasoning need not be considered but only actions and the physical world. [1]

It is precisely that kind of view that has pushed some people away from organized religions. I.e., as soon as I disagree about some particular doctrine or some sermon, I must leave the church. If I disagree about some particular theological assertion, and do so openly, I will be shunned or become the subject of aggressive proselytizing; or else, if I keep my disagreements to myself, but not my church membership, others will impute to me the words and beliefs of a handful of outspoken members of the congregation — usually not a problem, and I’ve known plenty who welcome such imputation and indeed substitute for real faith the faith in public spectacle and imputation.

Back on topic: not everything in the black liberation theology is false, far from it; it just happens to 1) tick off those who have an absolutist “America is Pure and Perfect” frame of mind/religion, and 2) speak as many churches speak, in parables and metaphors and hyperbole and so forth. Face it, the vast majority of American Christians see “Jacob” and “Isaiah” and so forth as fuzzy, metaphorical persons, even Christians who regularly attend church. The stories from the bible are stories. Similarly, much of the “oppressor vs. oppressed” rhetoric (plenty of which can be found in the Bible as well), although overblown, addresses a subject that will continue to perturb freedom-loving Americans — not only because freedom-loving Americans, of every stripe and shade, are paranoid about losing freedom, but also because the issues are as real today as ever, and perhaps more urgent. But that’s a post I’ll leave for a future D5GW entry….

[1] http://www.dreaming5gw.com/2007/02/a_kinder_gentler_war.php

I sleep well at night.

The ideology behind Trinity Church was well known long before the recent Wright stuff made headlines. It is just not played up by the media. No mainsteam media had the balls to ask Obama questions straight up on Trinity.

I expect they didn’t for fear of being labeled racists. In my personal real-world experiences, the people on that side (Black Liberation Theology & Marxists) of the debate are quick to play the racist-name-calling card. That usually works too. Most people don’t follow the issues…but they know anything labelled “racist/racism” is most likely a bad thing.

CGW: Are you saying that Trinity is not a Marxist Black Liberation Theology Church? Are you saying that you don’t know if they are? Or are you saying you know they are but that it doesn’t matter?

I could care less the specifics of a particular sermon of that catholic priest or of Wright. I am quite familiar with that ideology and its rhetoric.

What does matter?

That Obama could be a member of such a place for 20+ years tells me what I need know about his real views on race and ideology (actions, not words).

Nobody has yet been able to explain this away for me.

Honestly, I didn’t think he would get the nomination because of Trinity from the get go. The fact his is going to be the democrat nominee tells me how much the national dems have changed.

If I were to use the same critical analysis I’ve been reading here, and there….but no. No more of those buzzwords and thin veneer of double-speak.

E.g., Dan’s “good piece” says, “The Trinity cast of characters and Obama’s reaction to them.” Um, 2 public speakers there, Wright and the Catholic priest, are the cast of characters? See how easily the pseudo-intellectuals can take a caricature and expand it to fit an entire congregation and Obama? Make it “substantive” with pretty words and the same labels, nothingness, expressed again in well-written (but quite illogical) rhetoric?

Pot meet kettle.

Curtis’s comment does not address any substantive points, but rather is a vague accusation of paranoia (I think).

[1] http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/8911