Lindaland
  Global Unity
  The Marxists Among Us

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   The Marxists Among Us
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 23, 2008 10:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How to recognize Marxists, their aims, goals, methods, organizations and thought processes.

We now have 2 Marxist democrat candidates for President of the United States. Of course, they don't say they're Marxists because of the stench coming off the communist governments which killed about 200,000,000 of their own citizens.

Today, they try to call themselves Liberals, or Progressives, or Third Way or a host of other designations in order to hide their true political/economic and socialist leanings. But you can recognize them by the concepts they attempt to put forward. Some right here at lindaLand.

The question in my mind is...how could anyone be so stupid as to fall for Marxist BS..given the readily available history of socialist/communist governments?

May 23, 2008
How crypto-Marxism won the Cold War
By James Lewis

Today, for the first time in American history we have two --- count 'em, two --- hard-core Leftists running for the Democrat Party nomination. The Left hasn't had this kind of chance for power since Truman defeated Henry Wallace in 1948. Hillary and Obama are Marx twins who only differ in race and gender.

All the media tell us is how great it is to have a woman and a black man running for president. What those two really believe, where they learned their quasi-religion, where they derive their support, who else they want to raise to power, and what they will do if they get there --- all that doesn't even get discussed. All over the world, Leftist hearts are leaping at Hillarybama. What exciting progress!

Wait a minute. Marxism lost the Cold War, right? The Soviet Empire came down, Eastern Europe was liberated, China is now semi-capitalist, and post-socialist countries like India are thriving like never before. More of the world is prospering, because economic and political freedoms have spread since the USSR crumbled. Even Russia has a low, flat tax to encourage free markets. Indigenous talents and enterprise are finally being liberated, and the results are wonderful for hundreds of millions of people.

Liberals are upset today because free-market economies are growing too fast, and are therefore polluting an unsullied Mamma Earth. Tens of millions of ordinary people in China and India are doing too well. The elites seem to yearn for the good old days --- the famines in India, the massacres in Russia and China --- and that wonderful sense of being in charge of human progress.

And yet ... in spite of years and years Leftist catastrophes, our organs of propaganda are still tilting drunkenly to the Left. Crypto-Marxism, a barely disguised revival of the old farce, is flourishing in our chattering classes. The prestige that Marxism lost in the real world soon came back in fantasy. Oh, if people only loved one another! Oh, if people only cared! Oh, if we only had real solidarity with the wretched of the earth! That's the feel-good story. But the real yearning is for power: Oh, if only people like us were in charge of everything.

In Britain, under the daily pounding of the Bolshie Beeb, the most admired "philosopher" of all time is now ... blood-dripping old Karl Marx. Freedom is routinely trashed; thieving tyrants like Hugo Chavez are celebrated.

"Crypto Marxism" --- crypto meaning "hidden" --- is a useful word to describe what's happened in the last twenty years. Because as soon as the Soviet Union crumbled, a host of barely disguised post-Marxist ideologies grabbed the microphones: the Green Movement, now furiously peddling global warming fraud; Third Way socialism in Europe, trying to hitch the welfare wagon to free markets; the European Union, a new autocracy of unelected committees, exactly what the USSR used to call "workers' Soviets"; the unbelievably corrupt, bigoted and self-serving United Nations; and all over the academic world, an explosion of anti-Western and anti-democratic fads like Post-Modernism, Multi-Culturalism, Deconstructionism, Feminism, anti-Zionism, Black Liberation Theology and other repackaged Marx imitations. It was a triumph of image-making and marketing.

Today, crypto-Marxism dominates our political discourse. It's wild --- just as if Nazi goose stepping had became a popular sport after World War Two, instead of the hula-hoop. The Nazis were horrific in their thirteen years in power. The Marxists had seventy years in the Soviet Union, and managed to kill 100 million people according to Marxist historians themselves. But here we are, twenty years later, and all that is deliberated wiped from our minds.

So --- who won the seventy-year struggle of the Cold War? We did in reality. The good guys really did triumph, and in the most profound way, going by Sun Tzu's Art of War --- not by waging a mega-war, but by constant political pressure, by far outrunning Marxist regimes economically, and by a spontaneous revulsion from within the Soviet Empire itself. Yet we fought many small wars --- and two large, bloody and unpopular ones, in Korea and Vietnam. The United States and a few allies faced down numerous Marxist threats in a very determined way. It was a huge test of our will to live and win.

And yet, today the New York Times makes a boutique specialty out of writing loving obits for flaming Old Reds, when they finally sputter out and die. No one on the American Left has ever expressed public sorrow for the estimated 100 million people killed by Marxist murderocracies; after all, they were murdered for "idealistic" reason. The crumbling of the Soviet Empire simply made it possible for the Left to walk away from Darth Vader and the Evil Empire. Soviet Union? Never heard of it.

As Rush Limbaugh often says, conservatives stopped teaching when the Soviet Union fell. Marxists, on the other hand, just accelerated their propaganda. Privately they mourned the "idealistic" experiment of the Soviet Union --- never confessing their own, whole-hearted participation in unrelenting evil. The Boomer Lefties rose to power in the 1970s, and they were not going to sacrifice their religiomania just because all the Marxist nations walked away from Marx. (Except for North Korea, which is still as murderously Stalinist as ever.)

In fact, without the Soviets our hard-core Leftists were no longer agents of a foreign power --- as the KGB archives showed that many of them were during decades of Moscow's control. So they could pretend to be running different "idealistic" movements: Red changed to Green, but that was it. The mainstream media learned to peddle that old Daily Worker agitprop instead of real news, until talk radio and the web broke the media monopoly, and conservatism revived. In Europe this is only barely beginning to happen.

Since 9/11 the Left has been telling itself how really patriotic it is --- providing that you redefine patriotism as internationalism, just like the old CP USA. And of course, the vitally important history of the Cold War is being written by the hard-core Left. It's just as if the Confederate South controlled the history of the Civil War.

Senator Joe Lieberman's fate shows what has happens to centrist Democrats: They are all but thrown out for deviationism, which is exactly what Josef Stalin used to do with the CP USA.

Both Obama and Hillary grew up on the Alinsky Left, which only a theologian can tell from orthodox Marxism. Coming out of Yale Law, Hillary joined a crypto Marxist law outfit in Oakland, California. David Horowitz, who was part of that world until he recovered his moral center, has been pretty clear about the real roots and goals of that Greater Berkeley network.

The triumph of crypto-Marxism is not just weird, it's dangerous. The Reds haven't changed. They have just metastatized: That is why we are now so vulnerable to the next wave of totalitarianism, the Islamofascist kind. The long struggle of Western civilization against bloody tyranny is being covered up. The very real danger of new totalitarianism is being dismissed.

We have to start teaching again from scratch.........

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/how_cryptomarxism_won_the_cold.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 23, 2008 11:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
May 23, 2008
The Crypto-Marxist mask slips
Thomas Lifson

As if to verify today's article by James Lewis on how Marxism hasn't gone away, Maxine Waters let slip in a hearing yesterday her wish to [b"socialize" the oil industry[/b]. It comes at 1 minute 14 seconds into this Fox News report.
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/5R0Ex3l-Waters-oil

You can actually see Waters' consternation when she realizes she has let slip a word that reveals her true political beliefs. She pauses, and then goes on to explain that she means to take over and run the oil industry.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/the_cryptomarxist_mask_slips.html

Can anyone imagine what gasoline prices would be if the Congress of the United States nationalized the oil industry...as they are attempting to do with healthcare?

Government has generally screwed up everything they get involved with. They've screwed up:

Social Security
Medicare
Education
Welfare
Housing
Food Production
Military Procurment

Virtually everything government touches gets screwed up and prices skyrocket.

Now, Maxine Waters...a member of the Progressive Caucas in the House wants to nationalize the oil industry.

I have a better idea. How about we take away the government paid for cars members of congress drive and the gasoline to run those cars and the insurance on those vehicles and let members of Congress buy their own.

Then watch how fast bills will fly out of congress to drill for more oil and build more refineries.

Our main problem as citizens is that congressional members are insulated from the legislation they pass or fail to pass. They have free vehicles, free gasoline, free auto insurance and free healthcare. They have a retirement system they wouldn't think of legislating for everyone else.

It's time to start knocking some of these Daffy Duck legislators off their perches..starting this coming November.

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 23, 2008 11:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Someone clearly lived through the red scare.


The question is J, was it the first one in 1917, or the second one, in the 1950s??

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 23, 2008 01:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The old saying..."children should be seen and not heard" had a lot of merit. Especially when the child is engaged in prattling drivel and isn't intellectually prepared to engage in discussion.

This article shows O'Bomber and Hillary are both engaged in red-baiting. And why not since they're both hard line leftist radicals.

Dueling Redbaiters
By Ronald Radosh
The Weekly Standard | Friday, May 23, 2008

As the Democratic primaries near their end, supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have used a time-honored yet unexpected device to attack each other: old-fashioned redbaiting.

At the Philadelphia presidential debate in April, George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his relationship with the Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who with his comrades bombed several government buildings in the 1970s. Obama protested that he knew Ayers as a neighbor and professor of English (actually, he teaches education) whose "detestable acts" when Obama was eight were no reflection on "me and my values."

But as soon as it was her turn to speak, Obama's opponent piled on. Ayers and Obama had served together on the board of the Wood Foundation in "a paid directorship position," noted Clinton. It was legitimate to raise questions about their relationship, she insisted, since Ayers's bombings had resulted in people's deaths. This line of attack may have been shortsighted on Clinton's part, considering that her husband pardoned two imprisoned members of the Weather Underground before leaving office, but the Clinton campaign didn't back off.

Before you could say Comrade, Clinton's close adviser Sidney Blumenthal was emailing out blog posts, articles, and reports from a wide array of conservative sources. Blumenthal's missives went to "an influential list of opinion shapers--including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers," as the left-wing activist and professor Peter Dreier reported on the Huffington Post (May 1).

This was shocking in its own way. Blumenthal, the very man who coined the term "vast right-wing conspiracy," Dreier noted, by circulating articles from the conservative media, was attempting to exploit "that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama."

Blumenthal sent out pieces from the ultra-conservative Accuracy in Media (AIM)--"With Obama, It's the Communism, Stupid," "Obama and the Fifth Column," "Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?"--as well as items from more mainstream conservative publications, such as a Fred Siegel cover story from National Review, Fred Barnes's "Republicans Root for Obama" from THE WEEKLY STANDARD, and an older City Journal article by Sol Stern reporting Bill Ayers's current role in developing a radical curriculum for K-12 teachers ("Ayers's texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation's ed schools and teacher-training institutes").

Particularly grating to Obama supporters was Blumenthal's airing of AIM's allegation that Obama had sought to hide the influence a Communist mentor had on him as a young man. In his memoir, Dreams From My Father, Obama mentions a certain "Frank," a black poet friend of his white grandfather's who was a "contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes" and had once had "some notoriety." Frank gave the young Barack some "hard-earned knowledge" (such as that "black people have a reason to hate. That's just how it is"). As Obama set off for college, Frank told him that college was "an advanced degree in compromise" and that he should not "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way."

It was easy for students of American communism to figure out that this was Frank Marshall Davis, a Chicago writer and Communist activist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s. That Davis sought to advise the young Obama as he prepared to leave home hardly proves that Davis was a major influence on Obama or that the young man accepted his Communist views. Obama's withholding of Davis's full name, however, does suggest that he worried it might cause him problems in his political career--as if Davis were another difficult uncle like Jeremiah Wright.

At one time, left/liberal people would have vigorously objected to all this redbaiting. But Obama's supporters responded in kind. Hadn't Clinton opened the door, as Bill Ayers's brother argued on the Huffington Post (April 17), by engaging in "the most base version of McCarthyism"? If Obama had left-wing connections in his youth, why not bring forward Clinton's own hidden past? Let's see who the real leftist is!

First to attack was New Left elder statesman Tom Hayden, who told readers of the Nation magazine's website (April 22) that Clinton herself had been as far left as one could get. And unlike Obama, she did not have the excuse of being eight years old when the New Left radicals were in their prime. Hayden revealed that Hillary "was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations" and that at Yale Law School in 1970 she chaired a meeting where students voted to join a national strike against the Vietnam war. The same year, during the trial of Black Panther leader Bobby Seale for murder, Clinton oversaw Yale law students who were following the proceedings and looking for signs of government misconduct. Most significantly, Hayden writes, Clinton went to work after law school for the San Francisco law firm that defended the Panthers, led by Robert Treuhaft, a former member of the Communist party.

Hayden, of course, sees these activities as "honorable" and asks a simple question: "Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days?" Now she has become a "guilt-by-association insinuator," who is "engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right." Furious at this betrayal, Hayden calls her "Lady Macbeth."

Hayden's sally was followed by one from Clinton's biographer Carl Bernstein on the Huffington Post (May 2). What upset Bernstein was that Clinton was evading the truth about her own past radical activities and associations.

These began at Wellesley, Bernstein wrote, when "she exhibited an academic fascination with the Left and radicalism." Later at Yale she was associate editor of an alternative law review that depicted "policemen as pigs and murderers." Yet, notes Bernstein, in her 2003 memoir, Clinton breathed not a word of her activity on behalf of the Black Panthers, nor was she honest about why she went to work for the Robert Treuhaft law firm. Treuhaft told Bernstein that Clinton came to the firm because it was a "Movement law firm" and she was "in sympathy with all the Left causes." Treuhaft commented that back then, "we still weren't very far out of the McCarthy era." Bernstein adds, "And might still not be, to judge from the 2008 presidential campaign."

It is just as silly, Bernstein concludes, to tie Obama to the Weather Underground as it is to call Clinton a Stalinist. Yet Bernstein and the others have inadvertently opened up two legitimate lines of inquiry: What remains of their old radical ideals in both candidates' present thinking, and how far is each willing to go in exploiting the other's past? If scrutiny of these matters is fair game for them, it can hardly be off limits for the press and the voting public.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=74B70919-280A-493E-BFE8-89A8ABCEE15E

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 29, 2008 01:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB6WiMl63UA

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 29, 2008 01:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lead Story

He’s baaaack: Obama supporter Rev. Michael Pfleger flogs Hillary’s “white entitlement” on the pulpit
By Michelle Malkin • May 29, 2008 11:48 AM


The company he keeps

I’ve reported before on Obama supporter/spiritual advisor/Jeremiah Wright chum/Farrakhan cheerleader Rev. Michael Pfleger and his racial demagoguery (see March 29 and April 30).

Pfleger, who until recently was featured on the Obama campaign website as a spiritual endorser, was back at Obama’s Trinity United Church this weekend mocking Hillary Clinton’s “white entitlement.” It’s one thing to ridicule Hillary’s sense of political and ideological entitlement as part of the Clinton dynasty. But the demagogic emphasis on her race from this hate preacher on the pulpit is quite another thing. You really have to see his performance to believe it.

Here’s the video that’s getting around. I’ve transcribed it below as well if you can’t stomach the antics:

http://michellemalkin.com/

"Pastor Otis Moss: He needs no introduction. He’s a friend of Trinity, he’s a brother beloved. He’s a preacher par excellence. He’s a prophetic, powerful pulpiteer. He is our friend. He is our brother. He is none other than Father Michael Pfleger. (Crowd on its feet, standing ovation, loud applause). We welcome him once again…

…Pfleger: [Unintelligible] to address the one who says, “Well, don’t hold me responsible (gesticulating) for what my ancestors did. But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did and unless you are ready to give up the benefits (voice rising), throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money you put into the company you WALKED INTO BECAUSE YO’ DADDY AND YO’ GRANDDADDY AND YO’ GREATGRANDDADDY–(screaming at the top of his lungs)–UNLESS YOU’RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THE BENEFITS, THEN YOU MUST BE REPSONSIBLE FOR WHAT WAS DONE IN YOUR GENERATION ‘CUZ YOU ARE THE BENEFICIARY OF THIS INSURANCE POLICY! (Wild gestures, wild applause).

…We must be honest enough to expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head.

I said before I don’t want this to be politica because, you know, I’m very unpolitical (mocking tone, huge laughter).

…When Hillary was crying (gesturing tears, uproarious laughter from audience)–and people said that was put on–I really don’t believe it was put on.

I really believe that she just always thought ‘This is mine’ (laughter, hoots). ‘I’m Bill’s wife. I’m WHITE. And this is mine. And I jus’ gotta get up. And step into the plate. And then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama.’ And she said: ‘Oh, damn!’ WHERE DID YOU COME FROM!?!?! (Crowd going nuts, Pfleger screaming). I’M WHITE! I’M ENTITLED! THERE’S A BLACK MAN STEALING MY SHOW. (SOBS!) SHE WASN’T THE ONLY ONE CRYING! THERE WAS A WHOLE LOTTA WHITE PEOPLE CRYING!

I’m sorry. I don’t wanna get you in any mo’ trouble. The livestreaming just went out again…"

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 30, 2008 09:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The "Spirituality" of Communist Oppression
By Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, May 30, 2008

Much of the Religious Left has abandoned its old infatuation with Marxism, having long since moved on to radical environmentalism or performing apologetics for radical Islam. But quaintly, some relics still hang on to the old causes, chief of which is the 50 year love affair with Fidel Castro and his Cuban despotism.

During May 15-20, the Religious Left hosted an interfaith symposium in Cuba called "Spirituality of Resistance, Liberation and Transformation" (http://warc.jalb.de/)." Tragically, the event originally was to have convened in Lebanon. But the "continuing illegal occupation of Palestine by the forces of empire" in the Middle East cut short that possibility, the organizers fretted. Is not Lebanon's strife owing to the Iranian "empire's interference through its Hezbollah surrogates? Of course, the Religious Left is not concerned about that kind of "empire."

Instead, in Cuba's intoxicatingly supportive atmosphere, the Religious Left chatted about how to resist the true evil "empire," i.e. America, and that empire's supportive "destructive spiritualities" on the Religious Right. The event, hosted by the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, the Geneva-based World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the London-based Council for World Mission, apparently thought Cuba, as "liberated" territory, was the best vantage point from which to organize against the "empire."

"The (Cuban) people's suffering is acute because of the United States-imposed blockade and the general forces of empire," explained the communiqué of the religious liberationists. "By 'empire' we mean the complex and dynamic international regime of power anchored by the United States, with its military power, neoliberal globalization, racist and patriarchal ideologies and policies of environmental degradation."

Hopefully Fidel was still sufficiently coherent in his hospital bed to read what must have been glowing Cuban media reports about all the solidarity that the WCC et al were offering his sagging regime. "In spite of these forces of empire and Cubans' relentless suffering, isolation and impoverization, we have been inspired by the ways Cubans persevere in struggle, embodying joy and resistance, dignity and self-esteem," gushed the church bureaucrats from Geneva and elsewhere.

Until 16 years ago, Cuba's communist rulers were themselves an outpost of the Soviet empire, happily performing as surrogates for their masters in Moscow in Africa, Central America and elsewhere where the cause of revolution was ripening. Since that empire's collapse, the isolated Cuban regime has fossilized while its once revolutionary allies quickly chose "neoliberal globalization" over the static theories of Marx and Lenin.

Wonderfully oblivious, the Religious Left confab pretended that the last 20 years of history never happened, and instead focused on the threats posed by the only modern "empire" that ever distressed it: the United States. "We affirm that the problems of empire, amid which justice movements struggle, are not only political problems but spiritual challenges," the communiqué decreed. "Empire spawns its own destructive spiritualities, such as the 'religious right,' and thus it seeks always to co-opt the powers of religion for imperial aims."

Apparently trying to conclude on an upbeat note, the convo of theologians and pastor-activists from the around the world celebrated that "new spiritualities are coming forth to oppose imperial spiritualities." How these "new spiritualities" substantively differ from the old Liberation Theology of 30 and 40 years ago, which conflated the Gospel with Marxist revolution, was not explained by the Religious Left enthusiasts.

"All organized religions have a special challenge of resisting the tactics of division, such as forms of denominationalism and fundamentalism, which often fuel ethnic, racial, nationalist and regional strife, and so strengthen the powers of empire," the WCC et al fretted in Cuba. They were obliquely referring to the reality that Pentecostalism and conservative Roman Catholicism are sweeping the Global South, including Cuba, much to the consternation of the Religious Left, which struggles to find support outside declining Western seminaries or left-wing church bureaucracies.

The WCC et al incorporated some token Hindus and Muslims in their Cuban get together, to showcase the cause's supposedly universal appeal. "Justice movements require a new solidarity among religious groups and all peoples of conscience (secular and religious) and thus we affirm and honour the full multiplicity of spiritualities that enliven such movements," the communiqué enthused. There was a strong focus on "indigenous" peoples," who of course are among the "empire's" chief victims.

An official with the hosting World Alliance of Reformed Churches sagely observed: "Connecting with the struggle, resilience and vision of the Cuban people and the spiritualities of aboriginal peoples and various faith traditions brings fresh impetus in our struggle for justice." Meeting in Cuba was probably a catharsis for many Western ecclesiastics and seminary professors, so otherwise oppressed. Such freedom to speak their minds without fear!

"We are in Cuba, a country that approaches the celebration of 50 years of its revolution," was how the Western prelates opened their communiqué. "Cubans describe the present period as a 'Kairotic' passage, a time of crisis and opportunity." For the Religious Left over the last 40 years, "Kairos" moments are historic tipping points when the revolution appears to be on the cusp of consummation. So there is hope that true Marxism will prevail yet in Cuba! But there are struggles ahead. The religious communiqué bemoaned that Cuba's "earlier revolutionary successes in agrarian reform have been set back by the empire's brutal blockade." But gloriously, the undefeated Cuban proletariat is still pressing forward.

Of course, the Religious Left communiqué denounced the American "empire's worldwide 'war on terror,'" which has "created a virulent form of Islamophobia that compounds other related racisms." The WCC et al insisted that "emergent spiritualities must stand with our Muslim sisters and brothers and work with them for a more just world for all peoples."

The Religious Left communiqué urged "positive values that can energize and focus revolutionary change" and invited leaders of the arts around the world to join in "strengthening the spiritualities that can resist regimes of injustice." Naturally, such oppressive regimes do not include Fidel Castro's communist dictatorship. The targeted regimes that the Religious Left has in mind are the ones that were actually elected by their populations. Apparently such democratic governments are merely tools of "colonization, racism and patriarchy," and puppets of the "empire."

That remnants of the Religious Left are still spouting such anachronisms in even in the year 2008 should not be altogether surprising. That they should do so in Fidel Castro's Cuba, which has become the ossified Disneyworld for unreconstructed Marxists, is perfectly appropriate.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4AA6E76F-F66C-48C1-A240-E44AC2F47B07

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 31, 2008 02:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Father Pfleger @ Obama's Church: Why Hillary Clinton Cried

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y&e

May 30, 2008
The demonic Father Pfleger
James Lewis

If you want another proof that the Catholic Church has completely lost control of its ordained priests, consider another one of Obama's mentors, one Father Michael Pfleger -- a white race-baiting Marxist. Like Rev. Wright, you have to hear the truly demonic tones in his voice --- simply reading the text isn't enough. Your inner “reading voice” just won't say it like he does. (Not unless you hear demonic voices in your head, like some paranoids and multiple personality victims.)

To give you an idea, Father Pfleger sounds like Jeremiah Wright on a really bad acid trip. He is hateful; he is sadistically gleeful; he preaches a vicious anti-White race hatred; and he has the congregation screaming with joy. This is a sight and sound to behold, something out of the worst parts of the Middle Ages, with priests demagoguing their congregations to go out and kill Jews, or Protestant infidels, Catholics, or Orthodox Christians. But this is right here in America, brough to you by the compassion of Black Liberation Theology.

Father Pfleger could be faking his race-baiting, taking as his "prophetic preaching" model his good friend the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. No doubt his act is thoroughly rehearsed. But that only makes his race-baiting worse, a premeditated act of evil that will end up killing human beings, as the message spreads that it's OK to prey on Whitey. Pfleger --- he does not deserve the respectful appelation "Father" --- is preaching sociopathy. I had not heard this was part of Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church has a responsibility in this matter. It has bent over backwards to protect the privacy of ordained priests who have been engaged in regular sexual abuse of children. I have not seen evidence that child abuse occurs more often among priests than in the general population. I understand the Church has its own ways of dealing with errant priests. Nevertheless, the public seems to have the accurate impression that the Church is tainted with the worst public behavior in centuries. This has done immense damage to its reputation among Catholics and the general public all around the world. The response of the Church is widely considered to be grossly inadequate, even by faithful Catholics.

Father Pfleger brings public scandal to the Church. He clearly and obviously, on videotape, preaches racial hatred. He does so with plenty of prior rehearsal and maybe coaching, in order to sound just like race-baiting ole' Reverend Wright, who has apparently been conducting a school for race baiters over at Trinity United. The Democrat Party of Chicago, Louis Farrakhan, the whole den of thieves of the Illinois Democrat Machine has obviously known about this for decades. The radical Left and ACORN (Obama's "community organizing" radicals) must have known all about it. The Obamas were up to their necks in guilty knowledge. The Clintons knew. Everybody knew.

Today, everybody in the world knows. They can see it on YouTube.

Pope Benedict is quoted as pointing out the close connection between Marxism and "liberation theology" --- like Jeremiah Wright's Black Liberation Theology. Classical Marxism preaches war between social classes. BLT preaches war between the races. It's shocking to decent people. The results is bound to be more crime, more drugs, more family violence, more social pathology among the poorest of the poor.

Does the Catholic Church recognize any responsibility to deal with Father Pfleger? Do the words of Vatican II mean anything in practice? The civil authority in America is committed to free speech, including free hate speech. It should not do anything. But the Church does not have to implicitly validate Father Pfleger's message by continuing his ordination. It brings even more scandal upon the Church, which is already reeling.

As for Senator Barack Obama, it does bring his history and political backers into sharper and sharper focus, doesn't it?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/the_demonic_father_pfleger.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 05, 2008 11:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
May 28, 2008
Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time."
- Karl Marx; essay, The Jewish Question; 1844

Not having a theology degree, nor even a Ph.D., and being, too, a bit naïve regarding matters of high-brow philosophical currents throughout the ages, I have to admit that when I first read Karl Marx' essay, The Jewish Question, I was actually stunned by its contents.

First off, my rather cursory education in various philosophies and in Marxism, particularly, did not prepare me for the bitter thrust of old Karl's potent anti-Semitism. In fact, until reading this particular essay, I would have never, in a million years, connected much of anything whatsoever Marxian with Jew hate.

Who would?

After all, Karl Marx, himself, was a Jew. Hitler and many others blamed the Jews for Communism, thanks to the number of Jews who played prominent roles in the Russian Revolution. I naturally associated twentieth century Anti-Semitism with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

Ironically, if Karl Marx had still been alive and residing in Germany or any of the Nazi-occupied countries during WWII, he would have perished along with his brethren, despite his own "self-loathing-Jew" status.

Marx envisioned a society "which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering," because this classless society "would make the Jew impossible."

Personally, I find the opinion of some that Marx was a genius, to be downright laughable. Regarding his opinions on the Jews, one is left to ponderously consider which ones were dumb, and which were dumber.

Evidently Karl Marx was as utterly ignorant of the true tenets of Judaism (Self-sufficiency does not equate to "huckstering.") as he was of the diabolical possibilities inherent in his own words, once they were in the hands of one Adolph Hitler.

This atrocious irony might be merely a historical oddity if old Karl's words were not still bouncing around in the heads of those who wish to lead new revolutions based upon them. But Marx' words still dominate much of what happens on the world stage today, even in our own republic.

The word emphasis has changed a bit. The industrial proletariat is no longer the focus. But as a newly prominent American politician is wont to remind us: words do matter.

Yes, of course, words matter, as many leaders of ambitious movements have mightily declared.

...the power which has always started the greatest religious and political avalanches in history rolling has from time to immemorial been the magic of power of the spoken word, and that alone.

Particularly the broad masses of the people can be moved only by the power of speech.
- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.

The Oppressed Vs. the Oppressors

Just words.

But where do they come from, and what do they mean in America today?

I might never have delved into the subject of the oppressed vs. the oppressors if I had not gone to Chicago in January seeking answers about a man who would be president.

When I visited Obama's church, still under the directorship of Jeremiah Wright, I came away with far more questions than answers, and one thing leading to another, have spent the last several months trying to fathom how Marxist political philosophy wound up emblazoned with a cross and a pulpit, and pretending to rely on the Bible for its authority.

It is somewhat difficult to imagine a more contorted blasphemy, with the single possible exception of Hitler himself claiming to be acting by divine decree in the interests of Christianity. Which is precisely what Hitler did do, while hoodwinking the German people into electing him Chancellor.

Hitler sprinkled Mein Kampf with Christian language, most likely to fit with the predominantly Christian German population, and appealed to voters on the strength of his Christian "calling":

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

As most junior-high Sunday schoolers know, however, a Christian is judged on actions, not words, and Hitler was no Christian. He was a bamboozler of the lowest imaginable order.

Jeremiah Wright is the tiny tip of Obama's spiritual iceberg

The phenomenon that raised so many questions for me in January, when I visited Trinity United Church of Christ, was not Jeremiah Wright's sermon, which turned out to be just a call for all good congregants to support Barack Obama for President. It wasn't the sermon that caught me off guard; I was prepared for that. I had watched video of Wright, giving five of his fiery sermons.

The thing that really got me to thinking, reading and searching for answers was the church bookstore.

Having been a practicing Christian for more than 40 years now, and a practicing Catholic for 26 of those years, I have visited perhaps 100 various Christian bookstores, both Protestant and Catholic. In all of those places, one thing tied together the books for sale: Christianity.

Not so in Obama's church bookstore.

I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought. Black Muslim thought, to be specific.

And the books claiming to support Christianity were surprisingly of a more political than religious nature. The books by James H. Cone, Wright's own mentor, were prominent and numerous.

Now that I have read a number of the books that presumably Wright's congregants (including Barack Obama) have also read, I can only conclude that the thing tying these volumes together is not Christianity, nor any real religion, but the political philosophy of Karl Marx.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." (emphasis mine)
- Marx and Engels; The Communist Manifesto; 1848

If Marxism can be summed up in only a couple of phrases, now familiar to nearly every modern person, they would be "class struggle" and "oppressed vs. oppressors."

James H. Cone, the unquestioned modern-day mentor of all the black power preachers, claims to have created a new theology, uniting the Muslim black power tenets of Malcolm X and the Christian foundations of Martin Luther King, Jr.

All he has really done, in my opinion, is take original liberation theology from Latin America, developed in the early 1960s by Catholic priests, and painted it black.

Liberation Theology vs. Traditional Christianity

The teaching authorities of the Catholic Church, have for more than 20 years now, been attempting to stamp out these heretical liberation theologies, denouncing them as vehemently antithetical to the Catholic Christian faith, and have been strenuously combating this Marxist counterfeit Christianity on many fronts within the Church herself.

Of course, the Medieval, iron-fisted clamp of the Catholic Church's authority, even within the Church herself, is routinely overstated, and there are renegade priests all over the place (more on another of Obama's spiritual mentors, a liberation theology Catholic priest in Chicago, in Part Two next week).

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has no authority whatsoever over those claiming to represent protestant interpretations of the Christian faith, such as Cone and Wright.

But it is important to note here that liberation theology, including black liberation theology, has not gone unnoticed by the learned biblical scholars within the Vatican, and liberation theology has been roundly denounced as both heretical and dangerous, not only to the authentic Christian faith, but even more so to the societies which come to embrace it.

Just one nugget from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation':

"...it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads."
- (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Understanding that black liberation theology is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity helps explain why there is no conflict between Cone's "Christianity" and Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam." They are two prophets in the same philosophical (Marxist) pod, merely using different religions as backdrops for their black-power aims.

As Cone himself writes in his 1997 preface to a new edition of his 1969 book, Black Theology and Black Power:

"As in 1969, I still regard Jesus Christ today as the chief focus of my perspective on God but not to the exclusion of other religious perspectives. God's reality is not bound by one manifestation of the divine in Jesus but can be found wherever people are being empowered to fight for freedom. Life-giving power for the poor and the oppressed is the primary criterion that we must use to judge the adequacy of our theology, not abstract concepts. As Malcolm X put it: ‘I believe in a religion that believes in freedom. Any time I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion'." (p. xii; emphases mine)

And, to drive his Marxist emphasis even further, Cone again quotes Malcolm X:

"The point that I would like to impress upon every Afro-American leader is that there is no kind of action in this country ever going to bear fruit unless that action is tied in with the overall international (class) struggle." (p. xiii)

(Ironically, considering the formal Church teaching regarding liberation theologies, this book of Cone's was published by Orbis, owned and managed by The Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, a Maryknoll religious entity. So much for the totalitarianism of the Catholic Church.)

It is this subjugation of genuine Christianity to the supremacy of the Marxist class struggle, which marks the true delineation between traditional Christianity and black liberation theology, as Pope Benedict XVI (writing in 1984 as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) sums up thusly:

"For the marxist, the truth is a truth of class: there is no truth but the truth in the struggle of the revolutionary class."

Which is precisely why Cone and his disciples are able to boldly proclaim that if the Jesus of traditional Christianity is not united with them in the Marxist class struggle, then he is a "white Jesus," and they must "kill him." (Cone; A Black Theology of Liberation; p. 111)

And Cone brings it all the way home with this proclamation of liberation from traditional Christianity itself:

"The appearance of black theology means that the black community is now ready to do something about he white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution."

Move over Jesus and make way for Cone, Wright and Obama.

The revolution is at hand.

And presto-chango, once we've followed Marx, Cone, Wright and Obama down the yellow brick road to revolution, Christianity as we've known it for millennia ceases to exist.

Obama was raised by his mother, the agnostic anthropologist, to regard religion as "an expression of human culture...not its wellspring, just one of the many ways -- and not necessarily the best way -- that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives." (Audacity of Hope; p. 204)

However, when Barack Obama met Jeremiah Wright in the mid-eighties, between his years at Columbia and Harvard Law, he found a "faith" perfectly accommodating to his already well-formed worldview.

From The Audacity of Hope:

"In the history of these (African people's) struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world." (p. 207)

As Obama explains further, it was Wright's (and presumably Cone's, as required of new members at Trinity) peculiar form of Christianity that Obama found palatable:

"It was because of these newfound understandings (at Trinity under Wright) -- that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice...that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity...and be baptized."

Wright's vision of Christianity was perfectly appetizing to Barack Obama; he didn't need to change a thing.

Liberation Theology and the New Order of Things

James Cone devotes many words in all of his books to instructing his disciples to beware of those resistant to the necessary change in the power structure, warning that,

"those who would cast their lot with the victims must not forget that the existing structures are powerful and complex...Oppressors want people to think that change is impossible." (James H. Cone; Speaking the Truth; p. 49)

Pope Benedict XVI (writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) give an equally stringent message to Catholics about liberation theology regarding the perversion of the Christian understanding of the "poor":

"In its positive meaning the Church of the poor signifies the preference given to the poor, without exclusion, whatever the form of their poverty, because they are preferred by God...But the theologies of liberation...go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle."

According to Pope Benedict's instruction on liberation theology, our understanding of the virtues, faith, hope and charity are subjugated to the new Marxist order:

Faith becomes "fidelity to history."

We are the ones we've been waiting for, to bring about the final fruition of the class struggle.

Hope becomes "confidence in the future."

Yes, we can change the world; we don't need God. Our collective redemption comes when we engage in the Marxist class struggle.

Charity becomes "option for the poor."

All are not created equal. Special political privilege for the oppressed, socialism, will set us free.

It's the dawn of a new age.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/obama_black_liberation_theolog.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 05, 2008 11:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
June 05, 2008
Obama, Black Liberation Theology and Karl Marx
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

Part Two

From the outset of his campaign, Barack Obama has declared himself to be a Christian. He has appeared to be the far left's answer to the religious right, the man who would embrace the religion of the majority rather than shy away from it, as Democrat secularists have repeatedly done. For awhile, until Obama's actual "religion" became clear through the rantings of those who have formed his "moral compass", it did appear that Barack Obama would beat the religious right at their own "game."

But the foibles of faking faith can be quite the undoing of a man who proclaims to be above the low-road politics of deceit.

Religion and revolutionaries

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
- Karl Marx

We need to take faith seriously not simply to block the religious right but to engage all persons of faith in the larger project of American renewal.
- Barack Obama; The Audacity of Hope; p. 216

Karl Marx seemed to regard religion as one of the toughest roadblocks to mounting and sustaining a proper revolution by the proletariat. That the masses would continue to stubbornly cling to their religions, placing their hope in God rather than man, was evidently one of the more prickly thorns in ole Karl's side.

Both Lenin and Stalin concurred with Marx, and one of the most stringent and murderous thrusts of Soviet Communism was its campaign against religion, especially Judaism and Christianity. Mao and other eastern communists went this route as well, and never pretended to have any faith whatsoever in anyone or anything but the material world.

But Barack Obama, the student of Saul Alinksy, sees the necessity of reeling in those of faith, and making them part of the class struggle, while avoiding the harsher approach of demanding that the people give up their faith as a consequence of their commitment to revolutionary change. Americans have proven much more stubborn in the religious realm than the Europeans, who fell hook, line and sinker for Marx, Lenin and Stalin.

America might seem more amenable to the kind of Third Way socialism that Hitler brought to Germany, while cunningly using Christian jargon to wile his way into Aryan minds and hearts.

Black liberation theology, I have discovered (Read Part One here.), is yet another form of Third Way socialism, developed by Marxists seeking a way around the stubbornness of the ardently faithful, a way to hook folks on the revolution, without putting up a fight to eradicate their religion.

And Obama's Chicago experiences seem to give him great hope that his cloak of religiosity will help to catapult him over the religious right and into the White House on the wings of liberation theology.

It played in Chicago and even in Peoria

One of the first lessons Barack Obama learned in Chicago, doing Alinsky-style political organizing between Columbia and Harvard, was that the religious communities were where the action was.

The first real power connection that Saul Alinsky himself made in his own class-struggle efforts in the 1930s was with the Archbishop of Chicago. And it was in the churches and synagogues that Alinsky's initial efforts to organize labor were successful.

What Obama found in Chicago churches in the 1980s, however, was not Martin Luther King's ole time religion, the traditional Christianity of most of our ancestors, both black and white. No, what Obama found was a religion perfectly compatible with his own, already well-formed, far-left worldview.

The Black Liberation Theology of James H. Cone. Marxism emblazoned with a cross and a pulpit, pretending to use the Bible for its authority.

Before Obama even left Chicago for Harvard Law school, he had been embraced by the strange cabal of some of Chicago's most radical and activist religious leaders, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Michael Pfleger. Liberationists all.

Wright, the black Protestant. Farrakhan, the Black Muslim. And Pfleger, the white Catholic.

How Pfleger Fits

Just as James Cone is able to perfectly accommodate Black Muslims within his ostensibly Christian theology, so has he made room for certain white folks as fellow travelers.

Cone makes room for Pfleger, and other whites like him, just as long as these white folks freely acknowledge who the new masters are. Rejecting King's view of reconciliation with whites (integration) as just another form of oppression, Cone stakes all on the reversal of the order of the things: blacks on top; whites under black control. Cone believes he has discovered a way to make two wrongs into right.

To me, Cone's books paint a vision nearly identical to Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism." Cone just adds a bit of color to Marx's utterly drab portrait.

"The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness) and follow Christ (black ghetto)." [parentheses are Cone's]
- James H. Cone; Black Theology & Black Power; p. 150

If I had listened only to this video of Michael Pfleger, and had not seen his white skin with my own eyes, I would have imagined that he was surely an African-American preacher in the same mold as Jeremiah Wright.

Pfleger has taken Cone's word above that of Jesus, it would seem, and has completely entered into the essence of Black Liberation Theology, even shedding his own "despicable" whiteness in the process.

As Cone instructs his followers:

Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man's depravity. God cannot be white, even though white churches have portrayed him as white. When we look at what whiteness has done to the minds of men in this country, we can see clearly what the New Testament meant when it spoke of the principalities and powers. (emphasis mine)
- James H. Cone; Black Theology & Black Power; 150

There are about a half dozen uses of the words, "principalities and powers" in the New Testament; in all cases they refer to brazen evil. In a few cases, the words seem to speak of earthly evil; in others, they refer to Satan and his minions.

Voters, myself included, are left to wonder now whether Barack Obama's frequent use of the expression, "principalities and powers," when he refers to those resistant to "change," is in keeping with Cone's definition, restricting collective redemption to the toppling of the material world of whites, or whether it means something else.

Cone isn't making room for any confusion in his books explaining Black Liberation Theology. He ordains that all white people who don't join into the Marxist class struggle along with blacks, will be dealt a crushing blow.

The real questions are: Where is your identity? Where is your being? Does it lie with the oppressed blacks or with the white oppressors? Let us hope there are enough to answer this question correctly so that America will not be compelled to acknowledge a common humanity only by seeing that blood is always one color.
- James H. Cone; Black Theology & Black Power; p. 152.

As a Catholic, I prefer to stick with the admonitions of Pope Benedict XVI, protect my own soul, and stand on guard against "the kind of totalitarian society to which this (liberation theology) process slowly leads."

Michael Pfleger appears to have made his choice as well. In order to join the Marxist class struggle, along with Cone, Wright, Farrakhan and Obama, he has become, for all intents and purposes, part of the black power movement.

Looks like a Faustian bargain to me.

Obama's Resignation from Trinity

After 20 years, Obama has resigned his membership at Trinity United Church of Christ. He did so after Rev. Michael Pfleger's rants against Hillary Clinton's white privilege made such a splash on the internet and television news.

But Obama's attempts to distance himself now from Trinity, Wright, Pfleger, Farrakhan and Cone mean nothing to me. He can, in my mind, no more disown them now, than he could months ago.

The Black Liberation Theology of TUCC that he chose as an adult is the only religious foundation, save the Islam he learned as a young child in an Indonesian school, that Barack Obama has ever had in his life.

Discovering Black Liberation Theology in Wright's church was the one thing that enabled Obama to see that those believing in a far left political ideology could also have religion. Obama's mother had taught him this wasn't the case.

Wright showed him another way, a Third Way.

And Obama seized it, has used this Third Way to catapult himself into powerful positions, and now is stunningly within reach of the most powerful political position in the world, the Presidency of the United States of America.

And wherever Obama speaks in public, strains of Black Liberation Theology are ingrained in his message.

Our Collective Salvation

When Barack Obama spoke to the graduates of Wesleyan College last week, taking the place of ailing Senator Edward Kennedy, he gave a commencement address not unlike those anywhere. I, like others, read the transcript.

And here are the words that gave me a shudder:

It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. (emphasis mine)

"Collective salvation" is an idea that comes from Marxism, Liberation Theology in particular, and is absolutely antithetical to traditional Christianity. When it comes to facing God on one's own judgment day, there is no hiding in groups, no "collective" anything.

The idea of "collective salvation" or "collective redemption" is pure Marxism; there is nothing whatsoever Christian about it.

As Pope Benedict XVI has warned about Liberation Theology:

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic."
- Truth and Tolerance; p. 116

Human suffering, and its unfair dissemination among peoples, has been the hallmark of life on earth since the dawn of human history. And history is rife with attempts to recreate the world in a manner that would ostensibly make life fair to all.

Black Liberation Theology, and all Liberation Theologies, as well as every type of Marxism -- whether Lenin's, Stalin's, Hitler's, Mao's, Castro's - have all begun with appeals to the people to create a just world, or rather to create a world in keeping with that particular leader's concept of what a just world should look like. A society that would right the wrongs inherent in God's design and those that are manifest from age to age on account of man's own sin.

Pope Benedict marked his official reign as Pope of the Catholic Church with a homily on this very thing:

How often we wish that God would show Himself stronger, that He would strike decisively, defeating evil and creating a better world. All ideologies of power justify themselves in exactly this way; they justify the destruction of whatever would stand in the way of progress and the liberation of humanity.

We suffer on account of God's patience. And yet we need his patience. God, who became a lamb, tells that the world is saved by the Crucified One, not be those who crucified him.

The world is redeemed by the patience of God. It is destroyed by the impatience of man.

The essential difference between Obama's liberation theology and traditional Christianity would seem to be not the presence or the absence of hope.

The difference is where individuals choose to put their hope.

Will we continue to hope in God, while each working to achieve individual redemption for our own souls, and in the process make the world a slightly better place?

Or will we, in a massive protest of impatience with God's way, choose to put our hope in the people, the movement, the collective salvation offered by Obama and his liberation theologians?

That is the question of this election, it would seem.

May the best man win.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/obama_black_liberation_theolog_1.html

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a