« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Religion and Politics: Why Jeremiah Wright Matters

By: kipling (Diary)  |  May 22nd, 2012 at 02:29 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

According to various sources, the Obama administration and its allies in the MSM pressured Mitt Romney into publicly repudiating a potential ad campaign by an independent Super PAC that would have tied Obama to Jeremiah Wright.  Their argument was that religion should be off the table.

The decision by Governor Romney was wrong.

It is perfectly valid to examine and question the religious beliefs of a political candidate.  Religious beliefs are by definition deeply held beliefs that shape how a person views the world and are thus good indicators of how a candidate may govern.

Religious beliefs often attempt to answer the higher story questions of life:  Who am I?  Why am I here?  What is the purpose of life?  What is the value of life?  What is the nature of man?  etc.  How these questions are answered will directly affect not only the governing philosophy of an administration but the practical policy applications.    The difference can be rather striking.  We must remember that our Declaration of Independence begins with a theological statement about God as the source of equality and natural rights.

Religious beliefs can also point directly to policy applications.  For instance, we know that Jeremiah Wright taught Black Liberation Theology and explicitly condemned the founding principles of the United States.  Black Liberation Theology touches directly upon the need for government directed social justice, taxation and redistribution of wealth, and racial policy preferences.  It also teaches the inherent evil of western civilization and the need to destroy it so that a new – more equitable – society can be rebuilt amidst its ruin.  Those familiar with Black Liberation Theology – and Liberation Theology in general – were not surprised by the actions of the Obama administration during its first term.  Nor are they under any illusion that a second term would be any better.

Finally, religious beliefs and a person’s adherence to them can be a good indication of character.

Since Barack Obama and his religious beliefs have not received a proper vetting, many are confused as to what the President actually believes.  The basic tenets of Black Liberation Theology are not commonly known and many would find it hard to belief the President truly believed such things – which is precisely why the Obama administration wants religion to be off the table.  Obama wants to be free to construct his own narrative and to distort religion to support his election and his policy positions.

It is also worth noting the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and the MSM on the issue.  While they may proclaim that religion should be off the table, that proclamation does not apply to Mormonism.  Mormons and Mormonism are still fair game.  President Obama may never raise the issue.  He has surrogates in the MSM who will do it for him.  The most recent example is a Washington Post article that connects Romney to the massacre of settlers from Arkansas by a Mormon militia in the Mountain Meadow Massacre of 1857.  Another example is Bill Maher’s attack on Mormonism as a cult.  Barack Obama will not silence or publicly repudiate his surrogates when they outlandishly attack Mormons.  Why should Romney repudiate his supporters when they raise valid questions about Obama’s religious beliefs?  Unilateral disarmament worked so well for John McCain.

Let me close with two caveats.  Religious beliefs should be discussed with tact but discussed nonetheless.  Atheism and agnosticism are also religious beliefs and should be treated the same as other such beliefs.

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY

  • Pingback: Desire Even

  • Pingback: Desire Even

  • Pingback: Robin Engram

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: home distillers recipes

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: randki internetowe

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: l que debe saber

  • Pingback: distilling wine

  • Pingback: PC

  • Pingback: Why Not Try These Out

  • Pingback: dig this

  • Pingback: Pop Over Here

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: breastactives breast enhancement pills

  • Pingback: igra karos online

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: working from home uk

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Shiela Greengo

  • Pingback: Bret Sharperson

  • Pingback: Wilmer Ammirati

  • Pingback: Store Display Installations

  • Pingback: Livia Celadon

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: Claudie Strange

  • Pingback: Dylan Vandresar

  • Pingback: webhosting

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: call center in CA

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: uniform

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: refurbish PLC mitsubishi

  • Pingback: top payday loans companies

  • Pingback: kids bikes

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: koi

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Seriously, it is neither conservative nor electorally prudent for a candidate to pass theological judgments on any statement made from any pulpit. That debate, whether private or public, belongs solely to the electorate, the majority of which quickly tires of it to the point of revulsion against the side with the louder surrogates. As far as Wright, wrong: that ship has sailed, the barn door is closed, the horse is out, woulda and coulda left shoulda at the altar, and adverse possession took effect in November 2008.

  • kipling

    Let us get down to fundamentals.

    1. Are you arguing that religious beliefs and the worldview those beliefs construct do not influence policy decision?

    2. If religious beliefs and the worldview they construct do have an impact on administration policy, then they are legitimate topics for discussion.

    3. Conservative history and intellectual thought since Burke demonstrate the necessity of conservatives dealing with first principles and beliefs whether they come from a podium or pulpit.

    4. The debate does belong to the electorate. They will referee and keep score. Romney however refuses to engage the issue or allow others to engage the issue. Hard to win a debate without engaging in it.

    5. What is your support for your contention that such a debate would create revulsion in the electorate? If conducted with tact and restraint, then the discussion can be rather informative.

    6. The ship – the vetting of Jeremiah Wright – never left the dock in 2008. McCain refused to go there or to allow others to go there. Only a few voices raised the issue. The issue has recently gained new life with the new book “The Amateur” and with a series of articles at the Breitbart sites.

    7. The great theological debate has already begun. Obama and his surrogates in the MSM will continue to define Mormonism. Romney needs to counter their narrative by pointing out how his Mormon beliefs and worldview will translate into governance. He does has to talk deep theology but he needs to keep from being defined as the “other.”

    8. Many want to avoid the issue exactly because of fears that the LDS connection will backfire on Romney. The GOP knew this before they selected Romney as the nominee. Only a fool would think that religion is off the table with the Obama administration. He shamelessly perverts Christianity to further his policy objectives – taxation, gay marriage, etc. Unless we counter that perversion with the truth, then he will win that debate and defile everything with his touch.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    1. Are you arguing that religious beliefs and the worldview those beliefs construct do not influence policy decision?
    No, nor will a search of a fairly long history here find anything close to that argument.

    2. If religious beliefs and the worldview they construct do have an impact on administration policy, then they are legitimate topics for discussion.
    For non-candidates, yes; for candidates, no.

    3. Conservative history and intellectual thought since Burke demonstrate the necessity of conservatives dealing with first principles and beliefs whether they come from a podium or pulpit.
    The gulf between the “necessity” of any subset of the electorate “dealing with first principles and beliefs” and any candidate doing the same in respect to his opponent is inconceivably vast. In what possible way would the opponents of, say, John Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and Clinton have gained the upper hand by attempting to catechise the electorate in their massive doctrinal departures from Christian orthodoxy?

    4. The debate does belong to the electorate. They will referee and keep score. Romney however refuses to engage the issue or allow others to engage the issue. Hard to win a debate without engaging in it.
    It all hinges–which is why I was careful to use it–on the term “solely”–as do a number of other fundamental beliefs, some of which are held, by many people in the electorate, to be incompatible with those of both candidates. Let me put it bluntly: which candidate stands more to lose by engaging in a public debate which will tend–fairly or not–to see defenders pitting terms like “freedom and empowerment” vs. “family values and character” and opposers “communism and damnation” vs. “gold plates and underwear”.

    5. What is your support for your contention that such a debate would create revulsion in the electorate? If conducted with tact and restraint, then the discussion can be rather informative.
    See response to 4.

    6. The ship

  • garfieldjl

    Yes Reverend Wright matters, but he matters only if you piece things together as part of a larger narrative. Otherwise, everyone knows at least 1 crazy person, and this could be considered petty.

    Romney should be bringing up Wright, but he should also be connecting the dots and how each of Obama’s radical associations are connected to each other.

    That is what Romney should do, and it is the mistake McCain made in 2008, though in McCain’s case it was a general unwillingness to personally attack people, Romney demonstrated he is perfectly fine with personally attacking people in the primary (like what he pulled on Speaker Gingrich), I’m left to wonder why he isn’t going to at least give Obama the vhetting that should have been done back in 2007-2008.

  • kipling

    1. We agree that religious beliefs and the worldview they construct do influence policy.

    2. We agree that since religious beliefs and the worldview they construct influence policy then they are legitimate topics for discussion.

    You make the caveat that the candidate should not engage in that discussion. I would disagree on that point.

    Regardless, the incident that led to the post was not Romney’s personal action but his repudiation of an independent Super PAC for discussing the issue. Since the independent Super PAC is not the candidate nor directly aligned with the candidate, then the point of disagreement does not arise in that case.

    3. Many of the examples you named used religious language and imagery to further their own candidacy – Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and even Carter. They dealt with religious beliefs and sold to the public the worldview that those beliefs created. The simple listing of their names does not make your point as many of those stated can be used to prove the very point you argue against.

    4-5. To boil your point down to its essence: You are making the case that in a discussion on religion the Mormon would lose with the general electorate. Perhaps, so. My point is that we are going to have that discussion whether or not Mitt Romney choses to participate. The articles in the MSM are already gearing up to that point. Romney will have to address his Mormonism at some point.

    6. I agree wholeheartedly with your points about Pelagianism and Pragmatism. They are deeply ingrained into the American religious experience. Regardless, I still thing a clear picture of what Black Liberation Theology teaches would put the President on defensive and provide unity for what many consider a haphazard administration policy record.

    7. I cannot argue with #7 except to say that I think the MSM will make the debate happen regardless.

    8. Here you get a little too clever by half. My prescription, as stated, is that religious beliefs and the worldview they construct, are legitimate points of discussion because they will influence policy. Romney was wrong to repudiate an independent Super PAC for engaging in that discussion. I cited the hypocrisy of the President for demanding religion be off the table but then winking at his own surrogates who attack Romney on religious grounds. I also condemned the content of the attacks. They did not seek to address influence on policy but rather attempted to smear Romney by associating him with an event that occurred over 150 years ago.

    As to the question about your Establishment Clause case, I do not have the information to speak to the case in general. However, I will say that the Church answers to God alone. Governments will seek to silence the church for several reasons but the church must persevere and be the voice of God to the world. The persecution of the church and the level of interference by the government within the church will grow as the grasp of government increases over the lives of people. [I would be very interested in hearing the details at some point.]

    I agree wholeheartedly with the final paragraph. I believe in the sovereignty of God and foolishness of man who sets himself up against God. I do not fear that the church will prevail. I just do not want her to go silent. The more President Obama attempts to pervert Christianity to serve his agenda, the more the church needs to speak truth and correct his perversion.

    I am familiar with the two kingdoms model but I would like to know your specific take upon it.

    Thanks for a well-reasoned reply. Even though we are not 100% in agreement, I think we agree more than we disagree.

  • Pingback: bagnoitaliano