Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign has ramped up its efforts to emphasize his Christian faith in a series of new radio and television ads, as well as in a flier that volunteers have distributed.
Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo, who endorsed Obama on Sunday, narrated a new radio spot for Obama that highlights the Illinois Senator’s upbringing and values, including how Obama is “a strong Christian.”
Mongiardo said he felt compelled to make the ad after constituents contacted his office with what he called “misconceptions” about Obama.
“The negative calls have been talking about either the color of his skin or claims that he’s not a Christian,” Mongiardo said. “As I’ve listened to news casts of primaries across the country, it struck me that there is a segment of people who are not voting for Hillary Clinton but are voting against Barack Obama because of issues that don’t pertain to substance.”
U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler of Versailles recorded a similar radio ad for Obama.
This is such a bizarre election cycle. The Democratic candidates are the ones touting religious buzz words and tag lines and the Republican nominee isn’t so much. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Radio ads in South Dakota feature former Sen. Tom Daschle, who states “(Obama is) a Christian.”
Standing on a platform with a cross and a pipe organ won’t do it. And good works in the community, wheither by Obama or his minister/mentor or church won’t do it either. As his minister has pointed out, the leader of the Nation of Islam has helped some people in need. Show us a Bible based Faith and an effort to follow Christ Jesus. And show it to us outside of this seemingly endless campaigh for political power. I am a Kentuckian, and neither Chandler nor Mogiardo is a man I go to for religious insight or support. They both endorse Obama because they both want to be Governor and figure this is one path in that direction.
Yes indeed he is a “strong Christian” who recently received a glowing endorsement from NARAL. 🙁
I imagine one reason why BO feels the need to make his religion clear is the one illustrated by a comment my son made to me today. At his middle school he has heard many of the kids say their parents will not vote for BO because his middle name is Hussein. I grant you that only a moron would think that the middle name makes BO dangerous; but I’m not so sure that our nation is lacking in morons of voting age.
He’s between a rock and a hard place here. To counter the false charge that he’s a Muslim, he has to highlight his church background, but his radical church connection is not necessarily positive.
For Obama, the Jeremiah Wright story must now seem like a waking nightmare.
I’m not for Obama, but he has a right to correct the record. No 3 – Good works in the community are evidence of, and stem from, faith. He doesn’t have to be a special type of Christian. I am a Christian, and my faith is based in the Church, the Body of Christ, to which the Bible is secondary.
#4 – It is quite possible for a person to be a Christian and support abortion rights. I disagree with them; I think they’re sadly mistaken — but that doesn’t mean their faith in Christ is illegitimate. It just means that they’re mistaken about this issue (in my opinion). For the same reason, I don’t question the faith of Chistians who support same-sex marriage or any other ‘liberal’ cause; it’s possible to disagree with me and still have a real faith in Jesus.
I’m convinced, from reading his book, that Obama’s Christian faith is genuine. That’s not necessarily a compelling reason to vote for him if you disagree with his policies.
Obama supports infanticide. Sorry, not buying the “Look at me! I’m a Christian!” line.
Chris Molter #10, care to explain what you mean and substantiate that? Are you using “infanticide” as a synonym for “abortion”? BO offers a lot to disagree with (as do the other candidates), but this is a serious election with global and historic consequences; let’s not be reckless with our language.
Most Muslims are also against Abortion. Abortion isn’t a particularly “Christian” belief. Christopher Hitchens is against abortion, himself.
If people think that his being a Muslim could be a problem, Obama is wise to affirm his religious commitments, which are in the church that founded this country.
Stevenanderson asks about a biblebased faith, but … do mean like Jimmy Carter? Who among presidents was had a bible based faith?
#11, I’m specifically referring to his opposition to the “born alive act” which would have permitted medical care to infants born alive (surviving) despite undergoing medical abortion. In other words, they are left to die on operating tables or in medical waste containers. Apparently the argument was that such a law would open the door to recognizing an unborn fetus as a “person”, which would be the floodgate to ending legal abortion altogether.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647
Of course, I don’t really see a problem with equivocating abortion and infanticide. Fetus is latin for infant, after all.
Chris,
He also voted against the ban on partial birth (aka late term) abortions, if I’m not mistaken.
JE
#14, Jim, I believe you are correct. However, I think he had more company on that vote than the other. Even NARAL had no official opposition to the ‘Born Alive Act’, placing Sen. Obama in the curious position of being more ardently pro-abortion than an organization created to perpetuate and entirely committed to the practice.
yes – obama voted against the ban because the legislation did not take into account the life of the mother.
JW, #16, tell me what I am missing here. There would appear to be no need to take into account the life of the mother in the “Born Alive Act.” The child, born alive, would have already been aborted, either to save the mother’s life or out of convenience to the mother. The mother’s life would be irrelevant to an aborted child that happened to be lucky enough to come through the abortion alive. Where did you get that information about Obama? It doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
As to Sen. Obama’s Christian bona fides, I think that it is reasonable to question them because he sat for 20 years under the tutelage of a minister of Black liberation theology.
[blockquote]“Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.†Dr. Cone (Professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary and founder of Black Liberation Theology.)[/blockquote]
Sen. Obama has recently repudiated his former pastor, Rev. Mr. Wright, and some of his public statements. However, this seems a peculiar time to discover the content of his former pastor’s theology and incredibly synchronistic with his campaign for the highest office in the land. Might not his 20 years of [at the very least] passive endorsement and support of such racism call into question the genuineness of his recent epiphany that lead him to repudiate the pastor who performed his wedding ceremony and baptized his children?
I would never vote for a white supremacist because he wears a suit and tie and speaks with a certain eloquence [someone like David Duke]. Why would I consider voting for someone whose past affiliation of 20 years with black supremacists spouting Black Liberation Theology, just because he wears a suit and tie and speaks with a certain eloquence?
Oops…”whose” was supposed to have been “who has had”. I guess I will have to fire my editor 🙂
Sick and tired – alas I don’t think you quite understand Cone. If you read more closely, you’d read that he is deliberately vague about who is black or white. His logic is not that white individuals are evil – except insofar as they participate in the dehumanization of black people. I recognize we’ve gone over this before, of course. I also find it interesting you have to quote a text that is 40 years old. As Martin Marty said (do you know who Martin Marty is?), claims that Wright is supremacist is … wrong. And as someone who has been to that church (along with lots of whites), we were all welcomed as part of the community. Blacks would not get the same treatment at David Duke’s church.
But if you want to know about Obama’s Christianity, why not quote Obama himself?
For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and to challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; it is an active, palpable agent in the world. It is a source of hope.
And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship, the grounding of faith in struggle, that the church offered me a second insight: that faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts. You need to come to church precisely because you are of this world, not apart from it; you need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away — because you are human and need an ally in your difficult journey.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
Of course, it is always sad to hear one Christian dismiss another Christian’s faith. In itself, this seems to be the work of the evil one.
“I also find it interesting you have to quote a text that is 40 years old.”
Has Dr. Cone recanted this position? The age of the quote has nothing at all to do with the moral repugnance inherent in the statement. Time does not magically make racist statements disappear or become non-racist.
“His logic is not that white individuals are evil – except insofar as they participate in the dehumanization of black people.”
Your defense of his racism doesn’t match Dr. Cone’s own statements.
[blockquote]”All white men are responsible for white oppression.” Cone, [i]Black Theology and Black Power[/i], p. 24.[/blockquote]
“Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and to challenge powers and principalities.”
Yeah, that’s real nice. Louis Farrakhan and the racist, anti-semitic, and repugnant Nation of Islam do some charity work. That doesn’t make them non-racists. Black Liberation Theology churches can do all the charity work in the world and they will still be racists.
Black Liberation Theology is racist at it’s core. Even the name is racist. I’m not buying what you are selling.
Cone has developed his thought elsewhere. He would find it amusing you thought it was racist. You mention one quote, but I don’t think you have read how he develops his understanding of “whiteness” or black identity. Elsewhere he talks about how black liberation theology has is corollary in other liberation theologies (arguing there is women’s, red, brown and different sorts of liberation theologies). I don’t feel like explaining the crux of his argument – which has to do with how particular experiences become universal. He’s been critiqued about this (because he tends to waffle between an “abstract” notion of whiteness and the particular experience of whiteness), and perhaps his defenses have been unsatisfactory. But as far as hating persons – he would deny it (except, he might justify the rightous rage against being oppressed is legitimate). He does argue that all whites benefit from white supremacy, which is controversial. It’s complicated, and its hard theology, and it might not be completely correct. But I suspect you basically went online and found a bunch of quotes that will back up what you already believe rather than try to understand why I think (as someone who’s read lots of liberation theology – entire books, even) your view isn’t fair or accurate.
Louis Farrakhan isn’t a Christian. Not sure why you bring this up. I admit, perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by racist. Farrakhan is a supremacist. That’s true.
There is a legitimate comparison between David Duke and the Nation of Islam. You couldn’t join the Nation of Islam. You could, however, join Trinity Church. Seems like a difference to me. If it were racist, wouldn’t they try to exclude you? Trinity is a church in a white denomination. I wonder why my white UCC pastor down the street doesn’t find Wright, for example, offensive.
I think the issue is that you feel Barack’s Christianity isn’t authentic. You seem to make the claim by talking about Farrakhan. You insinuate Obama is a racist. I wonder how his senior staff would feel – I mean, if he were don’t you think he’d have an entirely black staff?
It does seem that you have high expectations for Obama, as a Christian. I hope we don’t expect him to be sinless.
“Louis Farrakhan isn’t a Christian. Not sure why you bring this up. ”
“In December 2007, the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) bestowed its highest social achievement award upon Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam.”
Source: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/528635/barack_obamas_church_honorsnation.html
You admit in your post that, “There is a legitimate comparison between David Duke and the Nation of Islam.” You also admit that “Farrakhan is a supremacist.” Well, Rev. Mr. Wright and the church you speak so highly of just gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam last December.
How would it be if Bishop Schori gave an award to David Duke and StormFront?
I am telling you straight out; I am Caucasian and I find Cones statements threatening and racist. When he says “All white men”, that includes me. When he says that I am responsible for white oppression, simply because of the color of my skin…that is patently racist.
Words mean things. Dr. Cone says all white men are responsible for white oppression and that Black theology only accepts the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. Well, I don’t want to be destroyed and I am not responsible for whatever “oppression” he has experienced…even though I am “white”.
I think that you are the one who is failing to understand. Black Liberation Theology is racist, vile, and repugnant to anyone who thinks people should be judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin! A dogma that sets me up as the enemy, simply because I am white, is racist. When they say “all white men”, it means all white men. Pretty straight forward, pretty racist, and completely offensive.
I think Dr. Cone is guilty of hate speech.
First, I believe that “the Trumpet” and Trinity UCC are separate organizations. Second, I don’t think they should have given him an award. I would hesitate to make one mistake be all that one church should be known for. Perhaps you are sinless, yourself.
Still, I’m amazed how hostile you are, given that our president’s grandfather had ties to Nazi Germany. Is Bush, then, a White supremacist?
Sick and Tired, 1) you don’t address the basic issue: do you think Obama holds the views you suspect? And why? The evidence seems to the contrary.
2) What have you read by Cone, outside of the internet?
3) Actually – if you DID read Cone, you’d realize that Cone has an understanding of “whiteness” that is deliberately vague. He (perhaps mistakenly) says that whiteness is – in itself – racist. It requires subjugation of blacks. Until whites reject “whiteness” as an identity, they will benefit from oppressing others. You ascribe “hate” when there is none: it is a description of reality. Look – after reading his books, why was it that I wasn’t offended? Perhaps I’m a bit less sensitive. Or perhaps, I understood his point.
I know words mean things. But I don’t think you’re getting at what he means.
“Still, I’m amazed how hostile you are, given that our president’s grandfather had ties to Nazi Germany. Is Bush, then, a White supremacist?”
One thing has nothing to do with the other. But just to satisfy your curiosity, I found out only last fall about the the Bush/Nazi connection. I was disgusted and angry. I do not know if he is a white supremacist, but I would not be surprised if it turned out to be the case. Then again, President Bush has appointed a more diverse set of top advisers than any president in history, including President Clinton’s. [ http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-09-diverse-usat_x.htm ]
“Sick and Tired, 1) you don’t address the basic issue: do you think Obama holds the views you suspect? And why? The evidence seems to the contrary.”
I don’t know if Obama’s beliefs are the same as those of Rev. Wright [and Dr. Cone]. I think there is legitimate cause for concern and for reasonable doubt about Sen. Obama. While it is true that during his run for president he has recently distanced himself from Rev. Wright; the fact that he sat under his teaching for 20 years, was married by him, and his children were baptized by him all lead me to think that he was familiar with the teachings of Rev. Wright. Also, the fact that just before his bid for the white house, he began to publicly distance himself from his pastor [while maintaining private ties] leaves me to question the sincerity of his public protestations that he didn’t know what Rev. Wright was preaching.
Until Rev. Wright’s connection with Obama became general knowledge, I thought Sen. Obama was a sure-win to be president. Now, I sincerely question what his real feelings and beliefs about “white” people are. Are we his “enemy” as the theology he absorbed for 20 years proclaims? Does he believe that “all whitemen are responsible for white oppression”?
When I was in the Army, they told us that we were all green on the outside and bled red on the inside. I believed that then and I believe that now. I don’t believe in hyphenated Americans. Either you are a plain American or you are something else simply holding U.S. citizenship.
All this talk about Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, Native-Americans…it’s all racist…just as racist as if I were to go around claiming to be European-American or White-American.
Anything [like Affirmative Action] that judges people or grades people by the color of their skin is racist.
I think that conduct and character are the measure of mankind, not their ethnicity.
What does Sen. Obama believe after 20 years of listening to Black Liberation Theology that advocates a “God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.â€
Politicians can and do say [i]anything[/i] to get elected. Sen. Obama has just recently said that Rev. Wright’s comments are wrong. Where was this epiphany 2 years ago? 5 years ago? I am suspicious of “jail house conversions” and I am suspicious of politicians that suddenly change long held beliefs and affiliations during a campaign when it is politically expedient to do so.
What does Sen. Obama believe? I think I might begin to know a few years from now.
“I don’t believe in hyphenated americans.” That’s a worthy sentiment. We’re glad that Jim Crow ended because people decided to get rid of those laws that separated people.
Well – as Obama stated – there may be a cause for concern. If Wright were supporting black terrorist groups and actively discouraged whites from attending his church, I’d probably feel the same.
When I went to his church, ithe sermons I heard there was often an exciting pinnacle full of hyperbole, bluster and playfulness – with some righteous anger thrown in. Then, towards the end, a call for personal transformation, examination, peace and hope. It’s actually a pretty standard format. Get everyone excited and then pull the rug out from under them. You want war? Nope- Jesus offers peace. You angry at white people generally? Well, then, do some work in the community. Love people better. It’s an emotional tactic that he took toward a different road. At least – that’s what happened when I saw Wright. Now – don’t box me in. I don’t support everything Wright said. He’s not sinless. I’m flummoxed by his daughter’s and magazine’s celebration of Farrakhan. But I don’t assume everyone in the church agrees with him, personally.
We even studied the style of preaching. If Wright did hate whites, I wonder why I wasn’t stopped at the door of Trinity with other whites. It’s hard for me to put the experience of love together with what you are saying. Perhaps you can explain it. I was welcomed, almost feverishly.
I think a sensible view would be that Obama didn’t think much about Wright’s views. I do think Wright put Jesus in a context Obama could understand. Wright had credibility (a University of Chicago degree, time in the Marines, an preaching and administrative skills) that a young man would admire. I also think Obama liked to have intellectual and emotional foils – and unlike other politicians – valued intellectual disagreements. Further, since Wright worked closely with lots of white people, I think Obama probably didn’t think much of what he said. After all, even in my own congregation people think independently of what I say. They don’t read everything I write. They are more likely to ask me to pray with them than what I think about Iraq.
Sick – I think it’s probably easier to dismiss a person you’ve never met, but since I’ve experienced Wright and his church in action, I just don’t see what I think you see – which is screaming blacks who hate whites. You trust the internet. I’m going with being there on the ground.
We’re hearing two different things. It does sound like you’re offended. Personally, I don’t think Wright or Obama or even Cone would disagree with the statement “conduct and character are the measure of mankind, not their ethnicity.” Cone might, however, growing up in a racist environment, argue that whites didn’t have much character – since they enjoyed Jim Crow and racism for most of this country’s history. If whites truly had character, they would have ended slavery from the get go and understood blacks as equal to whites. But most of them didn’t.
He would also argue that whites who experienced a transformation were getting in touch with their inner “blackness.” He might even argue that since you are able to see beyond color, you have some inner black within you. Is it a good argument? Maybe not. But it deserves a little more study than just getting a few quotes of the internet you disagree with and claiming expertise. Did I say I actually disagree with him? I do. I don’t think he can get away with vague descriptors of “blackness” and “whiteness.” And when critiqued for this he just said, “I’m deliberately vague. you’ll interpret it based on your personal experience.” Alas, you’ve proven him wright. He expects you, as a white person, to condemn him because YOU JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND. I’m trying to help you understand – and then you’d have a good reason to critique Cone. And it has to do with the notion of particularity.
Obama does leave plenty of clues about what he believes. He’s more of the William Julius Williams understanding of the role of race and class (he alluded to this in one of his first descriptions of talking with Wright, who thought WJW was wrong). He had a pretty enlightened response toward affirmative action (something like, I don’t know if that’s why I’m here, but I hope that I didn’t squander the opportunity). I’m personally favorable toward him because I lived in the neighborhood he did, I studied with the professors Wright studied with, and I had friends in the law school.
Obama would not have survived if he were a token black professor. That’s not how the U of C works. And unlike other schools, we didn’t have any liberation theologians when I was there, except Anne Carr, who was subtle and philosophical. Blacks calling white racists won’t fly too far at the U of C. Progressives get knocked around a lot there, also by other progressives who demand clear thinking.
But you might be right – and I will concede you this – that Obama might have been an opportunist. He chose well. Wright gave him some good contacts. Wright was known (and respected) by Daley (wait – Daley? Isn’t he white?), among others. Obama had some sudden authority in the black community. And then each way he moved toward the center.
Given that his entire staff his white, I tend to think the evidence is that Obama is more of a person who does not hate white people. And given the quality of his staff (look – he’s a 46 year old guy who’s just won the Democratic Primary. He’s raised more money than everyone else), I think that content and character – and talent – do mean something to him.
But I would also say that even if Obama was an opportunist, the Gospel did change him. It sometimes works like that. Personally, I know that Obama’s going to make compromises, he’s going to make choices, and – like all politicians – he’s going to be caught in the gotcha games. To leftists he’ll seem like a sell out. to rightists he’ll seem disingenuous. And what if he just changes his mind? Not all policies work in all times and in all places the same way.
But to assume the power of God could not have worked its way into his thought is not disrespecting Obama. It does seem to slight the power of God.
JW,
You have mounted a good defense. I think it is likely that Sen. Obama will become the next president, so we will both get to see what he is really made of. I think we can both join in hoping for the best and praying for whoever is the next president. As a conservative Evangelical, I am not at all thrilled about Sen. McCain and would be praying for him [just as I would for Sen. Obama] should he win [unlikely].
Personally, I still don’t know what I am going to do on election day other than pray. I voted for Rep. Ron Paul in the primary. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to changing my party affiliation back to Independent. In my state, you have to choose a party to vote in the primaries, so it’s a tough choice.
It sounds like there is much we can agree on, despite our many differences. Thank you for taking the time to present your opinions to me.
There is an old saying:
Education begins a gentleman, conversation completes him. – Dr. Thomas Fuller
Thank you for the conversation.
Pax
Sick,
Thank you for the conversation. You remind me that the Spirit works in many ways, and it humbles me to discuss issues with you.
Be aware that 1) I don’t think Obama is a saint, and I interpret his popularity through religious (and skeptical) eyes; 2) I believe Obama will have peculiar challenges as president and will make mistakes; 3) I voted for Huckabee (I’m a liberal Republican, if you must know. And were being pushed into the Democratic party…!). I could also give defenses of McCain, but that’s not how this blog works.
I think we would agree on other things, as well. But it would take some whiskey to get to those points.
On the other hand, both of us love Jesus. He’s where it all begins. When I remember that (in my last comment, for example) its easier to discuss hard issues.
Blessings, and Cheers!
G