PDA

View Full Version : Elections Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx


KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 07:10 AM
The Oppressed Vs. the Oppressors (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/obama_black_liberation_theolog.html)

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 the 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.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at commonsenseregained.com/ (http://commonsenseregained.com/).
<!-- stopprint --><SCRIPT src="http://comments.americanthinker.com/js_files/42323/2008/05/22202.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>on "Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx"

PRIEST
10-19-2008, 07:28 AM
poor Johnny will need to get another hobby after Nov 4 ,Lame DuckROFL

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 07:44 AM
Intelligent posters will read the whole article before posting one-line zingers. There is much more at stake here than a mere change of political parties at 1600 Pennsylvania AVE.

PRIEST
10-19-2008, 07:52 AM
Intelligent posters will read the whole article before posting one-line zingers. There is much more at stake here than a mere change of political parties at 1600 Pennsylvania AVE.



All opinion not very factual .Takes alot of intelligence to copy & Paste bull shit

tiptap
10-19-2008, 07:58 AM
While the books, cited concerning liberation theology had quotes from Malcolm X (who by the way distance himself from the Black Muslims before his death), I don't think the references to Marx are anything but inferred by the writer. Yes SHE quotes Marx. But not Marx quoted and central to the books cited. I could be wrong but the author's looseness with citations seems all too convenient.

banyon
10-19-2008, 07:58 AM
Can you tell us if there is a difference between socialism and Marxism without cutting and pasting, Johnny?

banyon
10-19-2008, 08:03 AM
KCJohnny probably would've been one of the ones pushing to use the FBI to investigate MLK's "Marxist" ties as well.

the Talking Can
10-19-2008, 08:09 AM
republicans are vile and stupid in the most profound ways....

a bankrupt, reactionary, ignorant, frightening party full of kcjohnnys....

the Talking Can
10-19-2008, 08:09 AM
KCJohnny probably would've been one of the ones pushing to use the FBI to investigate MLK's "Marxist" ties as well.

that goes without saying

PRIEST
10-19-2008, 08:11 AM
republicans are vile and stupid in the most profound ways....

a bankrupt, reactionary, ignorant, frightening party full of kcjohnnys....




Sad




:evil:

banyon
10-19-2008, 08:15 AM
Intelligent posters will read the whole article before posting one-line zingers. There is much more at stake here than a mere change of political parties at 1600 Pennsylvania AVE.

The whole article is like a collection of poorly thought-out zingers.

Because some of the church literature mentions the poor or economic justice, the author splices in a couple of Marx quotes and makes a tremendous leap and stretch to draw some kind of equivalency. Like it or not for these blowhards, Christ thought we should make every effort to help the least well off among us.

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 08:36 AM
As I thought, the theological content passed right over most peoples' heads.

People, theology matters, whether you consider yourself religious or not.

tiptap
10-19-2008, 08:39 AM
Philosophy matters and theology only in regards to your acceptance of the premise of a god.

banyon
10-19-2008, 08:39 AM
As I thought, the theological content passed right over most peoples' heads.

People, theology matters, whether you consider yourself religious or not.

As you have ignored the majority of replies and questions about your posts and somehow expect people to take you seriously, I directly addressed the theological content. What theological point is it you think I've missed?

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 08:42 AM
As you have ignored the majority of replies and questions about your posts and somehow expect people to take you seriously, I directly addressed the theological content. What theological point is it you think I've missed?

Not in this thread.

:shake:

banyon
10-19-2008, 08:44 AM
Not in this thread.

:shake:

Huh, so what is this:

The whole article is like a collection of poorly thought-out zingers.

Because some of the church literature mentions the poor or economic justice, the author splices in a couple of Marx quotes and makes a tremendous leap and stretch to draw some kind of equivalency. Like it or not for these blowhards, Christ thought we should make every effort to help the least well off among us.

And WHAT POINT IS IT YOU THINK I'VE MISSED?

Damn it is annoying to try to talk to people who ignore about 3/4 of your posts to try to pretend they've scored some "points".

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 09:07 AM
Huh, so what is this:



And WHAT POINT IS IT YOU THINK I'VE MISSED?

Damn it is annoying to try to talk to people who ignore about 3/4 of your posts to try to pretend they've scored some "points".

Friend, that is shallow at best. There is grave danger in wrongly defining God and His purposes in the world. You seem oblivious to this gravity. The theology of Cone/Wright is no small matter here. Obama has bought into it hook, line and sinker, not only at the political level, but at the spiritual/God level.

An authority no less than Pope Benedict XVI has rejected liberation theology as marxism. Your light and cursory treatment of Ms. Shiver's article adds nothing of any significance to the theological arguments that renounce Senator Obama's left leaning political philosophy as inherently dangerous on theological and political levels.

Liberation theology is at its core antichristian. Its failure to accept the totality of Christ's teaching and His guidance for the Church as a people in exile awaiting the Kingdom of God and suffering at the hands of the world is at maximal variance with marxism's revolution now ethics. Marxism has never worked in any nation ever, and it certainly will not work here in the USA.

Cone and Wright are marxist, that is beyond dispute. The facts indicate that "spreading the wealth around" will be far more pernicious than democrats would have us believe. Marxist belief will launch an interminable class warfare that will be deleterious to America's promise as a free capitalist nation offering liberty to other nations.

At the end of the day, Obama is both a Liberation Theology adherent and a socialist - tough positions for Americans to support, no matter how hard the times may feel.

banyon
10-19-2008, 09:21 AM
Friend, that is shallow at best. There is grave danger in wrongly defining God and His purposes in the world. You seem oblivious to this gravity. The theology of Cone/Wright is no small matter here. Obama has bought into it hook, line and sinker, not only at the political level, but at the spiritual/God level.

An authority no less than Pope Benedict XVI has rejected liberation theology as marxism. Your light and cursory treatment of Ms. Shiver's article adds nothing of any significance to the theological arguments that renounce Senator Obama's left leaning political philosophy as inherently dangerous on theological and political levels.

Liberation theology is at its core antichristian. Its failure to accept the totality of Christ's teaching and His guidance for the Church as a people in exile awaiting the Kingdom of God and suffering at the hands of the world is at maximal variance with marxism's revolution now ethics. Marxism has never worked in any nation ever, and it certainly will not work here in the USA.

Cone and Wright are marxist, that is beyond dispute. The facts indicate that "spreading the wealth around" will be far more pernicious than democrats would have us believe. Marxist belief will launch an interminable class warfare that will be deleterious to America's promise as a free capitalist nation offering liberty to other nations.

At the end of the day, Obama is both a Liberation Theology adherent and a socialist - tough positions for Americans to support, no matter how hard the times may feel.

So, you criticize my post for being shallow, then when I ask you to tell me the important theological point, you rant without making any mention of a theological point. What in Christ's teachings is the point that I missed?

My point (since I have actually read both Marx and the Bible and you have not) is that that there is nothing essentially Marxist about any of the quoted material. The author's clumsy attempt to pair the quotes with some Marxist material is stretched so thin, you can see right through it.

And again, at the end to cap it off you conflate Marxism and socialism. Maybe you should look up the Winter War to see if the Finns thought there was a difference.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 09:32 AM
People, theology matters

As much as worrying about seven years bad luck for breaking a mirror, I suppose. LMAO



And again, at the end to cap it off you conflate Marxism and socialism. Maybe you should look up the Winter War to see if the Finns thought there was a difference.

Three cheers for the Mannerheim Line!

Fat Elvis
10-19-2008, 09:34 AM
Friend, that is shallow at best. There is grave danger in wrongly defining God and His purposes in the world. You seem oblivious to this gravity. The theology of Cone/Wright is no small matter here. Obama has bought into it hook, line and sinker, not only at the political level, but at the spiritual/God level.

An authority no less than Pope Benedict XVI has rejected liberation theology as marxism. Your light and cursory treatment of Ms. Shiver's article adds nothing of any significance to the theological arguments that renounce Senator Obama's left leaning political philosophy as inherently dangerous on theological and political levels.

Liberation theology is at its core antichristian. Its failure to accept the totality of Christ's teaching and His guidance for the Church as a people in exile awaiting the Kingdom of God and suffering at the hands of the world is at maximal variance with marxism's revolution now ethics. Marxism has never worked in any nation ever, and it certainly will not work here in the USA.

Cone and Wright are marxist, that is beyond dispute. The facts indicate that "spreading the wealth around" will be far more pernicious than democrats would have us believe. Marxist belief will launch an interminable class warfare that will be deleterious to America's promise as a free capitalist nation offering liberty to other nations.

At the end of the day, Obama is both a Liberation Theology adherent and a socialist - tough positions for Americans to support, no matter how hard the times may feel.


Hello, Pot? This is Kettle; you're black....

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 09:38 AM
Christ thought we should make every effort to help the least well off among us.

He also said take up thy bed and walk. He also said he who saves one, saves the world entire.

Both these quotes are a direct call to personal responsibility. Too many among us are a burden to society by choice.

Jenson71
10-19-2008, 09:38 AM
I think we are trying to put a square block in a round hole. We aren't (or we shouldn't be) picking our next president based on his theological beliefs. Presidents in the past have been Deists, unitarians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholic, etc. We also know what Obama's policy proposals are - and they are not Marxist.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 09:41 AM
I think we are trying to put a square block in a round hole. We aren't (or we shouldn't be) picking our next president based on his theological beliefs. Presidents in the past have been Deists, unitarians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholic, etc. We also know what Obama's policy proposals are - and they are not Marxist.

Are they socialist?

banyon
10-19-2008, 09:41 AM
Are they socialist?

Whatever you do, don't ask KCJohnny for help on this topic.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 09:47 AM
Whatever you do, don't ask KCJohnny for help on this topic.


I would just like for one O-bot to acknowledge that B.O. is at the very least a socialist.

The fact is, he mother and father were both Marxists, his childhood mentors were communists, his "missing years" at Columbia and Harvard are suspect, and he belonged to a Marxist cult called Black Liberation Theology.

A person that saturated in Marxism and I don't think it's unfair to assume he has communist leanings.

He's also endorsed by international communists.

Jenson71
10-19-2008, 09:51 AM
Are they socialist?

Let's recognize that as a very broad term that has different meanings for different people. Why can't his views and policies be. . .his views and policies and judge them on those alone, rather than broad terms that no one agrees on, but swings them through the air, hoping to knock anyone down that isn't paying attention.

Do they tend to be more socialist in the general understanding of the term? Yes. That's a reality you can't deny.

Does America have socialist tendencies?

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 10:06 AM
Let's recognize that as a very broad term that has different meanings for different people. Why can't his views and policies be. . .his views and policies and judge them on those alone, rather than broad terms that no one agrees on, but swings them through the air, hoping to knock anyone down that isn't paying attention.

Do they tend to be more socialist in the general understanding of the term? Yes. That's a reality you can't deny.

Does America have socialist tendencies?

You make valid points. Here's the thing, though...

A distinction has to be made somewhere, because yes, America has "socialist tendencies".

Social Security, medicare, affirmative action, welfare et al.

But to suggest that B.O. will merely be a continuation of that, and not an expander of it, would do the word an injustice.

That's why I prefer to call him a Marxist.

Listen, this is a guy who is stating emphatically that he wants to raise taxes on a few, and distribute that money to many. He calls this a tax cut but that is a lie.

It's taking money from one person to give it to another. That is wrong.

BigChiefFan
10-19-2008, 10:10 AM
In other words, Barack is black and you'll do anything and everything to pass judgement on him to justify your bigotry.

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:10 AM
I would just like for one O-bot to acknowledge that B.O. is at the very least a socialist.

The fact is, he mother and father were both Marxists, his childhood mentors were communists, his "missing years" at Columbia and Harvard are suspect, and he belonged to a Marxist cult called Black Liberation Theology.

A person that saturated in Marxism and I don't think it's unfair to assume he has communist leanings.

Wow. There may not be a single fact among all of the "facts" you just presented. What is your source for "his mother was a Marxist"?

He's also endorsed by international communists.


Was that your same post from yesterday where they also said they knew he wasn't far left?

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:13 AM
You make valid points. Here's the thing, though...

A distinction has to be made somewhere, because yes, America has "socialist tendencies".

Social Security, medicare, affirmative action, welfare et al.

But to suggest that B.O. will merely be a continuation of that, and not an expander of it, would do the word an injustice.

That's why I prefer to call him a Marxist.

Listen, this is a guy who is stating emphatically that he wants to raise taxes on a few, and distribute that money to many. He calls this a tax cut but that is a lie.

It's taking money from one person to give it to another. That is wrong.

Expanding socialism ≠ Marxism.

And taking money from the few and distributing it to the many is better than the opposite, which is what we have now.

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:15 AM
The sad thing is that this is the same pathetic ploy used in the 60's against MLK. If you're black, and you think the poor ought to be treated better in our society, then you're a "Marxist". :shake:


(though the people making the allegation rarely understand what Marxism is)

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 10:19 AM
The sad thing is that this is the same pathetic ploy used in the 60's against MLK. If you're black, and you think the poor ought to be treated better in our society, then you're a "Marxist". :shake:


(though the people making the allegation rarely understand what Marxism is)

1. Bad analogy. MLK was fighting for Black Americans' right to vote, which was being suppressed and/or denied in several southern states. MLK NEVER AGITATED FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OR WELFARE.

2. Marxism- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:24 AM
1. Bad analogy. MLK was fighting for Black Americans' right to vote, which was being suppressed and/or denied in several southern states. MLK NEVER AGITATED FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OR WELFARE.

I guess you have some reading to do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People%27s_Campaign) then. Also, I don't know that Obama has "agitated for welfare or affirmative action".

2. Marxism- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

That's a slogan, and probably represents the totality of your understanding in this matter. It's why your attempts to describe the delineations between liberal/socialist/Marxist are so transparently ridiculous.

MTG#10
10-19-2008, 10:27 AM
I saw a new Obama ad today - new to me anyway - where he's trying real hard to cater to the white voters. There was shot after shot of photos with his white grandparents and mother and it kept talking about how great they were. He must be getting nervous about his ties with Wright and his "typical white people" comment.

splatbass
10-19-2008, 12:07 PM
Expanding socialism ≠ Marxism.

And taking money from the few and distributing it to the many is better than the opposite, which is what we have now.

He is perfectly happy to have money taken from the middle class and given to the rich, just not the other way around. He thinks one is evil and the other good.

beer bacon
10-19-2008, 12:10 PM
Tax cuts for the middle class = Socialism

Tax cuts for the ultra rich = Just GOPin baby

jidar
10-19-2008, 12:43 PM
Well at least the article author admitted he was trying to find evidence to prove his bias from the get go.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 01:12 PM
I guess you have some reading to do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People%27s_Campaign) then. Also, I don't know that Obama has "agitated for welfare or affirmative action".



That's a slogan, and probably represents the totality of your understanding in this matter. It's why your attempts to describe the delineations between liberal/socialist/Marxist are so transparently ridiculous.

No, I've read The Manifesto several times.

Why don't you give us your definition of Marxism, mister knowitall? :)

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 01:13 PM
Tax cuts for the middle class = Socialism



The only one you are BSing is yourself. :rolleyes:

banyon
10-19-2008, 01:38 PM
No, I've read The Manifesto several times.

Why don't you give us your definition of Marxism, mister knowitall? :)

I asked you first.

The Manifesto is a pamphlet he didn't even author by himself.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 02:04 PM
I asked you first.

The Manifesto is a pamphlet he didn't even author by himself.

Oh, for Pete's sake. If I can't even quote the manifesto then I guess Marxism is more mysterious than I thought. Silly me. :)

So I give up, you tell me.

Logical
10-19-2008, 04:13 PM
Intelligent posters will read the whole article before posting one-line zingers. There is much more at stake here than a mere change of political parties at 1600 Pennsylvania AVE.Ooooh the boogeman is going to get us.:spock::doh!:

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-19-2008, 04:30 PM
Marxism is not communism or socialism, you stupid fucks.

Marxism is a theory of class struggle. He postulates that socialism will be the end result of a dialectical process from power struggles between the lumpens and the bourgeoisie.

It's a prediction, not an inherent support of a particular ideology. He wants the proletariat to rise up, not to meet a certain predetermined end, a la Milton Friedman.

Logical
10-19-2008, 04:33 PM
Friend, that is shallow at best. There is grave danger in wrongly defining God and His purposes in the world. You seem oblivious to this gravity. The theology of Cone/Wright is no small matter here. Obama has bought into it hook, line and sinker, not only at the political level, but at the spiritual/God level.

An authority no less than Pope Benedict XVI has rejected liberation theology as marxism. Your light and cursory treatment of Ms. Shiver's article adds nothing of any significance to the theological arguments that renounce Senator Obama's left leaning political philosophy as inherently dangerous on theological and political levels.

Liberation theology is at its core antichristian. Its failure to accept the totality of Christ's teaching and His guidance for the Church as a people in exile awaiting the Kingdom of God and suffering at the hands of the world is at maximal variance with marxism's revolution now ethics. Marxism has never worked in any nation ever, and it certainly will not work here in the USA.

Cone and Wright are marxist, that is beyond dispute. The facts indicate that "spreading the wealth around" will be far more pernicious than democrats would have us believe. Marxist belief will launch an interminable class warfare that will be deleterious to America's promise as a free capitalist nation offering liberty to other nations.

At the end of the day, Obama is both a Liberation Theology adherent and a socialist - tough positions for Americans to support, no matter how hard the times may feel.As a Deist why should this worry me? Matter of fact why should this worry any non-Catholic.

SoCalBronco
10-19-2008, 04:42 PM
Tax cuts for the middle class = Socialism

Tax cuts for the ultra rich = Just GOPin baby

People dont seem to understand that it is the top 10% that is responsible for 90% of the tax revenue. So when there is tax "relief" to be had, fairness compels the relief to go to those who paid the lion's share of the revenues. We're not supposed to be using the system to redistribute income. Fairness compels it to be returned on a pro rata basis to how it was derived.

Personally, I dont think anyone should be getting cuts right now, rich or poor. The government needs the revenue to make up the massive deficits we are incurring because of the war and because of the bailouts and stimulus packages etc.. All tax brackets should see an increase in taxes.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 05:02 PM
Marxism is not communism or socialism, you stupid ****s.

Marxism is a theory of class struggle. He postulates that socialism will be the end result of a dialectical process from power struggles between the lumpens and the bourgeoisie.

It's a prediction, not an inherent support of a particular ideology. He wants the proletariat to rise up, not to meet a certain predetermined end, a la Milton Friedman.


Thanks, but I beat you to Wikepedia. :rolleyes:

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 05:04 PM
Marxism is a theory of class struggle.


Class warfare?

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-19-2008, 05:37 PM
Thanks, but I beat you to Wikepedia. :rolleyes:

Funny thing: while I was actually studying critical theory on Marxism, your narrow ass was diving off to Wiki to try and prop up your shit trough skull.

Mr. Laz
10-19-2008, 06:46 PM
republicans are vile and stupid in the most profound ways....

a bankrupt, reactionary, ignorant, frightening party full of kcjohnnys....
ROFL

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 06:55 PM
BECAUSE OF OBAMA I ASPIRE TO BE A DISHWASHER!

Okey Dokey!

jidar
10-19-2008, 06:57 PM
People dont seem to understand that it is the top 10% that is responsible for 90% of the tax revenue. So when there is tax "relief" to be had, fairness compels the relief to go to those who paid the lion's share of the revenues. We're not supposed to be using the system to redistribute income. Fairness compels it to be returned on a pro rata basis to how it was derived.

Personally, I dont think anyone should be getting cuts right now, rich or poor. The government needs the revenue to make up the massive deficits we are incurring because of the war and because of the bailouts and stimulus packages etc.. All tax brackets should see an increase in taxes.

No, that's what everyone thinks, it's not what's true.
What's true is the richest pay the least by percentage of their wealth. Meanwhile the upper middle class pays the most by percentage of their wealth.
The real dollar amount argument is pointless btw, don't talk to me about real dollar amounts because it just doesn't work out, taxes have to be by percentages.

banyon
10-19-2008, 09:12 PM
People dont seem to understand that it is the top 10% that is responsible for 90% of the tax revenue.

I understand this because I know that your numbers are way off.

banyon
10-19-2008, 09:22 PM
Oh, for Pete's sake. If I can't even quote the manifesto then I guess Marxism is more mysterious than I thought. Silly me. :)

So I give up, you tell me.

Well HAmas beat me to it, but I would supplement his definition with historical materialism - the idea that the means of production and technology determine the political superstructure, the labor theory of value, and the ultimate Marxist goal, the stateless society (pretty different than communism with the capital C).

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 09:29 PM
No, that's what everyone thinks, it's not what's true.
What's true is the richest pay the least by percentage of their wealth. Meanwhile the upper middle class pays the most by percentage of their wealth.
The real dollar amount argument is pointless btw, don't talk to me about real dollar amounts because it just doesn't work out, taxes have to be by percentages.

Taxing the rich is political gamesmanship meant to pander to the underclass voter. The rich simply "pass the savings" on to the consumer by raising prices, cutting employment benefits or staff, or stash capital in offshore accounts and at worst, send their factories and enterprises to foreign countries where labor is cheap and legal hassles (taxes) aren't as confiscatory.

However, political posturing by the Left assauges the anger of the workingclass who are preyed upon with this pernicious class warfare bollocks and makes them think they will get "their share" of the GDP from the 'rich' who obviously 'stole it' from the proletariat, er, working class.

Class warfare will always backfire on the people the Left say they intend to help. The only way for it to work is a total takeover of the economy and the free market. If you look at James H. Cone's theology (really a political philosophy) you will see justification provided for this very type of action by an Obama-led, Dem-majority-in-both-Houses government.

We have Maxine Waters already threatening to take over the energy industry. The banks are being infiltrated by the federal gov't. Healthcare will be goverment controlled (1/7th of the total US economy). What does that leave? Flea markets and Bingo parlors?

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)

Logical
10-19-2008, 10:09 PM
As a Deist why should this worry me? Matter of fact why should this worry any non-Catholic.KCJohnny you never answered the question.

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 11:46 PM
KCJohnny you never answered the question.

I am not concerned with what worries you, Jim. Whether one is a Catholic or not, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who served for 25 years as the director of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the Roman Catholic Church before being elected Pope is well-qualified to identify both marxist philosophies and liberation theologies. He has done just that:


"...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)


Unless you know more than the Holy Father about Liberation Theology and its marxist content, I'd say the Pope can assist us all in understanding the religion Senator Obama practiced for 20 years. I say religion, but Cone himself acknowledges it is more of a political philosophy than a religion:

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 the white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution."

Thig Lyfe
10-20-2008, 12:06 AM
He must be getting nervous about his ties with Wright and his "typical white people" comment.

Really? Even though everybody forgot about that stuff like a hundred news cycles ago?

Thig Lyfe
10-20-2008, 12:07 AM
Okey Dokey!

You're not funny. You're not a funny person.

Logical
10-20-2008, 12:08 AM
I am not concerned with what worries you, Jim. Whether one is a Catholic or not, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who served for 25 years as the director of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the Roman Catholic Church before being elected Pope is well-qualified to identify both marxist philosophies and liberation theologies. He has done just that:



Unless you know more than the Holy Father about Liberation Theology and its marxist content, I'd say the Pope can assist us all in understanding the religion Senator Obama practiced for 20 years. I say religion, but Cone himself acknowledges it is more of a political philosophy than a religion:I don't care if he is God the father, unless he can identify why I as a Deist, or those who are non-Catholics should fear Obama I will pass on his diatribes.

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 08:50 AM
I don't care if he is God the father, unless he can identify why I as a Deist, or those who are non-Catholics should fear Obama I will pass on his diatribes.

Ever been to a socialist country, Jim?

Sully
10-20-2008, 08:56 AM
Liberation theology is at its core antichristian.

You are a Catholic, yes?
Catholics tend to believe any form of religion (Or Christianity, even) that isn't Catholicism is "at its core antiChristian," right...or at the very least, incorrect?

So with that in mind, why should anyone be surprised that Catholics would view this sect, also, as antiChristian?

patteeu
10-20-2008, 09:21 AM
It's a great relief to know that Marxism is not a synonym of socialism. It's somewhat less of a relief to know that the Marxists among us look happily toward the advancing socialism of the coming Obama years.

I don't know for sure that Obama views class struggle through the same lens that Marx proposed (although I think it's quite likely), but he's sure committed to stoking the flames of class warfare and encouraging the belief that it is capitalism that is wrong with our country and not big government. If Obama isn't a Marxist, he's the next worst thing.

patteeu
10-20-2008, 09:25 AM
Well HAmas beat me to it, but I would supplement his definition with historical materialism - the idea that the means of production and technology determine the political superstructure, the labor theory of value, and the ultimate Marxist goal, the stateless society (pretty different than communism with the capital C).

Is this your way of saying that Obama is more like a communist with a capital C than a real Marxist? :p

Seriously, other than making the case that many of us aren't versed enough in Marxism to describe Karl's theories adequately, I'm not sure what your point is when you quibble about whether Obama is an actual Marxist or simply the most socialist candidate for POTUS we've ever had. :shrug:

patteeu
10-20-2008, 09:26 AM
You are a Catholic, yes?
Catholics tend to believe any form of religion (Or Christianity, even) that isn't Catholicism is "at its core antiChristian," right...or at the very least, incorrect?

So with that in mind, why should anyone be surprised that Catholics would view this sect, also, as antiChristian?

If you listen to the last couple of Popes, Catholics condemn liberation theology even when it comes from within their own ranks.

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 07:48 PM
You are a Catholic, yes?
Catholics tend to believe any form of religion (Or Christianity, even) that isn't Catholicism is "at its core antiChristian," right...or at the very least, incorrect?

So with that in mind, why should anyone be surprised that Catholics would view this sect, also, as antiChristian?

No, incorrect. Vatican II's Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)(Light to the Nations) affirms all the truths contained in other faiths. The Roman Catholic Church professes the fullness of truth, not exclusivity.

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.

And Black Liberation Theology is not a sect, but a school of thought among radical political theorists.

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 07:50 PM
If you listen to the last couple of Popes, Catholics condemn liberation theology even when it comes from within their own ranks.

Exactly.
:clap:

BucEyedPea
10-20-2008, 08:18 PM
Is this your way of saying that Obama is more like a communist with a capital C than a real Marxist? :p

Seriously, other than making the case that many of us aren't versed enough in Marxism to describe Karl's theories adequately, I'm not sure what your point is when you quibble about whether Obama is an actual Marxist or simply the most socialist candidate for POTUS we've ever had. :shrug:

Marxism is both socialism and communism despite the various stripes or coloration they come masqueraded in. Communism is just the higher stage of socialism aka the state has withered away but everyone shares equally alike according to need as man has been perfected by the state. It has ten planks. We have 3/5ths of them. Obama wants more...and even Mac. ( Nat'l socialist version) The labor theory of value was also a position of Adam Smith. But it was Mises who pointed out that in reality it's a fallacy. If something cost $20k to make but no one wants it, or no demand, it's worth nothing. Things are worth what consumer's value. If enough value something at a given rate of exchange to make a profit you have a market...niche or mass.

Historical materialism is bunch of baloney too. Marxism is not inevitable, it's brought about by false ideas and activism. Is it any wonder that education is dominated by Marxists? Nope. It's social engineering that graduates hopeless kids who feel they can't make it in a free system. Also what passed for capitalism to Marx and to many today is more mercantilism. ( Hamiltonianism) Marx coined the word "capitalism" but never defined it.

Marxism is basically a criminal philosophy developed by a man who had a criminal mind and was anti-social. He lived off others most of his life eventhough he didn't need too.

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 08:24 PM
Marxism is basically a criminal philosophy developed by a man who had a criminal mind and was anti-social. He lived off others most of his life eventhough he didn't need too.

Now cloak that in Christian trappings and you have Black Liberation Theology. Obama sat under that teaching for 20 years.

tiptap
10-20-2008, 08:25 PM
And Mises insistence upon a price and a market should extend to his ideas. When they do more than satisfy the past then they can help with the future.

BucEyedPea
10-20-2008, 08:26 PM
Now cloak that in Christian trappings and you have Black Liberation Theology. Obama sat under that teaching for 20 years.

Well, it was the Jesuits that practiced true communism—voluntarily. They take a vow of poverty. But it was via the Jesuits that some of that Lib Theology spread which is what was grasped by the RCC in Central America when there were communist movements. That's one reason the Pope condemned it.

BucEyedPea
10-20-2008, 08:28 PM
And Mises insistence upon a price and a market should extend to his ideas. When they do more than satisfy the past then they can help with the future.

One reason why socialism never works and has lines, is precisely due to a lack of prices. You don't seem like you've even read Mises or anyone similar to him if you make a statement such as that. Oh, and Mises also had forerunners.

Bureaucrats and govt cannot rationally calculate price. They're separate from the process. It gets done with a buyer and a seller deciding what is of greater or greatest value to them resulting in a voluntary exchange. That's an individual process—not a collective one.

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 08:35 PM
Well, it was the Jesuits that practiced true communism—voluntarily. They take a vow of poverty. But it was via the Jesuits that some of that Lib Theology spread which is what was grasped by the RCC in Central America when there were communist movements. That's one reason the Pope condemned it.

The practice of communal living under Christian vows is 180 degrees from Liberation Theology. Liberation Theology actually changes the beliefs of the Church. Communal living in a monastery or a cloister as part of a religious vocation for a limited amount of willing adherents is not the same as fomenting revolution against governments and seeking the implementation of marxist policies at the state level. You make a valid point that communism may be a "Christian heresy" but the communism inspired by Marx is decidedly antireligious. That is but one reason the bizarre wedding of marxism and Christianity is dangerous to true religion.

BucEyedPea
10-20-2008, 08:37 PM
Gorby never really abandoned socialism and Russia never really liberalized markets. He defected and with first hand experience, much like Ayn Rand, he became an Austrian economist.


The Rise and Fall of Gorbachev and the Soviet State (http://mises.org/story/3105)

Just read about economic disaster after economic disaster these people suffered through, never mind the lack of other personal liberties, under govt planning and intervention in the economy. The people hated socialism. It means equal poverty for all except the party leaders where wealth via plunder is attained. A destroyed middle class. Like we're becoming. It's no wonder the politically connected wealthy hate free markets and love socialism too. No one can ever compete with them or displace them. It's not the answer. It's a fools trap.

tiptap
10-20-2008, 08:37 PM
And no other economists have forerunners. My comment was just an economic weighing in on the value of Mises arguments outside of academia. Can he not take that judgment as to the value of his ideas?

BucEyedPea
10-20-2008, 08:42 PM
The practice of communal living under Christian vows is 180 degrees from Liberation Theology. Liberation Theology actually changes the beliefs of the Church. Communal living in a monastery or a cloister as part of a religious vocation for a limited amount of willing adherents is not the same as fomenting revolution against governments and seeking the implementation of marxist policies at the state level. You make a valid point that communism may be a "Christian heresy" but the communism inspired by Marx is decidedly antireligious. That is but one reason the bizarre wedding of marxism and Christianity is dangerous to true religion.

I agree with you that it is a heresy...a twist of Christianity. But the Jesuits did embrace it and got involved in political activism in Central America due to it. Marxists infiltrated the Church. ( Their standard way of operating...under cover with false labels etc.) I know someone who had a Marxist nun in college even. She was a liberation theologist. They believe Christ was a Marxist.

BucEyedPea
10-20-2008, 08:46 PM
And no other economists have forerunners. My comment was just an economic weighing in on the value of Mises arguments outside of academia. Can he not take that judgment as to the value of his ideas?

Outside of academia? :shrug: Mises is much simpler to read and understand and is for everyone. Including the layperson. That's the beauty and truth to it. But you gotta understand it from the ground up. It's no overly complex. The guys who promote this material as complex or too scientific for the layperson to understand, don't want anyone to figure out the game or the scam.

I was merely suggesting you read him first to understand what he is saying before you weigh in. Prices are signals. In a full economic socialism, there are NO prices to send those signals. Govt intervention, even in America, distorts those signals. Hence the healthcare/insurance crisis, finanical crisis, .dotcom boom, housing crisis....and on and on. The more intervention the worse it gets because one intervention leads to a new crisis which gets a new intervention which leads to another crisis until it's unsustainable.

BucEyedPea
10-20-2008, 08:50 PM
And no other economists have forerunners.

I didn't say that. Even Marx did. It was Adam Smith. He got his foot in the door by using one of Adam Smith's errors which was the labor theory of value. That's where he got that. It was Mises who eventually debunked that theory.

However Adam Smith was still the free market capitalist guy where as Hamilton was the mercantilist guy.

tiptap
10-20-2008, 09:00 PM
And you then state that Mises got it right. And if so by his own argument his value in the market is small. If it is that simple to understand then the market has spoken.

By the way BEP it is these conundrums that I find difficult in reading Mises. If value is determine in real time then the past has no hold on the future and that is seen in the economic thought.

banyon
10-20-2008, 09:03 PM
Marxism is both socialism and communism despite the various stripes or coloration they come masqueraded in. Communism is just the higher stage of socialism aka the state has withered away but everyone shares equally alike according to need as man has been perfected by the state. It has ten planks. We have 3/5ths of them. Obama wants more...and even Mac. ( Nat'l socialist version) The labor theory of value was also a position of Adam Smith. But it was Mises who pointed out that in reality it's a fallacy. If something cost $20k to make but no one wants it, or no demand, it's worth nothing. Things are worth what consumer's value. If enough value something at a given rate of exchange to make a profit you have a market...niche or mass.

Historical materialism is bunch of baloney too. Marxism is not inevitable, it's brought about by false ideas and activism. Is it any wonder that education is dominated by Marxists? Nope. It's social engineering that graduates hopeless kids who feel they can't make it in a free system. Also what passed for capitalism to Marx and to many today is more mercantilism. ( Hamiltonianism) Marx coined the word "capitalism" but never defined it.

Marxism is basically a criminal philosophy developed by a man who had a criminal mind and was anti-social. He lived off others most of his life eventhough he didn't need too.

why you feel this big need to try to attack th constituent parts of my explanation is frrankly bizzarre. No one here has advocated Marx's theories, only explained them, and even that you manage to butcher. Review the ten planks (I still remember in this forum when you thought there were six) see how the stateless society could fit with those planks. The answer - it can't. Follow this blunder with a general unexplained denial, a couple of ad hominem attacks and some blasts at academia as opposed to the wonderful world of non-tenured community college positions and you have provided some pretty choice material for what Marx termed "the poverty of philosophy". Of course when you criticize authors you've never really read based solely on some jaded oppositon articles, I. guess this is what can be expected.

banyon
10-20-2008, 09:23 PM
Outside of academia? :shrug: Mises is much simpler to read and understand and is for everyone. Including the layperson. That's the beauty and truth to it. But you gotta understand it from the ground up. It's no overly complex. The guys who promote this material as complex or too scientific for the layperson to understand, don't want anyone to figure out the game or the scam.

I was merely suggesting you read him first to understand what he is saying before you weigh in. Prices are signals. In a full economic socialism, there are NO prices to send those signals. Govt intervention, even in America, distorts those signals. Hence the healthcare/insurance crisis, finanical crisis, .dotcom boom, housing crisis....and on and on. The more intervention the worse it gets because one intervention leads to a new crisis which gets a new intervention which leads to another crisis until it's unsustainable.

I would agree that everything you've posted here of mises, etc doesn't seem complex at all. Quite the opposite really. I mean you've just claimed that Mises debunked Adam Smith by saying the labor theory of value is faulty because things that people don't want don't have value. As if that represented some kind of profound insight that had escaped distinguished economists for 400 years. It's pretty easy to see that the labor going into a worthless product would itself have no value. I agree that the labor theory of value is flawed, but not for the simplistic reasons you employ here. By the way, classical economists had abandoned the labor theory of value for a marginal utility microeconomic model many years before your Messiahses was even born.

And of course there is no magic bullet to prevent economic collapses and crises. In fact, since America has become so much more socialist as you so fearfully proclaim, the severity and duration of economic collapses has been greatly reduced. .This has a lot to do with the fact that wealth is not in the hands of so few powerful individuals, though things have gotten worse in this country on this front since 1980.

Logical
10-20-2008, 09:32 PM
Ever been to a socialist country, Jim?Yes, Japan is highly socialist in many ways. I lived there 6 months, capitalism can coexist with socialism quite nicely. Also the Netherlands and several other European countries work the two systems together quite nicely.

Logical
10-20-2008, 09:34 PM
I am not concerned with what worries you, Jim. Whether one is a Catholic or not, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who served for 25 years as the director of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the Roman Catholic Church before being elected Pope is well-qualified to identify both marxist philosophies and liberation theologies. He has done just that:



Unless you know more than the Holy Father about Liberation Theology and its marxist content, I'd say the Pope can assist us all in understanding the religion Senator Obama practiced for 20 years. I say religion, but Cone himself acknowledges it is more of a political philosophy than a religion:You and your Pope are pathetic fear mongers. No thanks I will pass on listening to either you or your Pope.

Fat Elvis
10-21-2008, 12:53 AM
And Black Liberation Theology is not a sect, but a school of thought among radical political theorists.

Liberation theology is orthopraxy, not simple orthodoxy--and that is what scares the Vatican....

Ugly Duck
10-21-2008, 01:50 AM
Wow... scraping the bottom of the barrel. First Obama was a Muslim. Then he was a Black Radical. Then a perv that wants to teach sex education to five-year-olds. Then he was an arab. Then a domestic terrorist lover. Now he's a Marxist socialist. RWNJs may eat this stuff up, but Undecideds aren't going to buy it.

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 01:51 AM
I agree with you that it is a heresy...a twist of Christianity. But the Jesuits did embrace it and got involved in political activism in Central America due to it. Marxists infiltrated the Church. ( Their standard way of operating...under cover with false labels etc.) I know someone who had a Marxist nun in college even. She was a liberation theologist. They believe Christ was a Marxist.

Oh, you are 100% correct there. Satan has only two methods: violent persecution from without and heretical infiltration from within. The latter seems to damage human souls more.

What most people do not understand about 'the One' is that his 'change you can believe in' is precisely this covert marxist infiltration under the guise of 'hope' and other such Christian symbols. What amazes me is not that Obama believes in this stuff but that his supporters do not critically examine what he means by 'change'.

This is why his presidency is inherently high risk - aside from some deeply disturbing legislation (Infants Protection Act) and skillful avoidance of taking positions of significance in the Senate, Obama has no record of being in charge of anything that one can examine. His only experience as a CEO was at the Ayers-brainchild Chicago Annenberg Challenge which was a marxist political indoctrination program.

These factors should be as deeply concerning to democrats and independents as well as republicans.

Ugly Duck
10-21-2008, 02:26 AM
Obama has no record of being in charge of anything that one can examine.

Examine his being in charge of a monumental blockbuster of a presidential campaign.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 05:33 AM
Examine his being in charge of a monumental blockbuster of a presidential campaign.

Are you talking about David Axelrod?

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 08:17 AM
Wow... scraping the bottom of the barrel. First Obama was a Muslim. Then he was a Black Radical. Then a perv that wants to teach sex education to five-year-olds. Then he was an arab. Then a domestic terrorist lover. Now he's a Marxist socialist. RWNJs may eat this stuff up, but Undecideds aren't going to buy it.

I don't think he's a terrorist or a Muslim or Arab. I think those comments go to far. He is definitely a Marxist because the ideas he espouses are Marxist. Crack a book on it. Bush has been one too, just national socialist version.

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 08:20 AM
I don't think he's a terrorist or a Muslim or Arab. I think those comments go to far. He is definitely a Marxist because the ideas he espouses are Marxist. Crack a book on it. Bush has been one too, just national socialit version.

And this is based not on prejudice or racism, but Obama's own words, deeds, and associations.

I would love for a black man to be president. Unfortunately, America is undeserving of the spiritual brilliance of Alan Keyes, whom Joe the Plumber also supports.

Adept Havelock
10-21-2008, 04:15 PM
Unfortunately, America is undeserving of the spiritual brilliance of Alan Keyes

ROFL

Thanks. I needed a hearty guffaw. :thumb:

Frankie
10-31-2008, 09:08 AM
Hey KCJ, you have time to start all these threads, yet why haven't you answered the question I asked you here? http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5166696#post5166696 (posts 64 and 79)

***SPRAYER
09-08-2009, 07:02 PM
Is Van Jones a Communist?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-08-2009, 09:49 PM
Is Van Jones a Communist?

He's also spineless so we can call him the spineless communist.

patteeu
09-08-2009, 09:54 PM
Is Van Jones a Communist?

I'm not sure, but the company he keeps, e.g. Obama, sure seems fishy.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-08-2009, 10:24 PM
I'm not sure, but the company he keeps, e.g. Obama, sure seems fishy.

Are you serious? I never knew.... :p

***SPRAYER
09-15-2009, 08:36 AM
Sickening

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/60D37B6EC5FF4711862576320011605B?OpenDocument

petegz28
09-15-2009, 08:51 AM
republicans are vile and stupid in the most profound ways....

a bankrupt, reactionary, ignorant, frightening party full of kcjohnnys....

I am not a Republican but I will take this chance to say that Democrats are emotional, lazy, selfish, jealous, spineless and hyporcytical people who depend on the government to entitle them through life cause they don't "feel" they should have to do anything to get something in life.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2009, 09:29 AM
I am not a Republican but I will take this chance to say that Democrats are emotional, lazy, selfish, jealous, spineless and hyporcytical people who depend on the government to entitle them through life cause they don't "feel" they should have to do anything to get something in life.

Actually, what he called Republicans could be said of the Democrats. Takes one to know one, or as I'm known to repeatedly say, projection.

The 2 party system is a joke!

***SPRAYER
09-15-2009, 09:35 AM
Reactionary. :rolleyes:

Friggin' moonbatspeak.

:#

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 09:18 AM
Ladies and gentleman and Brock, this is what a useful idiot looks like:

I think we are trying to put a square block in a round hole. We aren't (or we shouldn't be) picking our next president based on his theological beliefs. Presidents in the past have been Deists, unitarians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholic, etc. We also know what Obama's policy proposals are - and they are not Marxist.