FMeekins's blog

Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 1

Senator Barack Obama has captured the world's attention unlike almost any other political figure of the era in which we live.  However, despite all the theatrics surrounding the candidate and the almost messianic adoration displayed on the part of his followers, very few can possibly tell you what he actually believes other than in "change", which, though sounding like everything you ever dreamed of, can actually consist of the stuff of nightmares.

Discerning Americans caught an early glimpse of what was beneath the facade of intoxicating rhetoric when it became more widely disseminated what Obama's spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright actually believed and what Obama had to have soaked up philosophically during the formative years of his early adulthood.  Devoted acolytes will respond that his holiness has distanced himself from such racialism.

David Duke made similar claims during the early to mid 90's until falling back into similar patterns of extremist thought.  So if few believed Duke back then, why should we extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama now since a leopard seldom changes its spots?

Before the Jeremiah Wright incident, many White Christians felt considerable guilt over the constant harangue invoked by the more liberal among the clergy about 11 o'clock Sunday morning being the most segregated hour of the week.  However, with the exposure of the disease of Black liberation theology eating away at the heart of many Black churches, it has turned out that any sincere Christian irrespective of their ethnic background ought to be cautious about entering these "synagogues of Satan" as Scripture itself calls such hovels of doctrinal compromise.

By more closely examining what liberation theologians actually expound and what is mediated to the broader public by politicians such as Barack Obama, one realizes that the threat posed by this pseudo-messiah and false prophet goes much deeper than the lamentable historical animosities between the races.  And even though this animosity against what this great country was built upon goes much deeper than race and ethnicity, it is the jumping off point into the radical circles in which Obama is being heralded as an almost messianic figure.

Many Americans of goodwill no doubt think Jeremiah Wright and his warped theology are a rare aberration on the American religious radar screen.  His kind of outlook is actually more widespread than one might actually think.

To many of the influential in Black ecclesiastical circles, the problem was not so much with what Jeremiah Wright said but rather that Whitey found out a bit about what was being planned for him among those whose ultimate loyalty is not to the God of the universe and His revealed word but instead to race as a manifestation of the COMMUNITY.  Most American Christians steeped in commonsense and the truths of the Bible would consider the things espoused by Jeremiah Wright beyond the bounds of propriety; however, the assessment of liberals is considerably different.

According to an article in the 5/5/08 edition of The Nation titled "The Liberation Of Reverend Wright" by Eudora Smith, Wright's elocutionary peeks such as "God damn America" represent the "rhetorical traditions [that] meld biblical allegory with contemporary political concerns and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a collective black racial consciousness can be expressed uncensored by others."  I don't remember Italians being referred to as long-nosed garlic eaters as part of the Biblical literary heritage.  Eudora Smith continues, "It may surprise many in white America...that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there..."

Perhaps even more frightening than that there is a kook like Jeremiah Wright espousing the kinds of things that he does is that there are so many that believe as he does or look to him as an honorable man of God.  Many simply excuse Wrights preaching, according to an MSNBC.com article titled "NYT: Black Churches In NC Torn Over Wright" as "a prophetic style that combines spiritual guidance with often harsh social criticism that has its roots in Old Testament prophets."

The reflections of a number of Wright's supporters are documented in a 5/11/08 Baltimore Sun article titled "Black Preachers Agree To Disagree."  However, from the article, the disagreement is not so much with Wright's message but that the world found out about it before their pony Obama won the horse race and it would have been to late for America to do anything about it until the next election.

Rev. Johnny Golden of New Unity Ministries told the Baltimore Sun, "We see a lot of what he is saying and we understand it, but his comments have wounded the opportunity of Mr. Obama to make gains and opportunity for America to embrace his ideals."

Rev. Marshall Prentice of Zion Baptist Church went even further in his support for Wright when he told the Baltimore Sun, "To attack any pastor for what he says from the pulpit is an attack on all pastors.  Whatever we say on a given Sunday, we truly believe is given to us by inspiration of God."

Oh really?  There is a cultic movement known as Christian Identity that is essentially a religious form of Nazism; if someone claims to be a pastor within that pernicious sect and disseminates their poison from behind a pulpit, by the standard advocated in the previous quote, are we as mere laymen permitted to speak out against such error?

Protestantism broke with Roman Catholicism largely in part over the realization that clergy are not infallible and that there must be an objective standard that exists above the mere opinions of man even if we as finite individuals do not yet understand the entirety of the divine plumline.  However, leftist denominations such as the United Church of Christ of which Wright is a part hold that Scripture is no more a definitive rule of faith and practice than any other piece of religious literature.  So when clergy speak to matters beyond and that even blatantly contradict revelation’s scope, why should the Christian in the pew have to defer to someone just because they wear a clerical collar?

Such nonsense may be rife within denominations dominated by African American religionists.  Yet as a group largely Protestant in orientation, one ought to expect rigorous pastors and theologians to protect Evangelicalism against such doctrinal toxins as expounded by the likes of Jeremiah Wright.  However, the same spirit of relativism and timidity infecting the rest of our culture now paralyzes some of Evangelicalism’s foremost institutions simply because the heretic making the claims happens to be an ethnic minority.

Christianity Today was initially founded as a conservative alternative to more liberal religious periodicals such as Christian Century and Sojourners.  If that is the case, its founder Carl Henry must be rolling over in his grave.

Eager to achieve the appellation of “relevant” as did the Social Gospel and Death of God movements from previous generations, insecure Evangelicals are quick to latch onto any intellectual fad that comes along (especially if it happens to be anti-American as of late).  And since all things Obama are all the rage, the editors of Christianity Today can’t help but get on the bandwagon by posting sympathetic viewpoints.

According to the article titled “Jeremiah Wright, Evangelicals’ Brother In Christ”, the disputed pastor is no worse than John Hagee and ought to be accepted as one of our own.  But what exactly does Jeremiah Wright believe?  Shouldn’t we examine this before we extend him unreservedly the hand of fellowship?

The theology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is known as “Black liberation theology”.  However, there is more to this than Black people wanting to go to church predominately with other Black people.  Even those who painstakingly go out of their way to avoid making distinctions between right and wrong are forced to admit there was something profoundly incorrect going on at Wright’s church.

According to the 5/12/08 edition of Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey use to be a member of Wright’s church not so much out of theological conviction but rather because she simply wanted to go to a Black church.  Before we return to the primary thrust of this analysis, that admission is of such significance that it needs to be examined a bit further as it expresses a mindset relevant to this essay.

If a Black person wants to make being around other Black people their highest priority even above fidelity to God Himself, liberals and multiculturalists don’t have a problem with it.  However, if White folks are reluctant to go back to Black churches not so much because of anything against Black people per say but because what rational White person is going to want to sit week after week hearing sermons that do not exposit the Word of God for our daily lives but rather how wretched White people.  And furthermore quite frankly, in many Black churches, the congregation can’t simply sing in the pews but must also jump over them and roll around in the aisles.

For refusing to patronize such ecclesiastical confusion, we get lengthy lectures how we are all one big human family.  But even in families, don’t siblings enjoy different ways of relating to their father?  One might enjoy going with him to the duck pond while the other prefers taking him to car shows; does there really need to be all that much hand-ringing about these things being enjoyed separately?

Since Oprah Winfrey ultimately worships Oprah Winfrey (a claim backed by her embrace of Eckart Tolle), Oprah realized her own deification among the masses of ignorant feminists with too much money would be at stake if she bent her knee to a false god other than herself.  So she parted.

There is more to Black liberation theology than looking to Christ to free individuals from their sins.  In fact, a traditional Jesus plays a very small role in this worldview and the individual is valued even less as one is only important as part of the larger group or COMMUNITY.

John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that He gave us His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  However, to Black liberationists, this most fundamental of Gospel Scriptures contains nothing but error.

According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled "Christians Copy Christ Killers Says Obama's Pastor's Magazine", Jesus doesn't really love the little children, not the Red, nor the Yellow, and  the White ones especially aren't really so precious in His site after all.  According to theologians subscribing to this school of thought such as Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, Jesus came only for Black people.

Cone is quoted as saying in the WorldNetDaily article, "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self determination by picturing God as the God of all peoples.  Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism."

Thus, one is a racist if one DOES NOT show preferential treatment towards Black people.  It must be noted that this is not the only kind of double standard advocated by those in Jeremiah Wright's circles.

In orthodox Christian theology, since all races and ethnic groups are equal ontologically or biologically even if the ways certain cultures manifest themselves are better than others, particular standards and expectations can be applied to individuals irrespective of their background.  However, if one follows the thought of Jeremiah Wright to its logical conclusion, then Black folks should not have to adhere to so-called "White man's law".

In his remarks before a 2008 NAACP anniversary dinner, Jeremiah Wright contended that European-American children are "left-brained" in that they are logical and analytical whereas African-American children are "right-brained" making them creative and intuitive. On the surface, such theorizing does not really sound like all that big of a deal as often different ethnic groups tend to excel at specific things.  But one must ask the question what will this alleged bit of scholarship be invoked to justify in terms of public policy.

Wright quips in his NAACP remarks, "When they [public schools] were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out.  Why?  Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place.  Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them."

In other words, since their brains process information differently, it is unacceptable to expect Black people to abide by the same set of expectations White folks are expected to adhere to.  Why, how dare you expect order in the hallways of America's inner city public schools!!!  You're a racist if you expect Black children to sit there and conduct themselves in a disciplined and studious manner.

Think I am exaggerating?  Both the American Enterprise and Washington Post Magazines have run stories in the past where White teachers were categorized as racist for not having a big smile plastered across their faces about minority children labeled as learning disabled rampaging as they wished in the classrooms of these respective teachers.

Where does this line of reasoning end?  If it is discovered that Blacks have a more difficult time curtailing the compulsions driving one towards reproduction, does that mean we are just suppose to keep handing out the welfare checks and Food Stamps without nary a word of rebuke about the moral decay gripping our nation where the unmarried don’t simply have one child outside of marriage and learn from their mistake but irresponsibly continue having one child after the other without a trip to the altar?

If it is proved that the “Black brain” has a greater propensity towards violence, does that mean we may not condemn the warlike conditions plaguing our city streets?  If one takes Black liberation theology to its logical conclusion, even if Jeremiah Wright won’t admit to it publicly, according to this warped worldview it might not even be wrong to put a bullet in Whitey’s head and take his property; some might even call it an act of love or (as Jeremiah Wright said in his NAACP remarks) “just different”.

In the history of Communism, Marx is remembered as the thinker providing much of that philosophy’s theoretical basis whereas Lenin was the politician who implemented these doctrines into an actual political situation with slight adaptations.  Likewise, Jeremiah Wright contributes significantly to the ideological foundation that Barack Obama would build upon whether the candidate is willing to admit to it or not.

by Frederick Meekins

World's Gutter Governments To Sit In Judgment Over U.S. Human Rights Record

No one is perfect.  As such, at times correction and admonition may need to be promulgated to set the ethically concerned back on the right path. 

When issued by those adhering to the high standards to which they profess, such criticism can be looked upon as a helpful corrective to assist equals in living up to their potential.  However, when such accusations are leveled or sustained by those with no intentions of living up to the standard themselves, the maligned should turn the tables against such dubious defamers and expose just who it is that undermines dignity, order, and liberty.

According to a May 20, 2008 Washington Times article titled "U.N. Puts Its Scope On U.S. Racism", this world body has sent an envoy to the United States to gather information regarding racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and "related intolerance".   According to others in the human rights industry, such as Freedom House, this category of protections does not limit itself to narrowly defined matters such as abridgements of free speech or mass killings and seizures of property but also includes healthcare, education, and equal justice for immigrants and minorities.

For starters, before we start badmouthing what is available in this great land for these particular classes of people (especially immigrants), perhaps we should take a look at the places from which the new arrivals came.  For a toilet bowl might be a dramatic improvement if you just crawled up from the sewer.  If they have it so poor here, why did they come here in the first place, and if it is not to their liking here, they are always free to go back.

But even of greater concern than the quality of quantifiable conditions ought to be how much of what the U.N. is investigating is more attitudinal in nature.  While no one that loves justice and views each individual as a unique creature made in the image of God wants to see the rights of others infringed upon in terms of the individual being secure in the livelihood and possessions they are able to acquire for themselves, neither is it really the place of government or international institutions to infringe upon the ability of other individuals to think and express themselves in a free and minimally orderly manner.  Civil society may be able to condemn certain beliefs from a moral standpoint, but it is not really the place of government to keep you from being as much of an ass as you want to be provided you keep your hands off the nose and the stuff of the guy next to you.

For example, the state has an interest in preventing instances of racial discrimination where an objective public accommodation has been denied.  However, “xenophobia and related intolerance” are much more nebulous in nature and something much more in the eye of the beholder.  To the average American with a background capable of balancing the need for free expression while maintaining a minimal level of politeness, when they hear the words “xenophobia and related intolerance” images come to mind of some uncouth lout yelling out “Stupid [insert racial slur of choice]” while hurling rotten tomatoes at his neighbor undeserving of such treatment.

However, even in other highly advanced English speaking nations such as Australia and Canada, these offences can be defined in such a way as "disparaging" a religion.  This can consist of claiming that the doctrines of your faith are superior to that of another sect under consideration such as in the case of a Canadian ministry that pointed out the shortcomings of the Watchtower Society and in the case of McClean's Magazine where those pointing out the intentions of radical Islamists have been sued for racial defamation but no action has been taken against the aspiring Jihadists wanting to kill people.

However, it is likely not the traditional adversaries of freedom and liberty that those feigning an institutionalized concern for human rights may be out to squelch.  For example, the grand inquisitor being sent to infiltrate the United States, Doudou Diene of Senegal, according to the Washington Times "has written extensively about Islamophobia in the 6 1/2 years since the World Trade Center Attack."

While it is not right to infringe upon the rights of those not responsible for the 9/11 Attack, a phobia does not by default constitute an abridgement of anyone's rights, and according to such a broad definition, any women that has seen the Sally Field picture "Not Without My Daughter" and has had second thoughts about being romanced by a Middle Easterner could possibly be prosecuted for a hate crime.  If one wanted to make a career of ridding the world of oppression and atrocities, one could find more fertile causes than nitpicking the shortcomings of the United States if one felt called to an international focus.

Frankly, one could spend several lifetimes rifling through the human rights records of many of the nations on the U.N. Humans Rights Council and still not have the time to air America's dirty laundry which is nothing more than a single used piece of toilet paper when compared to these cesspool countries.

For example, if you think prisoners on death row have it bad here, in Red China those executed (often for offences far less than the heinous deeds it is reserved for in the USA) are often shot in the back of the head so that their organs can be harvested.  But I guess since this is done by Chinese to other Chinese, it doesn't really matter as the colorblind who claim we are all equal only get jacked out of shape when one color does it to another, proving they are not as colorblind as they bellicosely claim.

One of the reasons promulgated for this grand inquisitor of the United Nations to come poking around in the business of the United States is to sniff out any potential undercurrent of Islamophobia.  Perhaps the council should be more concerned about the festering stench of Christophobia emanating from a number of the member nations sitting on its board.

For example, according to a story published at WorthyNews.com titled "Egypt: Security Police Torture Christian Convert Woman", for converting from Islam to Christianity one man's wife was beaten, raped twice, and electric shocks applied to her private parts.  In Saudi Arabia, residents were deported for holding private Bible Studies in their homes.

Surely as much as Mexico trumpets for the rights for the free movement of people from one nation to another that that country must take a principled stand for immigrants to move and prosper elsewhere.  Such a sentiment only applies to Mexicans going elsewhere and they don't even have to be doing it properly.

If the United States implemented Mexico's stand on immigration, we'd never hear the end of it from the leftwing rabble.  Mexicans citizens born in Mexico can't even aspire to higher political office unless their parents are natural born citizens.  And while Americans are to lavish all kinds of welfare handouts on illegals for violating our borders and expected to applaud the nobility of those violating these most basic of laws, Mexican police and military officials regularly rape and murder residents of other Latin American countries only doing what Mexican officials claim their own surplus populations have an inalienable right to do to the United States.

As sociopolitical entities comprised of fallen human beings, every nation has its flaws.  However, the resources of the United Nations would be better utilized going after mass killers and the like than whether or not someone is getting their knickers in a knot over a wary glanced tossed in their direction as they walk down the street.

by Frederick Meekins
 

 

Phelps' Cult Veers Into Further Irrationality

in

To those of us whose vocations consist largely of commenting on the momentous trends and events going on all around us, it can be easy to fall for the delusion that ultimately the world itself orbits those of us observing it.


 

Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has gained for himself and his congregation a degree of notoriety for his insistence that "God Hates Fags".

One can at least argue with this proposition as either incorrect or for at least failing to remember the distinction of God hating the sin but loving the sinner. However, it is from this oratorical peak that Phelps descends into rhetorical irrationality.

Phelps skyrocketed to national infamy when he started showing up at funerals of U.S. military personnel having given their lives for their country in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead of respecting this sacrifice irrespective of whether or not one agrees with an interventionist approach to the war on terror, the Phelpsians show up at what should be the most solemn of moments and basically rub it in the noses of grieving families that their fallen loved ones got what they deserved for serving in the government of a nation under the judgment of God for applauding outright immorality.

The outrage does not stop there. Though mocking the honored dead in this fashion grates upon the patriotic sensibilities of all good Americans, military families are for the most part an admirably stoic lot and able to take the ingratitude of certain elements in stride.

However, even this level of disgust is not low or self-absorbed enough for the Phelpsians.

On April 5, 2008, two teens were killed in a car accident late at night in Finksburg, Maryland. Most upon hearing a tragedy such as this would attribute the occurrence to some kind of driver error, vehicular malfunction, roadway mishap, or environmental conditions. However, to the members of the Phelps cult, the lives of these young people were cut short because of God's judgment against the State of Maryland for defying the will of Westboro Baptist Church.

For you see, a jury in the state awarded a $5 million judgment to the father of a soldier whose funeral the Phelpsians had protested. According to a press account mentioned in a 4/8/08 Carroll County Times story titled "Church Plans Teen Funeral Protests", the sect believes God now hates Maryland and all tragedies befalling residents of the state can be traced back to this particular ruling.

Doesn't such a claim border on idolatry for at least two reasons?

Firstly, doesn't only God know why He allows certain tragedies such as teens having their lives cut short before they have really begun to live them?

Secondly, isn't it the epitome of arrogance to think you are so important that God is going to smite an entire state just because its judiciary ticked you off?

The congregation of Westboro might claim to be Baptist, but my friends, any Fundamentalist worthy of the name cannot speak to the specificity of God's will to that degree as the good Fundamentalist sticks to those things revealed in His word or deducible from it and hesitant to act on those things they think God is whispering in the ear that cannot be backed up.

Thirdly, one of the saddest facts of living in a fallen world is that, sooner or later, suffering and death will touch every single one of us. One doesn't have to be Robert Schuller to appreciate the adage that those living in glass houses shouldn't hurl stones.

Thus the Phelpsians should think long and hard before one of life's inevitable tragedies comes knocking at their door, and someone will rub the noses of this sect in the misfortune happening to fall upon them.

by Frederick Meekins

Syndicate content