Oprah..Obama..Oh my God
|
Oprah Obama Oh, my God… |
 Oprah & Obama |
|---|
DI Science Contributor, Patrick Morton has suggested we need a wake-up call on Oprah’s endorsement of Obama…for the reason that she is also endorsing our taking a look at Christianity and religion in general with a view to opening our minds to the “reality” that what Christians call “God” may be simply an integral spiritual part of us.
Morton has asked that we first view a video of Oprah’s TV “sermon” on the subject of what people are calling Oprah’s “New Age” religion. Does her dual endorsement of Obama and this new religion give us pause to fear a new crumbling of the Constitutional wall separating church and state? Let us turn to Morton’s message and then reflect with some comments from DW staffers and contributors.
Patrick Morton’s Warning:
It all began with the following video I’d like you to watch as a primer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW4LLwkgmqA
After viewing this video myself, I did a considerable amount of internet research on Obama, Oprah, and her so-called church. The equation of the three has the sensation of badly fudged data results. Add to this the popular press allegations that Obama and Oprah hail from the same America-bashing church and the sum total is unsettling.
SUBMITTED FOR YOUR APPROVAL:
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the
opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Most people take away from this quote that ‘Religion is the opium of the People.’
Now. The Church of Oprah, having convinced literally millions of people that they are oppressed, is leading the masses to believe that they are God AND that they should support Obama, who conveniently tells everyone that it’s time for a change (but is not specific about just what this change entails).
EXCUSE ME! DID I MISS SOMETHING?
Does not the Constitution guarantee a separation of church and state? If Obama and Oprah hail from the same radical church AND Oprah creates a church from billions of fanatic’s dollars AND then Oprah heavily endorses Obama for president…. then isn’t this the effect of a church attempting to put a man in the White House???
Hmmm.
Maybe it’s just me– I mean, after all, if we are all indeed God incarnate, then we have no worries regardless of who buys into the presidency.
Seriously, I have every confidence in a presidential candidate being of rightful and Godly principles. I just do not think we are ready for a New Age Administration, now or ever.
It does seem time for all true American patriots to do some soulful thinking about November.
My Deepest Concerns and Regards,
Patrick Morton
DI CONTRIBUTOR, FOSTER MUSGROVE, RESPONDS
Regarding the recent exchanges concerning separation of Church and State – some off-the-wall thoughts:
Setting aside someone else’s wife, there are only two things a politician covets – money and votes. Oprah has them both and is using them to Obama’s advantage. Thus, we should anticipate that Oprah has and will continue to exert an influence over Obama.
The Church is the Black person’s labor union and the preacher his/her business agent. This evolved as Blacks had no effective voice in either the political or financial arena. There are few, if any, business agents that put the good of the membership (congregation) before their own. The promise of a block voting/herd mentality congregation is merely one of the tools the Business agent utilizes to empower and advance his own interests. Thus, we should anticipate that the Business Agents have and will continue to exert an influence over Obama.
Agree or disagree?
Foster
DI Foreign Policy Editor, Dusty Schoch
Throws in:
Couldn’t agree more, Foster. When Reverend Wright spewed his volcanic racial spleen recently, Obama should have publicly distanced himself from that craziness. His failure to do so is probably prophetic. Having said that, I have no doubts but that the Christian Bible Belt accounted for both Bush’s election victories. Unlike the Bard said, I don’t think the first thing we need do is kill all the lawyers. I say let’s exterminate (i.e., not literally, but somehow oust them from politics) the Pharisees. Starting with the Baptists.
As far as Patrick’s concerns with Oprah are concerned, I’m not really troubled. First, she is not advancing any “religion” as I can see it—at least from the video clip. What she is seemingly espousing is a retreat—a massive one—on the part of her following from their religious upbringings and prejudices. She explains that, at an early age, she began to question her Baptist Christian beliefs when she heard a preacher recite Old Testament dogma to the effect that their “God” was a “jealous” God. Anthropomorphically assigning to God such a pathetic attribute of human frailty always bothered me as well. The omnipotent, omniscient—and “only” creator being… “jealous”? Ditto to her early onset of agnostic rumination and pains.
Oprah, it seems to me is not trying to package either a religion or a religious endorsement of Obama. She is urging people to accept the fact that no human can KNOW the nature of God. People know mathematics, but they are capable of knowing exactly nothing about God. They are capable only of “belief” in God, religion and religious figures such as Jesus Christ, but Oprah is saying that they cannot, and perhaps should not, claim to know that their religion is in fact “right” and all the other religions are “wrong”.
She is preaching peace, tolerance and harmony—She is urging us all to accept each other and along with each other the fact that we each should feel free to view unknowable God as we choose and see fit. I believe that , in this, Oprah is standing on solid constitutional grounds. Our nation’s founders clearly intended to keep our church and our governmental institutions separate. Oprah’s endorsement of Obama even combined with her advocating that God is unknowable to me poses no threat at all in regard to separation of church and state. As far as I know, Obama has distanced himself from his former Reverend Wright, but has not renounced his Baptist faith (or church congregation for that matter) in favor of Oprah’s “new age” pontifications.
Personally I view any expression of a viewpoint that might serve to discourage voters who previously voted for Bush because he and they both adhered to the tenets of America’s “religious right”, from voting that way again, can’t be all bad.
Given the fact that political experts attribute Bush’s election in his past two races to support he solicited and obtained from our Country’s “red state” religious right, I’d say Patrick Morton’s concern with Oprah’s further whittling the wall between church and state is pretty much a matter of trying to lock the theological barn door after the holy cows are gone and ground into hamburger.
LEONARD CARRIER (DI Historian and Philosopher)
Plays ANCHOR MAN TO OPRAH/OBAMA CAVEAT:
I find myself in disagreement with Patrick concerning Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. The one in which Wright is quoted as saying, “The chickens are coming home to roost,” is one in which he is quoting someone else–a white general, as it turned out. To make it seem as if these are his own words is a pretty cheap political trick. I have white friends who are ministers, and who testify to the fact that Wright is no “America hater,” and that his sermons have been primarily designed to get blacks to help themselves; and sometimes he felt the need to get them angry enough not to embrace victimhood. This is exactly the opposite of what the YouTube snippets are designed to make you think. When Jim Wallis of the progressive religious movement, Soujourners, claims that Wright is no hater, I believe him. I believe that the people who put together the YouTube concoction were put up to it by Karl Rove, or someone trying to emulate him–the object being to divide and conquer. I refuse to be taken in by these tactics. As an aside, my sister was a member of a black church in Miami. She could tell you that the sermons can get quite fiery, nothing like what you’d see in a white Baptist church.
Another point on which I disagree with Patrick is over whether we can call Oprah Winfrey’s religious beliefs (if they are such) a “church” at all. A church needs organization, and ministers. Oprah has a TV show. I have a friend who happens to be a Wiccan. She also supports Barack Obama. Does that mean that Obama is a secret Wiccan? Also, I see no logical connection between Oprah Winfrey and Jeremiah Wright except for the fact that they both support Obama. To fashion a connection is, I believe, a matter of wishful thinking.
I do not wish to denigrate Patrick’s views, and I respect his right to publicize them. I just think that it’s bad tactics to assert a connection between Barack Obama and “New Age” religion (whatever that’s supposed to be), when there is simply no logical tie at all. I’m happy that Patrick will vote the Democratic ticket in November, as I will, whomever the nominee happens to be.
Cheers,
Len C.
