The Spirit Filled Oratory of Dr Martin Luther King; the Empty Rhetoric of Barack Obama

His rantings sound somewhat familiar to me, that's all. An attempt at humor, but apparently only an attempt.

Well, it was published at one point, else how could I have read it? This is weird.

I checked my history, and all urls from Monday bring up the story as it is above.

Jazzman, It is not our job or within our human capability to look into a man's heart and tell whether he knows God, loves Jesus, or follows the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I have serious issues with many things that Rev. Wright has said in his preaching, but I also know that he was a considered a good pastor (one has to know the difference), as in a father who drinks a bit too much and curses, but yet makes sure his children are well fed & clothed, pays the the bills, and does not abuse them or his wife. Barack & Michelle Obama were not confused. 20 years is a long time under one pastorate. Closing in on retirement, the civil rights activist side of him overtook a lot of what he spoke from the perspective of an African American who came thru the 50's & 60's in the USA. All one has to do is have some small measure of empathy to understand it. As Obama said, he and Rev. Wright became close because of a common desire of community development and service. Everyone should realize by now that the church has a direct and profound affect on its surrounding community. Obama stated that they often disagreed in private and about words publically spoken by Wright. I have heard a lot of horrible things directed at Obama on the Vine, but none of it has caused me to believe that it is a general consensus of writers here. One who is truly righteous in their heart can tell that the love of Christ leads the Obama's. If not, considering how horribly President Barack Obama, and his family, has been treated, the average man who simply operates on his own wit and prowess, would have gone further toward the edge of tact and decorum than Rev. Wright.

Do you understand Grace?

 unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification; a virtue coming from God; a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace; disposition to or an act or instance of kindness, courtesy, or clemency. 

The Obama's have demonstrated it. It is a virtue that not enough have in today's society. I think it is time to step back and leave them alone. Let Obama work the work of the people and of Him that has ordained him to be in this high office. Let his deeds speak for him. God will judge

 ROMANS 2:1-3

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

it is a fact that Obama came to the Lord relatively late in life via the intercession of Reverend Wright and that Obama's association with super church TUCC certainly had a least the appearance of being as much for gains of the political rather than sprititual sort.

No, Lisa, that is your opinion.  Unless you know Obama personally and intimately, you are basing your thoughts on politics.

And how do you feel about Pat Robertson and Falwell and the mega-churches of the Right that have the appearance of being all about the gains of the financial and material over the spiritual?

Your statement is awfully judgmental of another's faith, isn't it?

Unless you know Obama personally and intimately, you are basing your thoughts on politics.

Maybe she read his autobiography(ies)?

jazzman646:

the history of politicians does not lead me to give him the benefit of the doubt

Fair enough; politicians should always be on probation in the public's eyes, in my opinion.

However, regarding your concern about Obama's (apparent) lack of spiritual emphasis in your point of view in contrast to Martin Luther King, let me note that MLK was a minister who was inspirational; Obama is a politician who is inspirational. That being said, I don't recall MLK urging all Americans to subscribe to Christian values in order to overcome, or insisting that America is a Christian nation. as do too many fundamentalist Christians.

President Obama is the leader of a secular government, not a theocracy, and cannot productively endorse one set of spiritual beliefs over another.

jazzman---I wouldn't be surprised if Obama feared sounding "too spiritual" would also make him sound "too black"---but now that he has won the White House perhaps he'll let a little bit more of that creep into his voice. Remember he spent 20 years listening to Reverend Wright preach from the pulpit at TUCC so I'd be quite surprised given their previous like a father-son relationship if some of that preacher sound didn't rub off on the tonality of obama's oratory. That said- Obama is extremely controlled in his delivery so I don't think it's by accident that he does not have that MLK sound of spirituality in his voice.

I feel that you're begging the question.  Why does he have to live up to MLK's spirituality?  It doesn't seem to me that he professes that kind of spirituality.  He professes a very inclusive attitude, a sense of unity but with individual freedom regardless of your religious beliefs which is what the USA is all about.

He presents the air of the consummate American statesman (as you pointed out very much like Lincoln), and not one of a preacher, as MLK was.  Yes he does this for a reason.  He isn't a preacher.  He is a politician.  Preachers tell you how to live your life.  Politicians tell you that within reason (the law), you can choose to live your life many different ways and that's fine you can still be an American.

So of course he's calling churches and religious leaders.  It's not a function of spirituality but a function (as someone else pointed out) of churches tying heavily into communities so of course he is going to talk to church leaders just as he's talking to community leaders of all stripes for the purpose of getting people together.

That's what a political leader does and I think many people (even deeply religious ones) think that's probably a good thing.  I'm probably going to get into trouble here but this is why our founding fathers didn't create the "United States of Christianity".  Religion and spirituality tie heavily into morals and morals are something our founding fathers didn't want to see legislated. 

For example, the Bible says to keep the Sabbath holy, but I don't think we want a law passed that says no stores can be open that day of the week.  Let people decide for themselves how to live.  Leave spirituality as an individual concern between ourselves and God.

Good lord Jazz, why are we still talking about whether or not Barack Obama's "black enough"? Is there a scale somewhere that's quantifiable? Tomorrow will mark the day when those buried at Antietam, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, The Wilderness, The Crater, Cold Harbor and Richmond, and countless other cemeteries, many not marked, can know that they did not die in vain. To be unmindful of that at this time in our nation's history would not be fitting which is not to discount the final struggle led by Dr. King.

As you know, I'm not big on the materialistic and deterministic theories of history. Symbolism matters and tomorrow is one of the greatest in our nation's history. And another upside to this is the next time I meet some snooty European and ask them when someone of a non-predominant racial group is elected their leader they'll be gobsmacked silly.

I see what you're getting at jazz, but until everyone in the country agrees on when sperm and egg become a human life (not gonna happen) we'll be unable to legislate what is and isn't murder in this regard to the satisfaction of all.

Until then whoever can sway public opinion or affect compromise will win the legislation.  Yes maybe Obama is trying to say one thing and do another (don't all politicians?) but with all the watch groups and rights groups scrutinizing every move he makes he will be seen for his true intent very soon.  His willingness to sign a bill or veto it will show us all exactly what he believes and there will be no mistaking it.

And on the moral question, I think the bottom line is people have to live with their decisions.  If murder occurs, those people who are complicit will bear the consequences.

I know you have. So have Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, Shelby Steele. . . the list is endless. Their crime? Being a Republican.

Yes, I've even heard that the term "black" is no longer a racial term but rather a political one. I also notice that it's most often liberals who seem concerned with whether Obama is (or was) "black" enough or authentic enough. It was black liberals in the CBC that said there was a problem because he didn't have any "slave blood" (but that Michelle did). I tell you, it gives me the absolute willies.

Cynthia---and even though it's the eve of his historic inauguration --it's quite important in a democracy for critics of the president whoever that president may be---George Bush, Barack Obama whoever---to voice their opinions openly, no? In that spirit, why do you tell jazzman to "move on?"

My right and my opinion...as you say. Lots and lots of really terrible things being said in other seeds, and plenty being said here, as well. And geez, he hasn't even started yet...let us just see what is to come.

Cynthia ---telling a dissenting voice to "move on" ---is not an "opinion"--it's an action nonconducive to free speech. What would have become of me over the last 8 years if I'd told every critic of President Bush to just "move on?"

 And geez, he hasn't even started yet...let us just see what is to come.

He "started" any number of times: when he first ran for public office, when he becamse a US Senator, when he spoke at the 2004 DNC, when he announced his candidacy, when he won the nomination, and when he won the election. Are Obama's values and beliefs going to change in 24 hours?

        |let us just see what is to come.

In the end, that's [all] we can do right now.

Indeed.  I agree with two points of your article in particular, Jazz.  Obama's rhetoric, though it flows, fails to soar.  It may be because, as lisaed says, Obama is uncomfortable being "too spiritual".  No one can accuse MLK of that!  It seems to me Obama holds something of himself back.  Not that there's anything wrong with that; it could be as much a part of his personality as is Bush's steadfastness -- and, it could become every bit as much of a lightening rod (let us just see what is to come).  It could also become his most endearing aspect.

The other point of agreement is that Obama, like all other politicians, has been back-pedaling some of the election rhetoric.  Frankly, ideologically, I find some of this comforting, but, had the tables been turned, I could definitely imagine the other side shouting down the PE with charges of "liar."  I choose not to behave that way toward him.  On the contrary, I wish him well.  If Obama does what needs to be done for the country...and it works, what do I care if he promised some other course of action during the election?

lisaed, we do owe it to our country to respect our PE and, as you so rightly point out, to honestly offer our loyal opposition.

Cynthia ---telling a dissenting voice to "move on" ---is not an "opinion"--it's an action nonconducive to free speech. What would have become of me over the last 8 years if I'd told every critic of President Bush to just "move on?"

I've seen plenty of your fellow Righties doing just that, Lisaed.  Not to mention calling those of us criticizing Bush's words and deeds "unAmerican" and "traitors."  Where was your righteous indignation then?

Shoe's on the other foot now, not so fun, is it?

Shoe's on the other foot now, not so fun, is it?

TJG---yes, indeed the shoe is on the other foot. And now you'll know what it's like to be in the majority---though I don't expect the republican minority opposition to Obama (when necessary) to be anything like what we saw from liberal opposition to George Bush. We'll see.

We've already seen how nasty repubs can be, Lisa.  But I doubt if the Dems will lock the Repubs out of government as the Repubs did to the Dems during Bush's first 6 years.

TJG---I can't wait til Obama attempts to reform entitlement programs.....we'll see which party is as you say "nasty."

I have no problem with the part before the semicolon. I have a large problem with the (apparently baseless) supposition that he wants insight and knowledge to exploit religious believers for his own political purposes. Can someone give me...I don't know, like 2 or 3 examples of where Obama has specifically done this to back up the claim?

I guess I just don't see the difference between churches exploiting believers for political purposes and politicians doing the same.

I have no evidence he's done this before, but he's also never been President before, trying to get his agenda going.

Did you have a similar problem with Bush when he appealed to the religious right in his speeches, an act that (in my opinion, of course), was purely done to exploit religious believers for political gain? At least you can admit that you have no evidence to show that Obama has done this before, nor do you have any evidence that he's doing it now. I'm glad we could clear that little bit of misinformation up, at least.

Most Churches never bring up politics.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks... I needed a good laugh.

depends on the type of church.  many non-denoms avoid political speech because they know their church is much more diverse than others.  many catholic churches speak directly about abortion and homosexuality and openly encourage their members to oppose those things at the ballot box.  i don't recall hearing much political speech at baptist churches i've been to (they're too busy preaching fire and brimstone :) but i've seen a bit of it from baptist preachers on TV.  take the 700 club for example (pat robertson is an ordained southern baptist minister).

i've also been to anglican, episcopalian, and messianic jewish churches a lot (i think my parents had a lot of religious identity crises while i was growing up).  most often it seemed churches did promote awareness of these topics but not always in the sermon they often used newsletters and such or lists of people that organized church events.  a consistent message from nearly every church i've been to is to oppose abortion.

jsbach,

I do believe God has ordained Barack Obama to be President of the United States, because I also believe God is always in control.

The above quote is basically suggesting that since God is in control of all things (because he created us and knows everything about us and in fact all things...), which includes  our fate and destination. If this is true, then it is he who ordained Barack Obama to become President of the United States, which makes sense to those who truly believe in God regardless of decision outcomes. It is hypocritical to believe God is responsible for situations we favor and then say he is not to those we disfavor. I will never understand people who go to church every Sunday and pray to God on this day and perhaps several times on a daily basis and at the same time have so much hate in their hearts...love someone they never met and yet hate the people they see everyday, some of whom they know.

Annefortruth

It is hypocritical to believe God is responsible for situations we favor and then say he is not to those we disfavor. I will never understand people who go to church every Sunday and pray to God on this day and perhaps several times on a daily basis and at the same time have so much hate in their hearts...love someone they never met and yet hate the people they see everyday, some of whom they know.

I'm not sure how you deem me hypotcritical only because I may believe differently or ask a question.

Romans13:1 - "1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

Then as I stated, for what purpose has God given Obama authority over this nation, as blessing or curse?

The whole of Romans 13:1-7 talks about submitting to political authorities as they are God's appointed servants meant to rule over us.  Well the glaring flaw in that admonition is that all political authorities don't fit that mold.  Do you think the Nazi regime was appointed by God?  I don't think so.  So I don't believe it follows that any authority figure is appointed by God simply by virtue of being in authority.

I don't believe God has a personal hand in every event that happens in the world.  I think a cosmic order was established but it's up to us to make choices about what happens now and at some point we will be held to account for the choices we make.  If we believe all authority flows from God by his appointment then God is responsible for some fairly reprehensible leaders over the course of history.

jazz,

okie-doke!  I'm fine now.  So easy, I am.

Smiles!

Elaine....

Yes, we can!!

*Smiles*
~Sara

I knew you would slither out eventually

Slither? Is that not a personal attack?

 But you won't rain on my parade and political love fest. 

Don't forget beatification. Really, the hero worship for someone who hasn't been heroic in the least is beginning to nauseate me.

Does Him in the above quote refer to God, or to the Messiah himself?  Please clarify.

Thanks,

TheCapitalist

I have to ask this,and you seem the perfect person to query.

All that I know of GOD is that he is a jealous GOD and said that There shall be no other GODs before Him...

Do you not think it is inflammatory to your GOD to call (soon to be) President Obama, "The Messiah?"

I keep seeing Conservatives calling President Obama, either "The One" or  "The Chosen" or as you just did..."The Messiah".... I'm afraid I don't understand the mean spirited hatred, or maybe it is just anger?  If it is none of the above, can you tell me what and why this is happening?

I would appreciate it if you would take a moment and clarify this for me.

Thanks

*Smiles*
~Sara

The Messiah designation is a satirical reference to how he has been presented to us by himself and the media. We don't really mean to say he is the Messiah. I think it's a way of indicating that he is, in fact, a false Messiah.

Waynester,

 thank you for taking the time to respond.  While I agree that the conservative media did indeed portray President Obama in that light, I don't agree that he presented himself that way, but then I am a supporter of his, and of course I would not see that.

I am still not sure why. Perhaps your explanation works for you, as you understand it, but it just doesn't wash with me. It puzzles me.

But again, thank you for taking the time to try to explain it to me.

*Smiles*

~Sara

Excerpt from a Mark Steyn piece:

[Obama:]"I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation… "

It’s a good thing he’s facing it with “profound humility,” isn’t it? Because otherwise who knows what he’d be saying. But mark it in your calendars: June 3, 2008 — the long awaited day, after 232 years, that America began to provide care for the sick. Just a small test program: 47 attendees of the Obama speech were taken to hospital and treated for nausea. Everyone else came away thrilled that the Obamessiah was going to heal the planet and reverse the rise of the oceans: when Barack wants to walk on the water, he doesn’t want to have to use a step-ladder to get up on it.

The Washington post wrote the article

If you have never felt the Holy Spirit. you'll never have evidence either way and you know this because you have to either have faith or have never felt the Holy Spirit. You do not become possessed by the Holy Spirt. It is not something that you can bring forth through meditation, a voo doo ritual, It is only through faith and if you were at that rally or if you listen with your heart you can feel the difference in that speach.

If you have never felt the Holy Spirit. you'll never have evidence either way and you know this because you have to either have faith or have never felt the Holy Spirit.

The same can be said about Unicorns, but it doesn't make them real.

You do not become possessed by the Holy Spirt.

I know, you don't get possessed by Mickey Mouse either.

It is not something that you can bring forth through meditation, a voo doo ritual, It is only through faith and if you were at that rally or if you listen with your heart you can feel the difference in that speach.

No doubt, but the question is: is the difference the presence and work of God? I say, No.

Jazz,

You're right about that. Which is why I don't see how you can claim, without any evidence, that MLK was "without a doubt" controlled by a spirit of any kind. I guess I just don't see a fair comparison when you claim the difference is that MLK was guided by a god, and Obama is just a man. Why compare a politician to a supposed prophet? That's apples and oranges.