Obama campaign hits the church circuit; Where are all the theocracy alarmists now?
Check out the Washington Post’s reporting on Obama’s campaign push at black churches–part of a “three-city gospel concert series over the weekend” throughout South Carolina. You’ll motice how there is none of the anti-religious alarmism that regularly infuses the ominous coverage of Republicans and the “Religious Right.” Whereas religious conservatives are cast as brainwashed sheep (see David Limbaugh’s excellent “Persecution“), Obama’s followers of faith are treated respectfully. They’re hip, earnest, and “innovative:”
Each concert stirs some of the fervor that typified the Obama campaign in its early days. As the gospel acts perform, people rise to their feet, mothers hug daughters, old friends reach out to one another and then embrace strangers. Couples hold each other tight. Some close their eyes and sway in their seats. In Greenwood, most of the room is drawn to the stage, leaping up and down as if it were a mosh pit. The concerts’ playbook was open to innovation. In North Charleston, the sister combo of Mary Mary recalled Beverly Crawford to the stage after her set, asking her to sing a few lines of her song “Praise Jehovah.” The following night, with the show running long, Byron Cage did an impromptu set with a group of young liturgical dancers before he jumped from the stage to jam with the believers who had surrounded the stage.
“We’ve got the faith,” Obama senior adviser Rick Wade tells those assembled on the first evening. “But now it’s time to go to work.”
To the extent there was any controversy at all about the church outreach, it was centered on one gospel singer who has criticized homosexuality as a choice:
At Barack Obama’s gospel concert here last night, more than 2,000 black evangelicals were singing, waving their hands and cramming the aisles — most enthusiastically when Donnie McClurkin, the superstar black gospel singer, decried the criticism he has generated because of his views that homosexuality is a choice.
He said his past statements about homosexuality had been twisted and he had been unfairly maligned. He segued into a hymn about standing up for one’s self and thrust a defiant fist toward the ceiling. This led to a short pitch for Mr. Obama, who, he said, stands for change. “But the greatest change a person can have is not in politics,” he said. “There is only one king.”
Mr. McClurkin is the preacher who had said he was gay but was “cured” through prayer and tonight he was the star act in a parade of star acts, which included the Mighty Clouds.
His inclusion had drawn public criticism from gay activists who wanted Mr. Obama to cancel his appearance. Mr. Obama did not, but issued a statement a few days ago saying he strongly disagrees with Mr. McClurkin’s views and that he has tried to address what he called the homophobia among some black voters.
Other than that, there’s been virtually no outcry on the Left over Obama’s aggressive overtures to church-goers.
Why not?
I’ve said it before: When a Democrat politician stumps at a church, it’s “minority outreach.” When a Republican politician stumps at a church, it’s a theocratic outrage.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Universal Church of Cosmic Uncertainty
- politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » Obama campaign hits the church circuit; Where are all the theocracy alarmists now?
- 2008 Presidential Election » Obama campaign hits the church circuit; Where are all the …
- two or three . net
- October, 2007 Archive « Right Minded Online
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Republicans won't eat the juicy, tender crap sandwich they cooked up all on their own
Green Room
» Miss Me Yet? Bush Billboard Mystery SolvedMudville Gazette
» New Standards in JournalismEd Driscoll
» The Night Chicago DiedMudville Gazette
» In this case I'm pro-abortionLegal Insurrection
» Huh? Staying On Course is Not Staying the Course?
Yeah, Blacks are generally more ‘homophobic’ than any group of people that I know of. But it is interesting that the militant gays are upset that a former gay man says that being gay is a choice. I’m sure there are plenty of ‘former gays’ that throw a wrench in the whole ‘born that way’ argument.
Black ‘evangelicals’ are generally more conservative than people would like to believe.
Will the dhimmicrats oppose abortion if they find the gay gene?
Wait wait, they have fervor? Oh noes, it’s an invasion of religious fascists!
I guess the black churches can get away with politicizing from the pulpit white Christian churches can’t. Jessie the Jackle does it all the time.
More double standards & hypocrisy from the left.
The Bible never talks about racism. I have NEVER heard Jessie the Jackle mention the name of Jesus in any of his rants. If Jackle is a Christian he sure is fleshly and back slidden.
Absolutely. How do you think Bush got so much of the Black vote in 2004? He played on the homophobia of many Black christians.
Kudos to people like Oprah, Obama and Kanye West for addressing this serious homophobia issue within the community.
The theocratic outrage thing is overblown. Most democrats are religious and believe in god, and every presidential candidate hits the church circuit. Not too many people think like Bill Maher and the like.
How exactly are they homophobic? That they disagree with homosexuality? That they actively seek to persecute homosexuals? There is a very big difference there.
Homophobia: Being opposed to the gay rights agenda.
Can anyone say Double Standard?
An Obama-nation is what he’s after…teaching 2nd graders about gay lifestyles, chummin’ with anti-Zion Muslims, siding with activists like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. Plus, he thinks “talk” is what Iran needs…I think he’s smoking opium! Funny to think how wise he thought he was being against the Iraq war before everyone else…when the whole world knew Saddam had the weapons,(which I’m sure he did!), but while the UN was busy strapping on over 14 resolutions he had plenty of time to ditch them. How many chances do you give a known liar before you act?!?; Obama just didn’t think we gave Saddam enough of a chance…it’s just the way he thinks, it is in his blood!
Homophobia: Acknowledging that the Bible is 100% accurate about gays and not changing a Christiantheocentric worldview to being more tolerant of sinful behavior.
Heterophobia: Fear from the gay community and their allies that evangelical Christians/secular straights that maybe correct afterall that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Exodus International: a world renowned organization that assists people with gender orientation disorders from a biblical perspective.
ACLU; The devil wearing prada in drag
Innovative? Like it’s okay to support the party that thinks abortion is okay? That kind of “innovative”? Innovative like having moveon.arg’s support?
After the “family values” diddy with the Republicans, I knew these Dims would be hitting the church circuit.
On October 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pm, LarryD said:
Homophobia: Being opposed to the gay rights agenda.
Aren’t the rights you get just by being an American enough?
If I’m opposed to special rights for:
fat people–am I fatophobic
skinny people–skinophobic
stupid people–democrataphobic
crazy people–outtatheirmindophobic
See where it goes. Everyone want’s special rights.
Homophobia!?! How come we never hear the term “heterophobia”? The fear of healthy minded straight folks. I’m certainly not afraid of gays…just repulsed, less by what they do in private,(heaven forbid), but more by what they do and say in public (yikes)!
i know that Bishop Carlton Pearson, preached a pretty good sermon once back in the 90’s, on knowing that God is there watching you when you pull that lever; and don’t think that He is for abortion. So, when you pick your candidates be sure to know that God is there watching you pull that lever and you will stand account before Him for your choices. And, God is not pro-choice. Makes me wonder what is going on in some of these churches!
Google Tim Hardaway, and homophobic statements.
All I can say is that a lot of black christian people agree with him.
A lot of black men live in the closet “down low” due to the perception of persecution, and that’s why black women have been the leading the way in new HIV cases in the last 5-10 yrs.
I certainly don’t mean to generalize, and of course there are numerous exceptions.
The 2004 elections had gay marriage as a major campain issue, and that scared black evangelicals to death. This won’t happen in 08.
“Gay rights agenda”? I don’t think most gay people want anything beyond the rigthts that any non-gay, minority group has.
# 14 “Makes me wonder what is going on in some of these churches!” Well, let me tell’ya…they don’t worship on the Sabbath (a commandment), they worship pagan Easter (not a commandment), they have done away with most of the Holy feasts (required by God), they have their followers worshipping the church and vatican more than God (blasphemous), and new bible versions are flat-out corrupted; just to put it in a nutshell.
Fear of MM: MaglaGONGaphobia
Fear of truth: Trutherphobia
Anyone who is pleased to be called a “Democrat” and those who are willingly associated with “Democrats” are diametrically opposed to everything generally known as God, Church, the Bible, Heaven, etc.
What a DISGRACE!!!
Often the churches attended by Democratic candidates have – as Dr. Lead Based Paint – beliefs diametrically opposed to the majority of churches and the history of Christian teaching/theology.
In other words, they are “state approved” churches…so liberal, that it begs the question: why go to church at all?
The theocracy alarmists only freak out when conservatives and conservative Christians dare to express their religion – as is their Constitutional right in the First Amendment.
I hope none of you bible thumpers are wearing any blended fabrics. All I can do is laugh and shake my head at this jazz. You wanna talk about double standards and homosexuality. This is a joke.
I wonder why we stopped stoning people? I know, flippin secularists.
Oh well, I’m about to enjoy my meaty cheesy casserole, and watch WillandGrace, then read my J. Edgar Hoover bio.
Please be careful, Johnathan.
As a Catholic, the above bolded is both inaccurate and hurtful.
In all sincerity and charity, please e-mail me to have a discussion about Church teaching. We do not worship the Church or the Vatican, and traditional Catholics like me are some of the most conservative folk out there.
Suffice to say, Obama, Hillary, et. al. would NOT show up at our parish.
Oh, Buck. Give me a break.
Your post is so rife with just blatant ignorance that I can’t even begin to dissect it all.
If you want to discuss this, please do. Please discuss why it’s okay for Obama, et. al. to go to churches, but not for Republicans to do the same.
Your conclusion nailed it, MM.
Bias in the MSM & hypocrisy from loyal leftists.
Cue Captain Renault’s famous ‘Casablanca’ quote!
#22. As long as we aren’t being blatantly ignorant discussing the man written bible, and how people distort it for their own hypocritical ideologies, sure fine encough. I have to patience for that crap. It’s a joke. For the record I am against stoning, and I have no problem with homosexuality, or blended fabrics for that matter.
ALL presidential candidates campaign at churches. It is obviously okay of Dems and Republicans to do the same. Extremed atheists like Bill Maher, and others on the fringe that think like him concerning religion will criticize either party. People are concerned about the message beings spoken.(Amendements banning gay marriage anyone?)
For the record, Edwards and Obama have been called out by homosexual groups, and it’s made the MSM. Obama touring black churches is a non-issue. Guiliani, McCain and Hillary attending churches for campaigning is a non-issue.
Makes me wonder who Anne Heche is endorsing?
As far as I’m concerned, politics should never be in churches…houses of God. I don’t care what party. They are for worship, not for someone drumming up votes so he can gain power. I go to church to pray, not to listen to someone “preach” to me about some political issue. I can get that on the TV/radio. That goes for $50 so-called “men of God” too.
Buck I and graysonret hit the nail on the head on this one.
I’m consistently amazed at the blatant and open bigotry toward gays on this board. Furthermore, anybody who excuses such bigotry based on some ridiculous religious doctrine is not only a bigot but a coward as well.
dakine, nobody is saying that gay people should not be allowed to participate in whatever activity floats their boat in the privacy of their own home between consenting adults.
I consider bigotry to mean people are against allowing different for the fear of the difference. The problem is when militant gays want to force their agenda on everyone else for special rights.
Gay people did not like this guy because he was once gay and now is not. That pokes huge gaping holes in their argument that gayness is just ‘how people are’. If people are not ‘born gay’ they can not claim minority status. Minority status means big bucks from the government in scholarships, loans, etc. etc.
Nobody on this thread or board is against gays. Do, live, whatever, however you want. Don’t REQUIRE government endorsement or you’ll find it difficult to find agreement.
Perhaps not an issue for you Buck I, but trust me, it is an issue for most of your leftwing brethren…
First of all, I apologize for the typos in my previous post, or the ones that may appear here. It’s been a busy day.
ThackerAgency:
Based on some of the comments I’ve read on this site regarding homosexuality, I’d say that some people are just strictly anti-gay, and by throwing in the bible as a basis it’s hypocritical and lazy. But it is a free country, and it’s not illegal to be a bigot with double and triple standards.(no more menstral sex people or tattoos)
I agree the people attacking Mr. McClurkin are being ironically intolerant. If he wants to define himself as praying away his gayness, then that’s his business based on his own personal journey. Maybe he was never really gay, but he just “dabbled”?
Maybe he’s still gay and closeted. I have know idea. I do know that if he’s a decent man, and refrains from teaching hatred and intolerance, no groups gay or otherwise should judge him in a negative light based on his alleged changes. I don’t know Mr. McClurkin, but I respect Obama for standing by him, and for bringing in a gay pastor to attempt to appease those who felt excluded.
You aren’t going to please everyone though.
It’s also never wise to take the views of some extremists, and act like they represent the views of their entire party, race, or orientation ect… You folks ever hear of the “Log Cabin Republicans”?
We could play tit of tat with fringe radicals all day(Mcveigh, Rudolph, Hal Turner……)
As far as government endorsement is concerned, it’s too much to get into, but if you have any gay/lesbian friends or family who are in love and committed with partners, or single ones that you care about you may get an idea that nobody’s trying to recruit your kids or takeover your country, but rather just want equal rights and acceptance.
Hey Buck, can you tell me where Jesus said it was ok to stone? Jesus has paid the price our sin and He Himself said He is the only way to heaven. Since you don’t like bible thumpers I will refrain from using any verses. I hope you and others will not think that Jesus is bigoted when He Himself says He is the only way to heaven. Another thing what these politicans do in the black churches is to espouse social issues and not necessarily the gospel of Christ. I have yet to hear the Born again Gospel preached by Sharpton or Jessie and do not understand why they call themselves preachers. They seem to trying to create a heaven on earth rather then the real path to Heaven through Christ.
Yes Buck I forgot to mention but to believe in God means to trust and rely on Him fully. Speaking of intolerance Jesus was tolerant of all people but He was not tolerant of sin and I mean all sin. He would often say ” go and sin no more.” Just hope you don’t think the Lord was guilty of intolerance.
Every single one of these churches is violating their articles of incorporation and breaking their charter. As a 503(c)(3) non-profit entity they promise not to take part in campaigning to influence elections.
I don’t care so much that they are breaking the law, but, as a Christian it saddens me that each and every one of these churches is breaking its word.
You do realize that this is not an issue, and is a horse that has been beaten to death numerous times? People often accuse Christians of acting Holier-than-thou and all knowing while being completely ignorant. So far, I’ve only experienced atheists do this.
I agree with you, in so far as you say that churches should never be the pulpit for politicians to preach their agenda. They are not political rallies, but congregations of believers in God.
However, I think that’s where our agreement ends. Many people misunderstand the separation of church and state, thinking it means that matters of state are completely divorced from matters of faith. This is a stumbling block to the majority of atheists and nominal believers of any religion. The fact of the matter is, if you believe something is true that will affect the way you live and the values you hold. The Christian who sees Jesus as her Lord and savior will (hopefully) live a life that reflects that. In the same way, an atheist who believes in no God will have his lifestyle and values shaped by his believes.
Now how does that affect politics? Does that mean a Christian presidential candidate shouldn’t go to church anymore for fear of breaching the hallowed separation of church and state policy? Of course not. He is still first and foremost a Christian and should be free to go to church. Can he preach in church? Of course he can, so long as he is preaching the Word of God and not his election manifesto. The fact that a politician goes to church should never be an issue.
While the church cannot endorse a particular political party, the congregation is free to make up its mind. Like it or not, Christians are going to vote for the party they feel is best in line with their values. If Christians are bigots for allowing their values to shape their lives, then so too is the atheist/homosexual/etc for allowing their values to shape their actions.
pgtips, I have no problem with a politician going to church, if he is there to attend services and be a member of the congregation. What I object to, is the endorsing of a candidate by having the politician “preach” his campaign during the service. Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with my opinion. That’s another story.
. Using a letter from private citizen Jefferson to the Westbury Baptist Church as the basis of a Supreme Court ruling, is absurb. Christians can vote for whoever they wish. I have no problem with that. My problem is going to a church service only to find that some politician is giving the “sermon” to advance his own agenda. He/she is welcome to stand outside and shake hands, or pass out brochures. Don’t take advantage of a “captive” audience. “Government is a neccessary evil”. Leave the “evil” outside. 
In that case, we are in full agreement here. Politicians preaching from their manifestos should never ever be allowed into churches.
I’m consistently amazed at the blatant and open bigotry toward gays on this board.
Where?
It is the AGENDA – you know, like the one in California that basically makes it illegal to use the words “mom and dad” in school – no the people.
It is the fact that tolerance is not enough, and everyone – even those who disagree or disapprove on religious grounds – must ACCEPT homosexuality and its agenda or be labeled bigots. That is the problem I have; not with homosexuals themselves – but with the radical fringe that thinks they are more entitled to “rights” than those who want the protection of the First Amendment.
BuckI, I’d be glad to discuss Biblical issues with you, especially since so many liberals are so fond of (mis)quoting the Old Testament and treating that as the end-all-be-all of Christian teaching. It isn’t.
Hey, Jonathan – The Sabbath was given by God to the Hebrews not to the Gentiles. Jesus being the Lord of the Sabbath fulfilled the sabbath. The Sabbath commandment is the only one of the 10 not mentioned in the New Testament. And all the Feasts of Israel was given to the Hebrews, not the Gentiles, and all of them were fulfilled by Jesus, as was the Mosaic Law. That is why as believers in Jesus we are under grace and not the Law.
And Jesus said there is only one commandment.
As for what the Vatican does, not being Catholic, I cant say and it’s none of my business anyway. All I know is in this country each person has a God-given right to worship or not as he sees fit.
Btw – which version of the Bible do you recommend?
And as for the blended cloth, Buck I – that’s also the Mosaic Law that was given to the Hebrews and fulfilled by Jesus. I wear blended polyester and cotton and have no fear at all of going to Hell.
If I get a scolding from the admins about this post so be it. But erroneous notions have to be corrected.
I’m not the Cat that started the whole God and bible stuff on this thread.
If you wanna refer to the book in support of discussing Christian views on homosexuality. Refer to the same dang book to pull out other outdated doctrines and beliefs that you may find too inconvenient, or even disgusting to
your current lifestyle and worldview. To do otherwise is cowardly.
If you personally feel that being gay in against your personal morality, fine so be it.
Your good book is used to support everything from slavery, to segregation to incest. Spare me please. I’m not an atheist, I’m an agnostic, I don’t know what’s out there, or why we’re here. Neither do any of you. Faith is not knowledge. I have the guts to say that. However, spare me the all of the mutiple standards, and salad bar ideologies.
First off, I must apologize for the negative view you have on Christians. It seems that somewhere along the line, you’ve met Christians who have offended you in some way. Christians are sinners, every last one of them and it comes as no surprise that they could have easily caused people offense.
However, I take it you object to what you see as an inconsistency – why is homosexuality still condemned while laws like mixed fabrics, food laws and circumcision are no longer practiced. This is not picking and choosing, rather it comes from understanding how the Bible fits together.
The early Christians had similar issues. All of it ties in with Jesus, and how he fulfilled the Mosaic law. For example, Jesus taught about the clean and unclean foods, how it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean. Rather it is what comes out of his heart that is unclean. In so doing, he declared all foods clean.
The big question here is, how do we know which laws are done away with and which laws still apply? Many have studied/discussed/argued about it over the past two millenia and most have come to an agreement. A lot of the laws that were given in the torah were given to make the Israelites distinct from the peoples around them. The strict food laws, the Sabbath, the various restrictions were there to show that they were a holy people- holy meaning set apart by God and thus belonging to him. The most well known of these laws, is of course the circumcision.
In practically all of his epistles, the apostle Paul explains that circumcision is no longer applicable because of Christ. The covenant of circumcision and the subsequent laws that were given through Moses are to be seen as outward symbols of faith. Since Christ fulfils the old covenant, a new covenant is now in place. You might have heard of Jesus speaking about old wine in new wine skins and how that will never work – he was talking about creating a new covenant.
So what laws apply in this new covenant? The majority of “trivial” laws (food, etc) are done away with. Instead, Christians are no longer under the Law, but the Spirit. The majority of the letters in the new testament spell out how one is to live under the Spirit.
Where does this leave homosexuality? Christians object to homosexuality because it is called a sin in the Old testament, and in the New. This has to do with the framework of sex that God sets out, in the beginning of the Bible. The Christian view of sex, is that it is made for people in a monogamous heterosexual marriage. Anything outside of that is seen as wrong, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.
Now homosexuality is never ever singled out as being a particularly bad sin. In fact, it is mentioned in the same breath as slander! Therefore, since all Christians sin nobody should ever sit in personal judgment over someone else and essentially be holier-than-thou. Because no one is holier than one another.
You come across as someone who is terribly misguided about what the Christian faith teaches. It does not condone slavery, otherwise William Wilberforce would have nothing to stand on. Neither does it condone incest, for the Bible condemns all sex outside of marriage. Neither does it argue for segregation. That people down the ages have twisted it for their own selfish gain – for example by picking and choosing choice verses to make a point while ignoring the wider context – does not diminish the inerrancy or the value of the Bible.
Yet again, I apologise for whatever negative impression you may have of Christians. We are sinners, and in our sin we sometimes forget that.
Buck I,
I’ll pray for you.
PJtips:
I appreciate your thoughtful response. Have a very pleasant day.
I echo PJtips.
Anyone who has a misunderstanding or question regarding Catholicism can ask me and I’ll do my best to answer it.
Where’s the theocracy nuts, that’s easy. They know if it’s a Dimocrat he’s fakin’ it. However, if it’s a conservative then LOOK OUT! He actually believes this stuff.
Misterbee241-#39, for someone who doesn’t read in the bible in the original Hebrew (OT), or the original Greek (NT), you should use the KJV…and to correct something, Jesus did not come to take away the Law for Gentiles, (remember the part about the woman who wanted to be healed and he refused? Though, he ended up healing her because of her faith in Him ONLY…she was a gentile who had faith in God’s Son; a Jew). The truth is he came and fulfilled at least 333 prophecies for God’s chosen people the Jews…chosen to keep his word! All of Christ’s disciples were Jews. As a Gentile, one must follow the Laws of God (OT) all 613 of them (which hinge on only two…love thy God with all thy heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself. One may not pick and choose which they want to obey (western replacement theology). One must remember that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi (teacher)…and he taught in the synagogues on the Sabbath! When the corrupt Rabbis asked Jesus if he was King of the Jews, he responded, “Thou sayest”, the priest then rent his sacred garment, thus ending the corrupt priesthood of those Rabbis and fulfilling yet another prophecy making Jesus the new Jewish priest. Jesus came to clarify the “Law”, which the traditions of man had blurred. There is no part of the NT which is not a mirror of the OT. Gentiles are only grafted into the tree if they follow after Jesus, which in effect is following the “Law”, otherwise known as the Torah. Replacemnet theology in the West has terribly obscured the truth of the Bible, it would bid well of anyone who truly thinks they know God to study the word of God more, the words of any man or preacher should be searched out for truth, and never taken at face value; lest you be led astray. For those that don’t believe in God…just ignore everything I said, because until you can humble your own heart, you will never get over your doubts period, your own knowledge will always get in your way.
Jonathan – go back and read my post. I never said Jesus came to take away the Law from anybody – He came to fulfill the Law. He Himself said not one jot or tittle would be removed from the Law. The Mosaic Law was fulfilled.
Btw, Jonathan, is it ok if I use the New King James? After all the writers of the NKJV had access to older manuscripts the KJV writers did not have access to.
And Buck I – I’m not picking and choosing. The same sins that were condemned in the OT are condemned in the NT. The only difference is, the ceremonial laws, the dietary laws, the civil laws, and the moral laws of the Mosaic Laws were fulfilled in Jesus. I cant keep 10 of them much less all 633. Jesus did that for me. I am under grace, not under the law.
Also, Jonathan, I reject replacement theology. That’s only for “W” and Condi.
Thanks, but basically you’re telling me something I already know.