The current Executive Editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller, posted an article on the religion of the Republican candidates, saying there needs to be greater attention paid to the religious beliefs of those who would be president.
This year’s Republican primary season offers us an important opportunity to confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life — and to get over them. We have an unusually large number of candidates, including putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons, a faith that many conservative Christians have been taught is a “cult” and that many others think is just weird. (Huntsman says he is not “overly religious.”) Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are both affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity — and Rick Santorum comes out of the most conservative wing of Catholicism — which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.
He posted another article later with the questionnaire he sent to the candidates.
He pays lip service to Obama’s affiliation with radical Marxist pastor Jeremiah Wright and his twenty year attendance to the church that preaches black liberation theology, “which calls for social activism, class struggle, and even violent revolution aimed at overturning the “capitalist oppressors of the poor” and installing, in its place, a socialist utopia that will finally enfranchise the poor and downtrodden.”
Keller writes, “In the last presidential campaign, Candidate Obama was pressed to distance himself from his pastor, who carried racial bitterness to extremes…”
In 2008, Keller was still the Executive Editor of the Times. How did the it characterize black liberation theology? It played it off and lied about it:
Trinity’s pastors preach an often fiery philosophy known as Black Liberation Theology. It is not a separatist philosophy, but it argues that the poor and oppressed occupy a special place in God’s eye. Ministers are expected to provoke and push.
Got Questions has a great definition of what black liberation theology is and traces its roots to the Marxist liberation theology that originated in South America in the 1960s:
It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than the South American model has. False doctrine is still false, no matter how it is dressed up or what fancy name is attached to it. In the same way that revolutionary fervor was stirred up in South America, Liberation Theology is now trying to stir up revolutionary fervor among blacks in America. If the church in America recognizes the falseness of Black Liberation Theology as the Catholic Church did in the South American model, Black Liberation Theology will suffer the same fate that the South America Liberation Theology did; namely, it will be seen as a false, humanist doctrine dressed up in theological terms.
The Marxist roots of Obama’s church were never explored or discussed in the legacy media. They never went further than the racist and anti-American comments made by Rev. Wright. Once Obama resigned from the church, it was a dead issue to the press.
But now, religion is a very important issue.
John Sexton at Verum Serum ups the ante, with a list of questions for the president. It’s a decent list, but doesn’t touch on the Marxist foundation of the church he attended for 20 years.
Considering the amount of literature Obama read, the socialist conventions he attended where race and Marxism were discussed and the education he received from Marxist professors, it’s hard to believe that Obama didn’t understand what Black Liberation Theology stood for when he decided to join Wright’s church.
The press never asked the president about this, and they never will.